I am well aware, and the massive subsidies to the ethanol industry, what's your point? End all subsidies which is what we should do and let the best win is exactly what we should do. You realize saying subsidies are bad for the oil and coal industry is an indictment of the subsidies for the green industry, not a defense right?If that bothers you, you're going to shit your pants to learn how much the government has subsidized oil and coal over the last 100 years. lol.
Any other well thought out points you want to lob out there? Or are you too busy shitting your pants? LMAO
In a logical and factual world bad things are bad, doesn't matter if you agree with one side and not the other. That's the slippery slope to the chaos we are in now all over the world. People attacking one group for doing the exact same thing they themselves did already or want to do if given the chance because their goal is "noble".
In a world where anything is acceptable if it is for the "greater good" everyone loses.
What's amusing is A) the person throwing out fallacious argument after fallacious argument (including using actual Strawman attacks against me) accusing me of a Strawman....and B) clearly not understanding what a Strawman is. LMAO But hey, your degree isn't in English so we'll give you a pass.Amusingly, I went to college for an EE/Physics major, but realized that EV's weren't really feasible at the time. But keep making assumptions and trying to posit a false strawman without offering any solutions. Saying "a better solution" isn't actually providing a better solution. What do you have in mind, use actual examples of feasible technology. Like I said, it isn't hydrogen.
I agree that just saying "a better solution" is not in itself an actual solution. Yet that is your actual position. You literally stated that EVs shouldn't be the end result. So what's your solution? My position which has already been clearly stated several times and willfully ignored in your very real Strawman attacks is that we should be finding the solution not wasting money on an industry that is NOT the solution and no cleaner and likely worse than the previous industry. Money spent bailing out green companies could be spent funding research to find a real solution. You act like the green industry is out there searching for a different method; they aren't. They take every dollar they are handed and sink it into more of the same, they are not spending a single second trying to find a cleaner solution.
Read very clearly what has already been stated multiple times, so maybe you can stop misstating my position. Fossil fuels cause damage to the environment in harvesting them, and I am against excessive and avoidable destruction. Harvesting the materials for batteries, solar panels, and the stator parts of a turbine cause damage to the environment. In addition these materials are toxic waste and must be recycled where possible and rendered inert for storage where not possible after their EOL. This causes additional damage to the environment which is avoidable. So let's avoid it, and find a new way.
Continuing to use the green methods is akin to finding out chemo therapy is not helping a patient, but continuing to use it anyway because there is no other solution. Both actions are killing the patient to avoid killing the patient. It's madness.
So with no evidence to support it, you make a grandiose claim that it must be better? You get how laughable that is right? After you finish stabbing the scientific method in the back do you like to kick it in the head a few times too? The only improvement available to batteries is to make them more efficient to make them smaller. Which may only barely offset the need for more and more materials to actually make a 1 for 1 conversion from ICE vehicle to EV vehicles on the road. Which means improving batteries to use 30% less material is not a gain when you then need 70% more material to build that many more batteries. There is no improvement available to them to stop damaging the environment in their production and EOL collection.To your point about sad pools of heavy metals, I'm still going with the argument that full life cycle, from extraction, transport, refining, distribution and finally consumer usage, there isn't an easy answer to say that it's cleaner or worse than current battery methods, but there's absolutely opportunity for the battery side to improve and nearly no room for oil to change, aside from possibly worse if you're going to depend on fracking and environmental impact related to that.
Since you are either trolling or incapable of the argument in the first place this conversation is pointless unless you actual start defending your wild statements. So, since you brought it up (I already addressed it previously but you of course ignored it to go on a wild tangent) answer this SIMPLE question without deflecting, without making fallacious statements.
Why is fracking for oil bad......and fracking for lithium good? No dodging about "Oh, well, batteries are better ultimately because I feel that way.....so the damage is ok, yeah.....". It is the most basic and concise example in this topic, if there's no addressing this logically there's no point. Why is fracking for lithium in Chile than shipping to China for processing, then Japan for assembly, then across the globe GOOD, and fracking for oil and gas in Colorado to be shipped to Wyoming for processing and then across the US only BAD???