emes nisht sheker,
“I find this whole conversation funny as frankly many of the ideas “environmentalists” want to enact are beneficial regardless of whether climate change is or is not an issue.”
You perceive the notion that environmental policies are objectively beneficial to humanity as poshut, but actually this is one of the cruxes of the disagreement, so if you actually want to convince people instead of just insulting them to demonstrate your intellectual superiority, maybe tone down the laughter and hostility.
“What type of lunatic do you have to be to not want us to move off fossil fuels? The streets of our cities will be quieter and the air cleaner.”
The streets would be quieter and cleaner, and electric vehicles are certainly a better prospect than diesel, which Europe adopted en masse to reduce emissions, and are now dealing with the far more toxic exhaust in urban areas than gasoline emissions as a reward for their short-sightedness. However, electric cars are currently more expensive to produce and buy than conventional combustion based vehicles. Their reliability is perceived to be poorer. The distance they can travel before requiring recharging is shorter than the distance between each refueling of a conventional vehicle. Charging an electric vehicle takes longer than refueling a gasoline vehicle. So I’m not surprised that consumers who are already stressed by increasing costs and demands with decreasing time in the day for family, learning, and personal needs would feel resentful towards shaming, “nudging” or outright regulating (i.e., California) the purchase of vehicles that would increase the stress. For this to change, electric cars must become superior to conventional combustion cars. Then people will buy them!
Now move beyond the consumer perspective. Electric cars must be charged. This requires them to be plugged into power grids that are already decrepit, functionally obsolete, and overtaxed. When Californians hear that electric vehicles will be mandated, but the state cannot even provide sufficient electricity to its citizens over the summers right now, and we hear nothing of big plans to improve the power-supply infrastructure, why shouldn’t there be opposition?
Also, what impact on places such as Africa where the materials originate would the dramatic expansion of demand for large lithium based batteries have? When mandating electric vehicles, is California being a good global citizen by ensuring other places are not negatively impacted?
“breathing in partially combusted hydrocarbons that were buried at least since the ‘mabul’ is fine with them.”
Just curious – why did you put mabul in quotation marks?
“As to garbage… Where does all that garbage we produce go? It is not an easy job transporting it. If we can figure out a better way to handle garbage, such as better recycling and the like, it would save places like NYC lots of money.”
So demonstrate this benefit clearly and calmly to people. The current perception is that recycling has little overall benefit, as the material has to be transported long distances, much of it is ultimately landfilled anyway, and there are companies who are make a lot of money from recycling operations while those who are actively separating the materials see little benefit, e.g., reduced taxes or increased services from the supposed savings.