General if you are politically left you favor clean energy and EVs and if you are on the right, not so much or are opposed.
How can a debate over alternative, clean energy be political?
Fifty-five percent of Republicans say there’s no chance at all they’d consider buying an EV in the next decade, compared to only 14 percent of Democrats and 28 percent of independents who say the same.
Don’t get me wrong, I hate the look of wind turbines all over our fields, hills and offshore. It makes me sad to see acres of land covered by solar panels. Both are visually polluting in my opinion.
I once stood beneath a turbine in a corn field in Illinois – they are huge and noisy.
There are questions about reliability, sufficient power, environmental impact, disposal of batteries and other parts, sources of raw material and more.
But even given all this, how do we get to the point where many views are along political lines, where facts are ignored and misinformation spread?
None of this partisanship can be in our long-term best interest.
Is there any doubt we -meaning the world -need to move away from fossil fuel? Sometime in the future we will find a source better than wind and solar as it is today, but for now this is what we have and it seems to me we need to make the best of it, not the often irrational politics of it.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
We’ll move away from fossil fuels when it become more expensive than the alternatives. Basic economic will drive any transition. Made made climate change is the the biggest scientific hoax in history.
LikeLike
Well, Tom not sure if it is a hoax but they really love to hype as much as possible–NPR reports the oceans are warming this summer as we expect more heat, thus more hurricanes.
Read today that Lake Meade and other bodies of water out west have filled up after very low levels for many years–funny how stuff happens and then reverses after lots of rain and snow snow.
I wonder if there is any “misinformation” involved here–years ago they pointed to the low lake levels as what the future looked like unless fossil fuels were severely curtailed.
LikeLike
All I know for sure is that beaches where we go every summer and have for 45 years are visibly smaller as the waters have apparently risen. We can debate how much change is a cycle or man made, but in either case why would we not want to mitigate air and water pollution.
LikeLike
Why would scientists all over the world conspire to create such a hoax?
LikeLike
Have you ever heard the term “follow the money.” There are Nobel prize winning scientists who dispute the “consensus”, but you wouldn’t know that since it doesn’t get reported in the main stream media. I recommend you take a look at the site https://wattsupwiththat.com/ or read something from Judith Curry.
They wouldn’t have to consistently “adjust” the numbers to try and make things fit the narrative.
In the words of Richard Feynman “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers which can’t be questioned”
Funny how the Obamas were so concerned about the rising oceans that they purchased a mansion on the water on Martha’s Vineyard.
LikeLike
Georgia just opened a new nuclear plant and it took some years to get it done due to the opposition but the payoff is just now beginning. People will come around when they get cold enough with wind and solar.
The climate is changing somewhat but what gets me is that we are really just getting out of the little ice age and maybe getting back to the medieval warm period. That was good for civilization then but the current alarmists won’t even consider all those changes that could not have been caused by human activity. That is why I disregard all their chicken little warnings.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but the medieval period had far less people and no comparable use of energy
LikeLike
You do know there is nuclear power. It doesn’t take up thousands and thousands of acres for solar panels and doesn’t slaughter half the bird population like windmills. I guess the money is in solar and windmill contracts.
Anyway, why the mad rush to this end? I know there are government subsidies and contracts to be awarded to the favored crowd, whoever they may be. But why knock a whole economy in the head just to reward your cronies. Don’t give me the malarkey about the ocean boiling due to climate change and we were running out of fossil fuel by 2030. That is all just the setup to push this craziness.
LikeLike
Nuclear power gets a bad rap and is subject to the NIMB syndrome. Plants have closed. But there may be good news as I hear much smaller nuclear plants are being developed that are easier to place.
That the climate is changing there can be no doubt all we have to do is observe ourselves. What we can do about it is debatable.
LikeLike
would agree on nuclear power–why shouldn’t this be political with all the mandates being handed down from one agency to another–when you get rules and regulations not being set by the elected representatives of the people you can expect folks to rebel.–the big government progressive liberals never miss an opportunity to tell folks what to do and how to lead their lives–the conservatives are a little better but they love power also.
LikeLike