Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[HVC]

You're speaking like this is some kind of failing on my part.
It's kind of standard that left wing people aren't big on right wing ideas and vice versa

No, it's not that you don't like it because it's right wing, you think it's right wing because you don't like it. 

[Josquius]

You're speaking like this is some kind of failing on my part.
It's kind of standard that left wing people aren't big on right wing ideas and vice versa

No, it's not that you don't like it because it's right wing, you think it's right wing because you don't like it. 

That's just stupid. Completely at odds with the way I approach things.

I dislike cars because of the negatives around them. I'm not passionate about the negatives because I dislike cars. Is this how you approach the world?

That the auto lobby, opposition to public transport and sensible urban design, and "war against cars" paranoia is largely  from the right is a fact.

[HVC]

You can dislike cars for whatever reason you like. Plenty do, our very own sheilbh dislikes them too. The extra jump you make is that not disliking cars is right-wing. And then the cherry on top is that EVs of all things are a right wing initiative to keep cars on the road. But you do you.

[Razgovory]

You're speaking like this is some kind of failing on my part.
It's kind of standard that left wing people aren't big on right wing ideas and vice versa

No, it's not that you don't like it because it's right wing, you think it's right wing because you don't like it. 

That's just stupid. Completely at odds with the way I approach things.

I dislike cars because of the negatives around them. I'm not passionate about the negatives because I dislike cars. Is this how you approach the world?

That the auto lobby, opposition to public transport and sensible urban design, and "war against cars" paranoia is largely  from the right is a fact.

What ever you say, Anglo-Centauri.

[crazy canuck]

I'd say that Jos is trying to outline the scale of the problem.

But then I broadly agree with him; our diffident acts to sort out climate change are grossly inadequate, we will need a complete re-engineering of our economic model to avoid catastrophic damage.

Why do we need to re-engineer our economic model?  The current model explains and predicts economic behavior quite well, except in the a few rare cases.

And how could we re-engineer our economic model?  The existing model was developed using, in modern times, the scientific method.  If we abandon the scientific method to build economic models, what do we replace it with?

I agree with Richard, we, and here I mean the greenhouse emitting populations of the world, are not cutting our emissions quickly enough to avoid 1.5c of warming.

One explanation for that is the risks and costs of climate change are not, and perhaps cannot, be sufficiently recognized without significant political action and especially regulation.

But we lack the political will to do that.  To add to the problem we also seem to lack the political will to invest approximately in mitigation of the effects of climate change.

I am not sure some form of dramatic economic and political change is avoidable once a critical mass of us realize the status quo is not tenable.  What that change might be, I have no idea.

I don't agree with you or Richard that any of this has to do with our economic model.  The supply and demand model seems to explain the broad economic system quite well.  The problem isn't the economic model, it is the various political systems which incentivize short-term economic thinking among the world's leading politicians.

It isn't like there is a big mystery as to how to reduce carbon emissions: cap and trade worked extraordinarily well in the US to reduce sulphur, mercury, and particulate emissions (meeting target goals of 99+% reduction a full decade ahead of schedule). The problem is that cap and trade on carbon would increase prices, and politicians fear that they won't get re-elected if they impose rules that raise prices.

No, the economic model works well.  It is the political model that fails us.

If this was simply a matter which simplistic economic models of supply and demand could solve, it would already be solved.  And by the way, once you recognize that this is also a political issue, you are necessarily admitting that government intervention of some sort is required.

[Jacob]

You can dislike cars for whatever reason you like. Plenty do, our very own sheilbh dislikes them too. The extra jump you make is that not disliking cars is right-wing. And then the cherry on top is that EVs of all things are a right wing initiative to keep cars on the road. But you do you.

That's not really what Tyr has been arguing, I don't think.

He is saying thay the transition from IC to EV is 1) insufficient to address global warming, and 2) is less trivial and inevitable than it is often portrayed.

Additionally he is saying that those on the right who acknowledge the reality of global warming tend to act as if the EV transition as projected is in fact sufficient action when it is not.

[HVC]

You can dislike cars for whatever reason you like. Plenty do, our very own sheilbh dislikes them too. The extra jump you make is that not disliking cars is right-wing. And then the cherry on top is that EVs of all things are a right wing initiative to keep cars on the road. But you do you.

That's not really what Tyr has been arguing, I don't think.

He is saying thay the transition from IC to EV is 1) insufficient to address global warming, and 2) is less trivial and inevitable than it is often portrayed.

Additionally he is saying that those on the right who acknowledge the reality of global warming tend to act as if the EV transition as projected is in fact sufficient action when it is not.

While you can give him the benefit of the doubt, he's mentioned in other instances that the right is pushing EVs as a means to ensure cars stay on the road.

He can have a negative view of cars, which I don't always agree with. And he can at times even make good points. That's not what I take issue with in this (and other instances), it's his "I don't like it so it's right wing" tendencies.

[Admiral Yi]

So this is one of those cases where failure to provide a verbatim quote of him literally saying this means its completely false?
The Vegas loop nonsense and his opposition to high speed rail much?

This is one of those cases where failure to provide a verbatim quote might lead people to think you are characterizing things in a way they would not agree with.

It doesn't help when you say with one breath that "Musk and online people are saying it outright" then with the next saying this, and suggesting your thesis is an inference built on things like the Vegas loop, which IIRC has already been examined here and pretty much debunked.

[Berkut]

Who here has taken up that claim?

Nobody. It helps to read the start of the discussion before jumping in.

So we have established that you are arguing with nobody here. OK.

Show me where Musk has said that climate change can be solved by everyone switching to electric cars.

Show me where anyone has said that.

Or not, since even if you can....so what?

So this is one of those cases where failure to provide a verbatim quote of him literally saying this means its completely false?

THis is a case where you not being able to provide where you got the information that people are saying this "outright" suggests that in fact nobody is actually saying that "outright".

Which then calls into question your entire argument, and whether the rest of it is as unsupported as this part.

The Vegas loop nonsense and his opposition to high speed rail much?

What about it? You can think all kinds of things that may or may not be bad ideas without thinking that electric cars are the sole and sufficient solution to global warming.

Everything tyr doesn't like is right wing. 

You're speaking like this is some kind of failing on my part.
It's kind of standard that left wing people aren't big on right wing ideas and vice versa

That is true for people who are "left wing" not because they think their ideas are better, but because it is their tribe and faith.

[Josquius]

Who here has taken up that claim?

Nobody. It helps to read the start of the discussion before jumping in.

So we have established that you are arguing with nobody here. OK.

Again,it helps to have a clue about the discussion before butting in which from your first post here it's clear you didn't, and even once called out on it haven't.

THis is a case where you not being able to provide where you got the information that people are saying this "outright" suggests that in fact nobody is actually saying that "outright".

Which then calls into question your entire argument, and whether the rest of it is as unsupported as this part.

That is true for people who are "left wing" not because they think their ideas are better, but because it is their tribe and faith.

Holy projection batman.

You seriously think opposition to car focused civilization is a mainstream left wing view? I wish it was!

[Josquius]

So this is one of those cases where failure to provide a verbatim quote of him literally saying this means its completely false?
The Vegas loop nonsense and his opposition to high speed rail much?

This is one of those cases where failure to provide a verbatim quote might lead people to think you are characterizing things in a way they would not agree with.

It doesn't help when you say with one breath that "Musk and online people are saying it outright" then with the next saying this, and suggesting your thesis is an inference built on things like the Vegas loop, which IIRC has already been examined here and pretty much debunked.

Outright and verbatim are different words.

What was debunked - by ME- was there being a direct quote of Musk admitting hypwrloop exists just to deliberately sabotage California HSR.

That this was even a thing that was made up was because of all the numerous earlier examples of Musk showing this attitude. Its why so many just accepted it as fact without reading the original article.

Eg.

"I think public transport is painful. It sucks. Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people, that doesn't leave where you want it to leave, doesn't start where you want it to start, doesn't end where you want it to end? And it doesn't go all the time."

"It's a pain in the ass," he continued. "That's why everyone doesn't like it. And there's like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial killer, OK, great. And so that's why people like individualized transport, that goes where you want, when you want."

[Josquius]

You can dislike cars for whatever reason you like. Plenty do, our very own sheilbh dislikes them too. The extra jump you make is that not disliking cars is right-wing. And then the cherry on top is that EVs of all things are a right wing initiative to keep cars on the road. But you do you.

This says a lot more about your approach to the world than mine.
Not everyone takes a side and supports everything associated with that side to the death.
Many of us look at the evidence available for individual issues and decide on our views based on that.

I never said not disliking cars was right wing. At all. This is all your imagination.
However the auto lobby is a firmly right wing thing. This is a simple fact.
It's also a increasing trend I'm noticing that there's a big push towards EVs with little being done to fix the broader problems caused by traffic and our car focused civilization. Some hints of active hostility toward this even. This is very firmly conservative in the truest sense of the word.
I mean shit. Prager U even did one of their misinformation videos on the topic of evil leftists coming to take their cars away.
https://youtu.be/k8Lo0ieyQtQ
 
 Ridiculous to project your  sort of world view that it's a case of banana ice cream is right wing because it's bad.

[grumbler]

If this was simply a matter which simplistic economic models of supply and demand could solve, it would already be solved.  And by the way, once you recognize that this is also a political issue, you are necessarily admitting that government intervention of some sort is required.

Supply and demand models are not designed to "solve" things, they are designed to help us understand things.  Once you concede that the problem is actions, not models, you are necessarily admitting that government intervention of some sort is required.  The economic model of supply and demand will explain that, once you bother yourself to understand it.

[Berkut]

You can dislike cars for whatever reason you like. Plenty do, our very own sheilbh dislikes them too. The extra jump you make is that not disliking cars is right-wing. And then the cherry on top is that EVs of all things are a right wing initiative to keep cars on the road. But you do you.

Many of us look at the evidence available for individual issues and decide on our views based on that.

Many do, you should give it a shot.

[Admiral Yi]

Outright and verbatim are different words.

A link to anyone saying it outright would be groovy.

Or don't bother.  These meta-debates are always pretty pointless and often lead to hard feelings.  And the icing on the cake is that the substantive issue is pretty trivial.  Nothing would change if some conservative loon somewhere had said "since we're all going to be driving EVs we don't need to worry about climate change any more."