What realities are you referring to? Do you have ideas for solutions that will be effective and implementable? Is there some source you have that says if we do XYZ we can meet this head on and solve it that doesn't follow the same path as the "environmental activists"? The reason I ask is that from this and other threads I hear a lot of discontent / disagreement with the paths being taken, but I'm not hearing what you'd like to see done differently and how that effectively gets us all to a better place... and I'm genuinely curious what your version of things looks like.
Since this is an automotive diesel forum, I can name a few things:
- Biased research in health care against diesels: avoiding tire emissions as well as indoor pollution as the cause of city dwellers having more disease than rural dwellers
- EPA rules that favor roomy SUV's and CUV's that make saving gas an afterthought in a population
- Labeling BEV's "zero emissions" when their creation as well as creation of electric power currently involve significant emissions from fossil fuels
- biased articles like the one you quoted that regurgitate Marxist hatred of free-market capitalism and democratic rule
There are many examples including on this forum for believing hype from one point of view while ignoring realities (where are all the "failed fuel pumps from lack of lubricity?" - no valid outcome evidence provided)
Here is an example of how evidence goes against popular belief.
Most people don't even know the concept of "evidence-based research" i.e. they go for "all show, no go" by supporting environmental activism and bashing business (in this case Exxon which does of course have bias also) and not supporting solutions that work well enough for freedom and open-market innovation. Mark the failure to address battery recycling as well as disposal of wind turbine blades and solar panels when they are used up. Government regulations need to have a results test that shows some advantage as well as acceptable consequences, which this CNN/AP article doesn't do (treating Exxon statements as superficial like their own statements are).
No easy solution but the bleating of environmentalists has created unacceptable unintended consequences not unlike the campaign against DDT for malaria
or the failed Kyoto protocol
.
I consider myself to be more of an environmentalist because I like real-world solutions, not pie-in-the-sky Marxist memes.
Solutions such as a carbon tax, evidence-based research findings enactment, eliminating favoritism of SUV's, continued "subsidy" economic support for responsible fossil fuel procurement, carbon sequestration, synthetic fuels (EV percentage barely hits 5% so ICE vehicles should be optimized as an interim measure) and again, not ruining an economy with stupid regulations only to be bankrupt when valid solutions are possible but cost money.