There are always many bonehead bills on state legislatures and plenty of seats that run unopposed which go to whoever wants it. They’re generally not worth any attention.
I like to show empathy for both sides of issues like this, but this just makes me kind of sad. The argument presented is, on its face, "we have a lot of local oil companies and want to support them", so "lets suppress development of electric vehicles and hope it works out with the rest of the US/world". I could see being opposed to subsidizing electric infrastructure or vehicles, but aiming to completely eliminate new sales?
Also, "more electric vehicles will require massive amounts of new power generation in order to sustain the misadventure of electric vehicles" strikes me as a little silly, since isn't "oil and gas" a great way to create electricity for said vehicles?
I think it's just to appease some folks as many are losing their jobs. Power here in Wyoming is cheap, 11 cents/KWH and there is just about every form of power generation except geothermal and I think they are looking into that. Drilling into Yellowstone should make for some fun conversations but I am looking forward to that option. Mini-Nuclear reactors are being built Bill Gates had a couple small set-backs but it's going to happen eventually.
Wyoming provides power to quite a few states [1] and has the highest potential for wind power [2][3]. Wind power has been growing very fast. The grid I am on also has a massive solar farm but I do not have stats on how much it produces. Probably not much right now as it has been snowing all day.
I think they can probably get away with saying that since about the only demand for EV's would be in Jackson Hole. Most of the state is rural and most ranches and farms need powerful trucks that can haul large loads long distances. Equivalent EV trucks do not yet exist to replace Ford F450/550/650 and Chevy 5500/6500 and even then the battery weight will push some medium sized ranches over their weight station limits in all fifty states.
It’s actually good to have idiots like this on record being idiots. When investments don’t get made, they’ll change their tune.
The playbook for obscure republican politicians is to flip the bird at something and get some rah-rah from the base. Plus, sometimes hidden in the pandering is some actual problem identification.
This solution to the iterated prisoners dilemma is necessary when dealing with a partner who won’t follow agreed rules — ie, when trust is compromised.
So Republican groups are “defecting too” in response to Democrat actions they believe break agreed upon rules — eg, civil rights and open markets.
I hate this approach. The victim from this sort of political theatre isn’t “democrats”, it’s everyday people who just want a functioning government without this sort of distraction.
Residents of border districts seem to believe that it was to their benefit for politicians to bus immigrants to other cities — because it forced those cities to stop ignoring the problem. Eg, NYC was vocal about demanding more migration until they had to face migrants themselves — now it’s an “emergency”.
I think what you hate about this approach is that it makes you the recipient of the bad policy your elected officials normally inflict on others.
But that’s the point:
You won’t stop voting for politicians who engage in that kind of behavior until you also experience it’s negative effects.
The ethos is mostly bullshit. The bills are paid by the people running extractive industries.
Likewise with the Democratic Party. They care about pronouns because LGBT activists put boots in the ground to get out the vote and raise money. Even though those positions are driving out key demographics (Hispanic voters, middle class males, etc) they need the cash and labor.
You honestly believe gay and trans people are so powerful and wealthy that the democrats are forced to appease them, even though they're literally losing votes to do it?
Well if they were any more open about how much they want to fuel the military-industrial complex through interventionism, that would turn their voter base off.
I’m really curious to see how the inevitable court challenges go if this law is passed. I’m sure this will be called unconstitutional in several different ways by detractors, and they’re going to be fighting basically everyone but big oil. Power companies. Natural gas companies (that fuel power plants and want nothing more than for cars to electrify, effectively stealing oil business), car companies (which are all pushing to electrify), environmentalists.
For all those who haven't or won't bother to read it, this is a "joint resolution" - meaning it isn't a proposed law and would have zero effect on anything.
37 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 81.8 ms ] threadAlso, "more electric vehicles will require massive amounts of new power generation in order to sustain the misadventure of electric vehicles" strikes me as a little silly, since isn't "oil and gas" a great way to create electricity for said vehicles?
Wyoming provides power to quite a few states [1] and has the highest potential for wind power [2][3]. Wind power has been growing very fast. The grid I am on also has a massive solar farm but I do not have stats on how much it produces. Probably not much right now as it has been snowing all day.
I think they can probably get away with saying that since about the only demand for EV's would be in Jackson Hole. Most of the state is rural and most ranches and farms need powerful trucks that can haul large loads long distances. Equivalent EV trucks do not yet exist to replace Ford F450/550/650 and Chevy 5500/6500 and even then the battery weight will push some medium sized ranches over their weight station limits in all fifty states.
[1] - https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WY
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Wyoming
[3] - https://cityrenewables.org/state/wyoming/
The playbook for obscure republican politicians is to flip the bird at something and get some rah-rah from the base. Plus, sometimes hidden in the pandering is some actual problem identification.
1. Someone who doesn't hold a particular position absurd to make a sarcastic point.
2. Dogwhistle to the fascists, kleptocrats, and ideologues. It maybe "tilting at windmills", but it's bluster "to impress the ladies".
3. An attempt to raise a proposal so extreme in order to gather press coverage.
Tit-for-tat.
This solution to the iterated prisoners dilemma is necessary when dealing with a partner who won’t follow agreed rules — ie, when trust is compromised.
So Republican groups are “defecting too” in response to Democrat actions they believe break agreed upon rules — eg, civil rights and open markets.
I think what you hate about this approach is that it makes you the recipient of the bad policy your elected officials normally inflict on others.
But that’s the point:
You won’t stop voting for politicians who engage in that kind of behavior until you also experience it’s negative effects.
Likewise with the Democratic Party. They care about pronouns because LGBT activists put boots in the ground to get out the vote and raise money. Even though those positions are driving out key demographics (Hispanic voters, middle class males, etc) they need the cash and labor.
Why you ask? It has < 200 registered EVs in the entire state. Per this data they don't even register in the scale: https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962
What are they even phasing out?
It’s a stupid piece of theatre, but, hey, it’s what Republicans do best these days.