Outcast_Searcher wrote:BUT, if they're alarmed, then why fight tooth and nail for, say, the right of every American to drive a giant gas-guzzling SUV or pickup, when the consequences are so obvious over time?
This is actually an easy question to answer; you don't see the answer because you don't understand the world view of the conservative. Conservatives do *not* hate electric cars, hybrids, nor bicycles; they hate the idea of government making the choice. I ride a bicycle and drive a small truck, I am also extremely conservative. Unlike many who ride bikes for non-sporting purposes, I think it is most certainly the right of any and every American to buy and operate a Hummer,
IF THEY WANT TO. It is, of course, their responsibility to operate the vehicle on public right of ways in a safe manner, but that's not a difficult challenge, and certainly they should be responsible for paying for their own vehicle and its fuel, but other than that, no objection.
A lefty looks at that, and thinks that's nuts, expressing the shared costs of Bob owning a Hummer, increased cost of defending overseas oil, to elevated insured damages from low skilled operators, to slight increase in roadway wear and tear.
A conservative's response to these objections would simply be, that if you want cost of gasoline at the pump to reflect the cost of its overseas defense; reduce income taxes, and then increase gasoline taxes to cover the outlays of the defense department. Tada, honest pricing. Insurance already allocates costs as the company perceives its risks; and roadway wear and tear for a Hummer is miniscule compared to the serious loads on the road from heavy trucking.
Basically, a conservative believes that the individual, observing the market, is best able to decide what type of vehicle they wish to utilize. If there are bad choices being made, it is because the market is distorted by government (ie, defense funded by income tax), not because the government needs to distort it more.