Take That, 'Party Of Science'

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/06/24/take-party-science-new-study-finds-electric-cars-may-be-worse-environment-gas-powered

So, I assumed electric cars in some cases being bad for the environment was known, but it's the title of the article I find interesting.

That title of that page just solidify what has been thought of republicans for some time. It's as though fox is actively drawing a line in the sand and saying, you 'pro science' people stay on that side of the line, and we'll stay on this side of the line. Then when the anti-science party gets what it sees as a win, it thrusts it's finger out as fast as it can to twist in the wound rather than be journalistic on the subject.

thoughts?

I have read some other articles saying that the Democrats are not as "pro-science" as they claim to be. When Republicans are described as being "anti-science" it's usually based on a small number of science issues, namely evolution (though from what I've read the percentage of Democrats who don't believe in evolution is not much lower than the percent of Republicans who don't believe in it either) and climate change. But Democrats or more likely than Republicans to believe in astrology, and also tend to be more "anti-science" when it comes to their opposition to GMOs and IIRC nuclear energy (namely they tend to be more alarmist on these things than the scientific community at large).

As far as electric cars, they use less gas, but they use more electricity and from what I understand electricity is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels. Although I have heard that burning fossil fuels for energy is actually more environmentally friendly than burning animal dung and wood like many people in developing countries do.

Don't forget stem cells.

I think bigger issues is that republicans are more likely to suppress funding or teaching of those subjects, while forcing things that have been proven incorrect like a temperature stable planet or creationism.

click bait title but the details from the study on the examiner page are interesting.

as far as environmental cost/benefit of an electric vehicle it really depends on where you are driving it and what the sources of the electricity you use to drive it are

@MakeMeaSammitch: Are you talking about adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells?

Both

@MakeMeaSammitch: Since we're talking funding, the Obama administration tried to cut NASA funding and it was House Republicans from Texas who led the effort to stop those proposed cuts.

As far as stem cells go, from what I understand Bush funded adult stem cell research, which has produced much more results than embryonic cells.

At the time we didn't know which would yield better results, but the republican party fought very hard to refund embriotic stem cells when we knew very little about them. However, there were blanket bans, that banned both types.

the de-funding was a mistake....however it has more to do with economics rather than deliberately sabotaging science as republicans have done; republicans were doing it for economic interests, not science as those military and scientific bases and institutions in Texas bring in a lot of money......still doesn't change the systematic anti science opposing evolution and climate change science; see jeb bushes' "it's arrogant to side with scientists on scientific issues".

Only reason that happened is because Texas is the location of the LBJ Space Center. Republicans only care about something if it directly effects them.

@Aljosa23: The same can be said of the Democrats.

The justification is the "it takes this much energy to make something" then they attach a carbon emission to that energy based off some pie chart of the USA's energy production by percentage of that produced by coal, natural gas, and their total CO2 contribution. It's a rather abstract argument, because how we get our energy is the problem and not so much using energy. If we had an entirely renewable market for energy then the energy used to make something won't have the same environmental impact.

I'm sure this is what they mean by externalities, and how electric cars cut pollution in 38 states and make it worse in the rest, probably has more to do with pollution tied to each state's energy production. Though, I also find it odd the study seems to make their assertion based off the cost per mile it costs to drive an electric versus gas powered car. After all, they brought up electric powered cars are subsidized as if wasteful but if you're making your argument off the cost per mile then that subsidy has nothing to do with that. Much greater subsidies to the gas/oil industries industry exist, and if removed would by and large make it more expensive to drive a gas powered vehicle and dismantle the crux of that bullshit argument.

Eh, both parties can be retarded on science but the Republicans are usually the scapegoat because of their support to teach creationism. I believe in climate change and believe that we should provide incentives to improve our environment but at the same time, I believe in the use of nuclear power (it's the safest use of energy and contrary to mass media, it's not going to explode or whatever) and that GMO labeling is a waste of time (we have been doing this since the dawn of time so it's moot).

Whats with the shitty article title?

Oh and,

"Much depends on where the car is driven. Gas-powered cars do worse in congested urban areas. For example, in Los Angeles, electric cars are 3.3 cents per mile better for the environment than gas-powered cars."

Heckuva job reading there, Fox Nation!

This seems to be an important piece of information.

Much depends on where the car is driven. Gas-powered cars do worse in congested urban areas. For example, in Los Angeles, electric cars are 3.3 cents per mile better for the environment than gas-powered cars. Outside of metropolitan areas, electric cars are 1.5 cents per mile worse than gas-powered. In Grand Forks, N.D., for example, electric cars are 3 cents per mile worse.

Basically inner-city driving is exactly how people use vehicles that are 100% electric due to the notoriously low range (around a hundred miles) you can get on a fully charged electric car.

lol the thread title made me think this had something to do with the Boysband

The viability of electric cars is entirely dependent on our local energy resources. If you live in an area that is totally dependent on dirty burning energy production sources then yes, using electric cars puts greater strain on the grid forcing more fossil fuels to be injected into the atmosphere via power plants. However with the increasing use of clean energy resources such as wind and solar our energy production is becoming less and less hazardous to the environment making electric vehicles a far better prospect for the environment.