If they only were subsidized…
That's a good comeback!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If they only were subsidized…
that's a nice collection of photo's!!!PLUS...you got a "dead dolphin"!!! niceWell, I guess if you weren't affected in Ft Walton by an oil leak 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana, then I guess it didn't happen.
View attachment 9247877
Fake. Definitely not A dead dolphin in Plaquemines Parish alongside tar balls Aug. 5, 2010.
View attachment 9247878
Nope. No way this is Robinson Bayou, Sept. 18, 2010.
View attachment 9247881
No way this is oil washing ashore June 26, 2010, in Orange Beach, Alabama.
View attachment 9247882
Just more food for the oil eating bacteria.
View attachment 9247885
These pelicans are NOT covered in oil.
View attachment 9247898
This oil on the shore of Secour National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama, June 12, 2010 did not affect anyone in Ft Walton.
That guy in the nosebleed seats wouldn't be affected by you drinking 20 oz. of crude on the 50 yard line, either.
Just a 5 minute internet search turns up the pictures, but I guess they were all AI generated.that's a nice collection of photo's!!!PLUS...you got a "dead dolphin"!!! nice
I guess I must have missed all that...being in Ft Walton, you know, just 40+/- miles away...thank goodness, I hate to see death like that....are those your sneakers in the last photo??
Think of what you're stating: Fossil fuels are so important and vital that we have to take everyone's taxes to benefit fossil fuel companies. We have to prop them up with government funds, then regulate them and tax them because they make so much money.How you gonna charge them batteries, homie?
Unicorn farts?
Edit: More seriously, you're making the same fundamentally dishonest argument that gets wheeled out every time the conversation turns to subsidies. Whether we like subsidies or not, the absolute magnitude of subsidies isn't really the point. It's the benefit per capita that the subsidies fund.
In the case of EVs, the subsidies benefit a fraction of the US population, for a corner of the economy.
In the case of fossil fuels (actually, petrochemicals) the subsidies are for a raw material that every single living American benefits from, because petrochemicals are the base material for not just vehicle fuel, but pharmaceuticals, polymers, living in a modern world with household appliances and computers, as well as meeting strategic and military defense needs. Oh, and also the EV industry.
Even with 100% adoption of EVs, the US would consume pretty much the same amount of fossil fuels, and the justification for those subsidies that are paid would remain the same, because EV technology is based on BATTERIES - storage mechanisms for energy - they're not a GENERATOR or electricity. If you can't charge those batteries, what use are they?
Power generation - unfortunately - is an industry that the US population cannot live without - and frankly, if we increased our commitment to non-fossil fuels, a different set of subsidies would be introduced. Unlike EVs though, a compelling argument can be made to support subsidies, even if we would rather there wasn't.
But again, I'm sure you actually know that.
I took it as advice to NOT live on the Gulf coast.Just a 5 minute internet search turns up the pictures, but I guess they were all AI generated.
Maybe the whole Deepwater Horizon was faked, like the Exxon Valdez and the Moon landing, right? If you didn't see it personally it didn't happen, right?
As I said, I also am a consumer of fossil fuels, and I am not asking them to be banned. But no one who is intellectually honest can deny this was a catastrophe, and one we should try to prevent in the future.
"It turned out that all we really needed was a new president."
You'll notice them rotting on the lot
That's a good comeback!You'll notice them rotting on the lot
Anyway, who is looking to go buy a new EV this year?