Wyoming is Fighting Back

Intlwaters

Help Support Intlwaters:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Hydro Junkie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
5,714
Just found a video, posted yesterday, that talks about a resolution from the Wyoming legislature banning the sales of new EVs in the near future. This is in direct response to several states, including Washington and California, that are trying to ban the sale of new petroleum powered vehicles starting as soon as 2030.
Here's the video:
 
Sounds about right. The current iteration of the Republican Party doesn’t care at all about conservative ideology or sticking to principles, it’s all about made up culture wars and “owning the libs”. 🙄
 
Sounds about right. The current iteration of the Republican Party doesn’t care at all about conservative ideology or sticking to principles, it’s all about made up culture wars and “owning the libs”. 🙄
I am a member of the Republican party and I care.. so.. you have it WRONG -or- you have a simple OPINION.. what is it?

Grim
 
I am a member of the Republican party and I care.. so.. you have it WRONG -or- you have a simple OPINION.. what is it?

Grim
Nowhere did I say “every single person who is involved with the Republican Party…” I am referring to the direction of the party as a whole.

Conservative ideals would say “the free market will take care of itself, don’t regulate what people can or can’t buy”. As Al stated, there probably aren’t a lot of EVs being sold in Wyoming. That’s an example of conservative ideals doing what they are suppose to. But sacrificing your ideology to “stick it” to blue states that have decided that regulating the free market is necessary for the sake of environmental concerns (whether you believe that is true or those efforts will help) is completely stupid, and completely not surprising.

Both parties currently care more about battle the other in a made up culture war than they do about fixing the problems.
 
Nowhere did I say “every single person who is involved with the Republican Party…” I am referring to the direction of the party as a whole.

Conservative ideals would say “the free market will take care of itself, don’t regulate what people can or can’t buy”. As Al stated, there probably aren’t a lot of EVs being sold in Wyoming. That’s an example of conservative ideals doing what they are suppose to. But sacrificing your ideology to “stick it” to blue states that have decided that regulating the free market is necessary for the sake of environmental concerns (whether you believe that is true or those efforts will help) is completely stupid, and completely not surprising.

Both parties currently care more about battle the other in a made up culture war than they do about fixing the problems.
I would respectfully disagree with that. When I look at what our Senators, Legislature & Governor of Washington are trying to do and what they are passing into laws, I see the following:
  1. New gun laws and restrictions are basically taking away our rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment
  2. In response to California Governor Gavin Newsom, Governor Inslee has mandated that no new Petroleum powered vehicles will be sold in the state of Washington starting in 2030, five years before California does so
  3. Senator Patty Murray is looking into removing dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers to protect wild salmon runs WITHOUT FINDING A WAY TO REPLACE THE IRRIGATION WATER AND ELECTRICITY THOSE DAMS PROVIDE THE REGION.
Now, let's look at what's happened in the past two years, across the nation:
  1. Oil production and processing has been reduced since January 21, 2021
  2. Natural gas production and processing has been reduced since January 21, 2021
  3. Prices of foods that use petroleum to power equipment used in growing and processing have been increasing since January 21, 2021
  4. Prices of all products that use petroleum as part of what it's made from had been increasing since January 21, 2021
  5. Prices of commodities that don't require petroleum or natural gas BUT DO REQUIRE TRUCKS FOR TRANSPORTING have been going up since January 21, 2021
It is my opinion that those that are hurting the nation and states should be removed from office . How are governmental officials supposed to fly their supplied jets to and from meetings and such without aviation fuel? What about waterborne transportation that won't have fuel for propulsion? Do we need to go back to sail power? Who will make the sails and build the hulls for them? Oh what a nasty web the Democrats weave
 
Last edited:
You are right, JR. Both parties care more about winning elections than correcting problems.
Al,

You're not wrong. But....

As David Webb so perfectly said it, "First you win elections. Then you make policy."

Thanks. Brad.
Titan Racing Components
BlackJack Hydros
Model Machine and Precision LLC
 
I don’t see how this is in disagreement with anything I said.
I don't see it as battling each other as much as I see the Democrats trying to hold power and the Republicans trying to minimize the damage. That is where I disagree. As to my last post, I probably should have been more clear in that regard.
 
I don't see it as battling each other as much as I see the Democrats trying to hold power and the Republicans trying to minimize the damage. That is where I disagree. As to my last post, I probably should have been more clear in that regard.
So what about banning the sales of EVs (specifically in a state that has 510 registered as of June 22) minimizes damage? This is clearly a move to troll the democrats they disagree with.
 
It probably is trolling but, at the same time, it's making a statement that the Wyoming state government supports their energy workers. That's more than the Biden administration can say since they are hindering or outright preventing energy workers nationwide from doing their jobs with their policies and actions.
 
It probably is trolling but, at the same time, it's making a statement that the Wyoming state government supports their energy workers. That's more than the Biden administration can say since they are hindering or outright preventing energy workers nationwide from doing their jobs with their policies and actions.
Okay, I can maybe see how it can be viewed that way. That’s fair.

I think we can all agree though that 100% reliance on a non-renewable resource isn’t the way forward though, correct? So wouldn’t it show energy workers more support by providing training in new energy technologies (just for one example) as opposed to sacrificing the conservative ideal of personal choice and free markets?

It’s hypocritical at best.
 
J.R. Caines.
May I ask your thoughts on the state of the Southwest and South Florida borders and the influx of Illegals allowed to enter the U.S.
No. That has literally nothing to do with anything being talked about in this thread. The problem with political discourse in this country is that you can’t talk about the specifics of an issue without this tribalistic BS getting in the way.
 
Okay, I can maybe see how it can be viewed that way. That’s fair.

I think we can all agree though that 100% reliance on a non-renewable resource isn’t the way forward though, correct? So wouldn’t it show energy workers more support by providing training in new energy technologies (just for one example) as opposed to sacrificing the conservative ideal of personal choice and free markets?

It’s hypocritical at best.
I would agree with you that a society powered by fossil fuels will eventually become self-defeating but, at the same time, using your example, alternative energy options and sources are not up to the task of replacing fossil fuels at this time. Of course, when some of the viable possibilities, such as nuclear reactors, are shunned due to safety concerns, it does make things more difficult to train anyone in them. EV's are also not up to the task of taking over for petroleum powered vehicles. They don't have the range or infrastructure to support them outside of cities and towns, making them impractical for rural areas such as in the Rocky Mountains or Plains states.
 
I would agree with you that a society powered by fossil fuels will eventually become self-defeating but, at the same time, using your example, alternative energy options and sources are not up to the task of replacing fossil fuels at this time. Of course, when some of the viable possibilities, such as nuclear reactors, are shunned due to safety concerns, it does make things more difficult to train anyone in them. EV's are also not up to the task of taking over for petroleum powered vehicles. They don't have the range or infrastructure to support them outside of cities and towns, making them impractical for rural areas such as in the Rocky Mountains or Plains states.
Oh, for sure, but if politicians supported educating and empowering some of those fossil fuel industry workers instead of fighting back and forth trying to make each other look stupid they would both keep workers in a dying industry employable into the future and speed up the rate at which our industries and infrastructures could grow to meet demand for alternatives.
 
Also, the more people using EVs in cities the longer fossil fuels will last for those who cant make electric a viable option (mountain and plains states), so instead of making it a battle between red and blue or city and rural, maybe we should encourage those who can and chose to buy EVs to continue doing so. Consumer demand also helps the technology evolve faster.
 
Just found a video, posted yesterday, that talks about a resolution from the Wyoming legislature banning the sales of new EVs in the near future. This is in direct response to several states, including Washington and California, that are trying to ban the sale of new petroleum powered vehicles starting as soon as 2030.
Here's the video:

I believe the endpoint goal's 2035.....the question is, at this rate, will there even be a nation left by then?....

That debt ceiling debacle both parties got us into is a far more pressing issue....many in the financial sector are predicting an intentional default by June- Sept.
Those leftists sure aren't going to cave on all that frivolous spending, particularly in their 'fund the world' and military industrial complex spending. (sorry about clipping a bouy on your post a bit there, Hydro Junkie! 😉)
 
It's 2035 in California, 2030 in Washington, not that it matters much. Either way, EVs and the required infrastructure just aren't there and probably won't be till long after that. As for the "buoy", you didn't "dislodge" it so all is good o_O
For those of us with camp trailers, unless we already have petroleum powered tow vehicles, we will be limited to around 50-75 miles from a charging station, based on what I saw on a video series by some guys that use the screen name "The Fast Lane Truck". They found that a fully loaded F-150 Lightning, with the tow package and largest battery available, was limited to around 160 miles when towing a 6000lb trailer in Colorado!!! Allowing for the thinner air at that altitude, that would mean range would be reduced at lower altitudes due to the thicker air's higher drag. That would be comparable to me towing my 5600lb trailer with my S-10, which is very doable and has been done, all the way to Little Rock Arkansas from the Puget Sound basin. The difference is that I had enough places to fill my S-10's gas tank so gas wasn't an issue, not the case with the Lightning. Even if I did find a place to recharge, I'd be looking at over an hour for every charge stop as compared to 10 minutes or so to fill my gas tank. In that case, if I limited myself to 10 hours a day on the road, I'd only get roughly 4-5 hours of road time with the EV as compared to 8-9 with my S-10.
 
Back
Top