4 ms·

Even if let’s say you agree with the politics behind this, shouldn’t the best outcome of undoing the “mistake” of spending taxpayer money on those charging poin

Even if let’s say you agree with the politics behind this, shouldn’t the best outcome of undoing the “mistake” of spending taxpayer money on those charging points be to auction them off as to hopefully recoup the money that was “wasted”, as opposed to spending more money destroying them, leaving everyone worse off?

dane-pgp 4y ago
You have to wonder whether the people who support this destruction wouldn't also support the government destroying the electric cars themselves, or even attacking the cars' owners. When their hatred is so strong that they want their state to destroy their own resources to "send a message" to their political opponents, there's only a thin veneer of respectability that's preventing them from internally justifying much worse policies. The cruelty is the point.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  But I don’t think it’s pure hate. The majority of people who vote in favour of this don’t have the knowledge/experience to immediately see the fallacy of their action and don’t stop to think about it for a second. I bet if you manage to convince them to stop and reason about it, most will agree with what I said. Even if you want to fight electric cars on principle, the taxpayer money that’s already been spent on the charging points is better to stay there than to be destroyed by spending even more taxpayer money. The politicians proposing this however don’t work on love or hate - they work on whatever will get their prospective voter base riled up to vote for them, and what’s best than something that elicits a knee-jerk reaction? Even if it’s not best for the voters, the politician would’ve already made their money and retired by the time the consequences hit.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    It may not be "pure" hate, but if their hate is at a level where it overrides their logical self-interest then it is automatically dangerous.
  - meragrin_ 4y ago
    > But I don’t think it’s pure hate. So what is it on your part? Nothing in the bill specifies that the EV chargers should be destroyed. > they work on whatever will get their prospective voter base riled up to vote for them The complete lie of "Forcing Towns To Destroy Electric Car Chargers" sure got you riled up and elicited a knee-jerk reaction.
meragrin_ 4y ago
There is nothing in the bill about destroying the chargers. It is only about disallowing free EV charging. The chargers can stay if EV owners pay for the service or they offer the same for gasoline/diesel. If the free charging service is discontinued, there is no process specified for disposal of the charging equipment.
dragonwriter 4y ago
The politics behind this is to make humanity worse off by fighting for climate change (places can even keep the chargers and keep them free...so long as they also provide free gasoline and diesel fuel), so while it doesn't actually mandate destruction of the chargers (that's isn't directly in the bill, but is a likely consequence), the whole point is to leave everyone worse off, so I don't think people agree with that would have any problem with...leaving everyone worse off.

dane-pgp 4y ago

You have to wonder whether the people who support this destruction wouldn't also support the government destroying the electric cars themselves, or even attacking the cars' owners. When their hatred is so strong that they want their state to destroy their own resources to "send a message" to their political opponents, there's only a thin veneer of respectability that's preventing them from internally justifying much worse policies. The cruelty is the point.

Nextgrid 4y ago
But I don’t think it’s pure hate. The majority of people who vote in favour of this don’t have the knowledge/experience to immediately see the fallacy of their action and don’t stop to think about it for a second. I bet if you manage to convince them to stop and reason about it, most will agree with what I said. Even if you want to fight electric cars on principle, the taxpayer money that’s already been spent on the charging points is better to stay there than to be destroyed by spending even more taxpayer money. The politicians proposing this however don’t work on love or hate - they work on whatever will get their prospective voter base riled up to vote for them, and what’s best than something that elicits a knee-jerk reaction? Even if it’s not best for the voters, the politician would’ve already made their money and retired by the time the consequences hit.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  It may not be "pure" hate, but if their hate is at a level where it overrides their logical self-interest then it is automatically dangerous.
- meragrin_ 4y ago
  > But I don’t think it’s pure hate. So what is it on your part? Nothing in the bill specifies that the EV chargers should be destroyed. > they work on whatever will get their prospective voter base riled up to vote for them The complete lie of "Forcing Towns To Destroy Electric Car Chargers" sure got you riled up and elicited a knee-jerk reaction.

meragrin_ 4y ago

There is nothing in the bill about destroying the chargers. It is only about disallowing free EV charging. The chargers can stay if EV owners pay for the service or they offer the same for gasoline/diesel. If the free charging service is discontinued, there is no process specified for disposal of the charging equipment.

dragonwriter 4y ago

The politics behind this is to make humanity worse off by fighting for climate change (places can even keep the chargers and keep them free...so long as they also provide free gasoline and diesel fuel), so while it doesn't actually mandate destruction of the chargers (that's isn't directly in the bill, but is a likely consequence), the whole point is to leave everyone worse off, so I don't think people agree with that would have any problem with...leaving everyone worse off.