Anti-EV idiocy

[Marcia Litsinger]

I have given up trying to talk to those folks about the batteries. The fossil fuel industry is spreading so many lies.

 

[Thinking About It]

I have given up trying to talk to those folks about the batteries. The fossil fuel industry is spreading so many lies.

I find that purely practical arguments without any political litmus tests are much more successful. My last summer road trip was 1,500+ miles with an out of pocket energy cost of $49. (Plus some free hotel charging.) That gets the attention of any hard core capitalist.

 

[firsttruck]

/

I find that purely practical arguments without any political litmus tests are much more successful.
.....

Facts & science have little sway when the opposition lies constantly and politicizes facts & science.

......
That gets the attention of any hard core capitalist.

Most of the opposition are not hard core capitalist. They want socialism for them and their causes and capitalism for you. Instead of trickle down they actually practice trickle up. Take from the masses and give to the ultra wealthy and politically connected. They definitively do not believe in an even playing field.

In early 2000s, GM selling battery patents to fossil; fuel industry that sat on those patents for 20 years.

Hydrogen economy hype that is really fossil fuel industry distraction to slow shift to practical renewables.

Today all the angst about cobalt mining and child slave labor when cobalt has been used by fossil fuel refining process for decades and decades without a peep of concern.

 

[Thinking About It]

/


Facts & science have little sway when the opposition lies constantly and politicizes facts & science.




Most of the opposition are not hard core capitalist. They want socialism for them and their causes and capitalism for you. Instead of trickle down they actually practice trickle up. Take from the masses and give to the ultra wealthy and politically connected. They definitively do not believe in an even playing field.

In early 2000s, GM selling battery patents to fossil; fuel industry that sat on those patents for 20 years.

Hydrogen economy hype that is really fossil fuel industry distraction to slow shift to practical renewables.

Today all the angst about cobalt mining and child slave labor when cobalt has been used by fossil fuel refining process for decades and decades without a peep of concern.

You’ll never win an argument by out hating your opponent.

 

[SwampNut]

A very bipartisan move is to restate the other person's words incorrectly, position them as ethically abhorrent, then attack that. The easiest way to be wrong is to think your party is the clean end of the dog turd. EV opposition comes from people in both parties, for different reasons. Some is true yet the answer is not to stop production, but to figure out how to punish things like child labor and incredibly dangerous working conditions.

 

[Tinker71]

A very bipartisan move is to restate the other person's words incorrectly, position them as ethically abhorrent, then attack that. The easiest way to be wrong is to think your party is the clean end of the dog turd. EV opposition comes from people in both parties, for different reasons. Some is true yet the answer is not to stop production, but to figure out how to punish things like child labor and incredibly dangerous working conditions.

And eliminating/minimizing cobalt from the battery chemistries. That is higher up on the hierarchy of controls.

 

[JBee]

And eliminating/minimizing cobalt from the battery chemistries. That is higher up on the hierarchy of controls.

Along with finding other more sustainable and equitable sources, and systematically improving the livelihood of those impoverished by it.

 

[SwampNut]

The potential flipside of not exploiting poverty labor is letting them starve instead. I'm familiar with the arguments in both directions, just saying there's no one super easy and clear answer.

 

[Crissa]

The potential flipside of not exploiting poverty labor is letting them starve instead. I'm familiar with the arguments in both directions, just saying there's no one super easy and clear answer.

Lowering demand removes the leverage abusers have over subsistence humans, allowing subsistence to be more economically viable.

Heavy demand for anything empowers abusers and cheats, because the possible reward exceeds the risk.

-Crissa

 

[firsttruck]

You’ll never win an argument by out hating your opponent.

First and most important thing is understanding your opponents motives and whether they are arguing in good faith (not just playing you), rational, science based and believe in fairness. Without the last four things you are wasting your time and if their real goal is to eliminate you, wasted time can be deadly.

 

[Thinking About It]

Lowering demand removes the leverage abusers have over subsistence humans, allowing subsistence to be more economically viable.

Heavy demand for anything empowers abusers and cheats, because the possible reward exceeds the risk.

-Crissa

That only works if the laborers have a viable plan B. If the alternative to a dangerous, dirty job is something worse, you’re not doing them any favors.

 

[Thinking About It]

First and most important thing is understanding your opponents motives and whether they are arguing in good faith (no just playing you), rational, science based and believe in fairness. Without the last four things you are wasting your time and if their real goal is to eliminate you, wasted time can be deadly.

Have you considered the possibility that the other side thinks the same about you?

 

[SwampNut]

That only works if the laborers have a viable plan B. If the alternative to a dangerous, dirty job is something worse, you’re not doing them any favors.

Exactly. Like I said, I'm familiar with the arguments, and both of the extremes are based on fantasies. You can't let the free market fix it when governments are complicit/bought, and you can't just stop the capitalism without the danger of people starving to death.

 

[Crissa]

That only works if the laborers have a viable plan B. If the alternative to a dangerous, dirty job is something worse, you’re not doing them any favors.

No.

'The laborers' are being abused in your scenario. Taking away the leverage abusers have only increases the laborers' leverage.

-Crissa

 

[Thinking About It]

No.

'The laborers' are being abused in your scenario. Taking away the leverage abusers have only increases the laborers' leverage.

-Crissa

Building upon your metaphor…

In order to have leverage the laborers need a fulcrum in the form of alternative employment. Otherwise you are just moving them from abused and hungry to unemployed and starving.