It takes two to tango as they say so they'll all have to work together at some point. It's nice to know someone who supports EVs is still in power though.
There is only one president; and the burden rests on him to lead. A president that tried to get people to work together for a month or two then decided it was too hard for him is not a leader, he's a quitter. I say that objectively. I read recently that 104 games of golf played by the White House during Obama's administration, only one was with a Republican. He gave up, he gave up too soon.
When Americas elect you president they are hiring you to do a really really tough job. I hope that he is coming back to the White House with new resolve to get back to that whole "change" thing he promised us. That's certainly the rhetoric I'm hearing from his supporters, but actions speak louder than words. I want action this time around.
To be sure, I'd be happy if the Republican's made it a little easier on him. They've been over-the-top in some of the stances they've taken these past four years; but, I maintain that the burden is on the president. It's the job that he was elected to do 4 years ago, and it's the job that he has been re-elected to do now. If it is too hard for him, then he should be fired and we should give someone else a shot at it.
In all seriousness, I hope Romney's Tesla bashing somehow helps the administration give more consideration to EVs and EV infrastructure (powered by pure sunlight and other renewable sources), instead of the disturbing pro-fracking, pro-T.Boone Pickens/Aubrey McClendon plan for transportation, which is simply going "all in" on yet another fossil fuel until it runs out in a few decades.
You've obviously never listened to Pickens speak about his plan if that is what you believe. He is for "anything American" and is perfectly supportive of EV efforts (remember he was a serious investor in wind for a while there). He is behind Nat Gas because he doesn't believe that EVs are capable of fulfilling our needs in an economically viable way for some time and views Nat Gas as a bridge fuel that can fill the gap between now and when the 'real solution' is ready for prime time. You and I may disagree with him, but honestly, he's a really smart guy that knows a thing or two about energy and markets, I'm inclined to listen when he speaks.
Besides, Nat Gas and EVs don't have to be at odds. I think that they can compliment one another quite nicely. Notice how Pickens is targeting his efforts on sectors that consume a tremendous amount of fuel and nobody is trying to create an EV solution for (namely shipping and garbage/construction trucks). I think it makes perfect sense to move these larger vehicles to Nat Gas which is American and much cleaner than oil. This is something that we can largely do today if we decided that we wanted to do it because the technology is already there and proven. In fact, the private sector seems to be signaling that it is going to happen in spite of our government's lack of support. This is just not a part of the transportation sector that has a better alternative on the horizon, much less available now. I don't see why it has to be us vs. them. For all the same reasons that I want a Tesla in my driveway, I want my garbage truck and the Wal-Mart trucks I pass on the highway to run on Nat Gas.
