Science is to question everything until proven.  Please don't tell me you are still questioning that the earth isn't the center of the universe.  Or the sun revolves around the earth.  Or gravity exists.

There is no logical relationship between "prov(ing) [what no one claimed] those chemicals/pollutants are beneficial to earth" and claiming there is a lack of proof that those chemicals, as presently used, will cause catastrophic environmental problems that will risk the survival of humans on the planet. No relationship at all. I.e. "beneficial" is not the same as "relatively harmless". I don't recall anyone claiming that those chemicals were "beneficial" (for the climate. Obviously they are beneficial as a consequence of their various uses that benefit humans).

Psst. . .

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/

BTW.  Solar/PV isn't all that "clean" as well.

I am aware of the issues but I choose try fund the concept behind it.  Hopefully we will move away from l-ion batteries and other harmful manufacturing/mining materials.   I'm trying to fund the concept of renewable energy, if no one supports it we will not change.

I think it was on this board, but I recall a discussion about "green" energy.  The discussion was about solar, PV, wind, etc. and there was some level of miscommunication or misunderstanding between "green" and "renewable" and "sustainable".   

Anyways, my point is that very POPULAR things in society are electric cars and PV for renewable energy, though not many know that there are a bunch of hazardous materials and other things that are harmful to the environment that go into making those products, their waste, etc.  You chose to "fund the concept behind it" and seems like you've done your homework.  Your beliefs.  In the end, just have to be careful who you are getting your information from and their motives.  A large part of my work is in building construction and "green buildings" are all the rage with tons of regulations from the local to federal level requiring it.  Without getting too far into the details and detract from the OP, it's all huge racket that these "green" organizations got lawmakers to buy into.  Who really benefits?  Well, the "green" organizations that twisted the system.  Yeah, sustainable buildings are a great idea and what we should be building, but again, a good idea manipulated for profit.

Agreed to an extent.  Everyone for profit.  Green companies, anti green companies.  What we have to do/ what I do is try and steer my money towards the concept of "green". The idea behind green no matter what the current state of product is positive. While it might not be perfect now if people keep funding it through good ole capitalism it will only improve.  Like anything else we start off with a product, as more people want the product and competition gets harder the product only improves.  Since the idea is "green"  the more environmentally friendly the product is the more likely it will succeed. So if a company releases say a carbon nanotube battery that will take over l-ion simply cause its more "green".

-I'm perfectly fine "paying more taxes, getting job losses" for the sake of protecting our environment.  Congress isn't some magical system that makes everything right.  Half the members are morons on the environment.  Would you dictate what parts the mechanic fixes your car with to the state congress?

-See the problem with this is our politicians are bought by large companies who don't give a flying fuck about our environment. 

The people elect our government for the best interest of its people.  We all live on this earth, breathe its air and drinks its water.  You wouldn't trust a congress committee for your personal heath right?  You would see a doctor who specializes in your health.  Just like the EPA specializes in the environment.  You doctor sometimes says stuff you might not agree with and or want to hear, like you need to loose weight, drink less etc.  But in the end its for your good.  This is just like what the EPA is.

-No company goes out and tells people its going to start polluting.  They just do it and hope no one finds out.  It won't happen overnight but it will negatively effect our environment. With this law there can be no gross polluters for those specific chemicals/pollutants.

-Did you read the bill? 

-What?  This bill is basically saying everything the EPA researched is wrong and deregulate everything.  Its basically saying climate change doesn't exist.

-Let me just let you know that perfluorocarbons have been documented to fuck up our ozone.  Its 100% human made and 100% effected the environment.

-What I'm doing is not being a sheep and pretending the world is all good.  We need to fight for this earth its our one and only home. 

I see what you're saying, but you're missing (at least I think) my main point is that people tend to go with what they believe and that often times what they are led to believe as beneficial may not be when the bigger picture is taken into context. 

I'm honestly just BSing here (since I would have to dig up my notes to cite references, which I am not willing to do right now), but lets take PV for example.  The system takes solar "energy" and allows humans to harness and power homes.  Great all around, right? Surely must be because everyone believes it is.  It's been marketed very well.  Well, do you know how the components are manufactured?  What are in the batteries that are needed for the system?  What happens when these elements are discarded because they are replaced by the next generation of more super efficient panels?  PV is one scary market in that the market is (or at least was maybe 3-4 years ago when I was researching it heavily for my work that the industry recommended installing the "best they've got" at any given time because in 3-5 years, the next generation panel will be worth it.  This was in the context of us trying to find a way for the PV systems to withstand hurricanes.  Ok, so their strategy would be to replace every 5 years or so?  Is that really sustainable?  What's behind all of that?  Well, they want to sell more PV panels and supporting equipment.

PV is a good example because of the large market the quality of the systems have improved greatly.  Back in the past sure maybe they last 5 years.  Now they can last up to 20 years without degrading too much.  Batteries are not an issue unless you are completely off the grid.   Because of the fact that so many people are buying the technology improves, the magic of capitalism.  Now imagine if everyone just saw the downsides early on and no one bought PV systems.  We would have nothing like what we have now.

I would rather have hundreds of moron politicians looking at this than one one BIG MORON who is on a power trip with all the power to do what he wants with no one who can stop him. If you agree with socialism then you like that one person has all the power. If you agree with democracy then you prefer to have all of congress take a look at it.Even you know that if that was true there are ten times more politicians who are bought by the companies who are making the devices that scrub out the pollutants. Climate change is bigger business than the piddly ass companies you think are buying out the politicians. You are only thinking U.S. Look at the entire world that is brainwashed. The reason the PEOPLE vote instead of having one person in control is so we the people can keep ourselves free so we can make decisions for ourselves. What you said makes no sense and doesn't even apply to what I said. We vote in the congress in order for them to vote on our behalf. We don't allow one person to have all the power which is what happened with the EPA. I would prefer the congress to vote on my behalf than one one BIG MORON who is on a power trip with all the power to do what he wants with no one who can stop him. If you agree with socialism then you like that one person has all the power. If you agree with democracy then you prefer to have all of congress take a look at it. You obviously don't know what was happening in the EPA before the new president was elected.Assuming this is true then it really doesn't matter if we have any laws or not. According to your logic then any company can just start polluting and hope no one finds out. It doesn't matter what laws are in effect. Prove that one company starts letting out gasses that are no longer pollutants and it will affect our environment. You see? You are making assumptions certain things are harmful when you have no proof. As long as the companies continue to abide by our laws you have no say that they are doing anything wrong. The idea here is if they start breaking the law they not only have to deal with the local and state governments, they will have to deal with the feds too.Obviously you didn't.You obviously didn't read the bill. It says no such thing. The EPA research was flawed to coincide with a power hungry megalomaniac that was in charge of the EPA. It was done so he could justify passing these strict regulations to satisfy the brainwashed masses that believe that we can affect the climate enough to make a difference. You obviously didn't read and/or comprehend what I said in my post.  You are just proving my point. More hysteria and panic setting in.

You're still missing the point.  While the technology may help reduce dependence on fossil fuels and other "burning" energy sources, it's production waste and "after useful life" waste are hazardous.  In that case, it's really not sustainable as it does damage in other ways.  Well, which is the lesser of two evils is debatable, but the point is it really isn't that "clean" when you consider the whole picture.

20 years is VERY optimistic.  Not sure about what is available currently, but yeah, it COULD last 20 years based on performance.  But in Hawaii, we have hurricanes or even high wind storms that regularly damage PV.  And it's not like you can just replace the single panel that was damaged.  Forgive me if that's no longer true as I believe that used to be the case.  That's where the industry was just recommending putting up standard panels instead of the industry trying to design panels that were more hurricane resistant. 

I do get your point about technology will fail if not enough people support.  That said, even in the cases of POPULAR technology, like PV, are people doing more harm than good in the long run.  What's going to happen in 20 years when all of the panels need to be replaced?  That's not sustainable.  Maybe it's better than burning oil and coal, but it really isn't that clean. 

The thing is that I used to argue along the same lines as you are now, until I dug deeper into the industry.  Again, it's been a while since I've done so, so to be completely honest, I'm mostly BSing here without being able to cite references.  That said, my point remains the same that people really need to look into the big picture and not what is popular and "widely accepted".

1) The difference is I'm thinking long term.  IF we can solve the material issues,  renewable energy benefits FAR out weight the issues. We are on the path and every new product lasts longer and causes less damage to produce.  In the end perhaps on day we will have carbon based batteries which have very low environmental impact and other renewable materials.  This would be far better than same ole cars using slightly better technology but in the end still using gas. 

While Hawaii does have issues with hurricanes thankfully they are not a regular occurrence. They are starting to have better attachment methods and 2) yes now you can replace one panel on several systems.

The whole idea of green is to be the lesser of evils.  The supply of oil is not infinite we will run out.  Say in 20 years we have to replace all the panels which now last 100 years.  Slowly over time we will have permanent systems.  Its all about progress.  Nothing perfect will happen instantly.

1) So you're good with dumping a bunch of hazardous materials into the market right now based on the anticipated or assumed benefit?  Thinking long term also need to think about the waste generated and to be taken care of later.  Same argument for nuclear, which some consider actually the cleanest (that is assuming the nuclear material is handled and protected properly).  To be honest, I am not sure what is better myself.  Just that the same question was asked of me a while ago.

2) Didn't know that.  When I looked into this last, the mounted panels needed to be replaced as an array or complete circuit.  That usually meant a whole row of panels or at times a whole area depending on how the installer set up the circuit.  Then there's thin film as well.

The EPA isn't just one guy....I don't think I've ever agreed with socialism.  Also one guy having all the power is dictatorship not really socialism. Democracy doesn't mean everyone in the entire country must agree for something to happen.  I happen to like experts.  I trust experts in the field in which they work.  Like I said before you don't want your local congress to dictate your health decisions, you probably much rather have a specialist doctor.  Just like how I assume you use a gunsmith for gun decisions not congress.  The EPA is made of environmental specialists who entire study is the environment.  Politicians do not have these skills. Climate change business is no where near as large as the "status quo" business.  Just look at all the power petroleum and coal companies have.  Their market share and money FAR exceeds anything the "green" side does/has.  IF you don't believe that i'm sorry to say you probably been brain washed. The reason people vote in a democracy is to have representation.  We have a republic not a true democracy.  The EPA isn't one guy sitting in a chair deciding on whim what he wants to do... The difference between a company polluting and hoping no one finds out and a company polluting and hoping no one finds out its ILLEGAL is large. Having it be illegal to do so tends to have a MUCH larger effect than just public relations. Also I DO have proof all those chemicals/pollutants are bad.  Use google find one of thousands of accredited studies that prove it. Yes if they are abiding by our laws they are doing nothing wrong.  Now getting rid of all the laws kinda makes this easy for companies to do whatever they want eh?  Just like people are not allowed to murder, sure people do it and try and not get caught but in the ends its illegal and if they are found they have huge penalties.  This discourages murder.  Now imagine congress passed a law that says murder is fine.  Not everyone is going to go out and kill people, but some people will. 

The bill
Introduced in House (01/24/2017)

Stopping EPA Overreach Act of 2017

This bill amends the Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride pollution from the scope of that Act.

The bill declares that current law does not authorize or require the regulation of climate change or global warming and nullifies certain final rules relating to: (1) greenhouse gas and volatile organic compounds emissions, including methane emissions, from the oil and natural gas sector; and (2) carbon pollution emissions from the utility power sector.

Before proposing or finalizing regulations or policies, the Environmental Protection Agency must analyze the net and gross impact of those regulations and policies on employment. Regulations and policies may not take effect if they have a negative impact on employment, unless they are approved by Congress and signed by the President.

I'm glad you cut and pasted the summary of the "Stopping the EPA Overreach Act of 2017. The title says most of it. Just realize this is NOT the bill. It is only a summary of the bill. What is this bill about? It is about stopping the overreach of the EPA. This bill comes about NOT because the current government wants to deny climate change. Which is the meaning you want to put on it. It comes about because The EPA has no congressional oversight. So the head of the EPA decides the position of the U.S. as far as the environment is concerned. If it is not one person making those decisions, then who is? Does the head of the agency hire people to make those decisions for him? Of course not. The agency has only one head person in charge. The EPA HAS NO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT. This agency has passed economy stifling regulations for many years and no one can stop them. And who do you think is making all these decisions? You say you don't think it is one person? Then tell all of us who is in charge of the EPA? Go ahead. Tell us. Oh, that's right, you don't know how the EPA has worked for the last 40 years. Too bad you don't see the entire picture here. You are only looking at a very small part of the entire picture.

I read the whole bill,  Didn't copy and paste the whole thing cause its long.  Yes it does say stuff about this "over reach".  It also DOES deny climate change. 
(2) the Environmental Protection Agency was correct not to classify greenhouse gases as pollutants prior to 2009;
(3) no Federal agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under current law; and
(4) no attempt to regulate greenhouse gases should be undertaken without further Congressional action.
(2) EXCLUSION.—The term ‘air pollutant’ does not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride.”.
(2) NO REGULATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing in any of the following Acts or any other law authorizes or requires the regulation of climate change or global warming:

It is about time this bill is passed to stop the power of the head of the EPA to excersize all that power without restrictions. That is what this bill is about. Unfortunately, you have decided to ignore this truth and have decided to change the meaning of the bill and make it about climate change denial. Yes, a small portion of this bill makes the statement that the U.S. will no longer acknowledge certain greenhouse gasses as pollutants. But that is only a small portion of the reality of this bill. It is about governent overreach. And giving congress the ability to over turn one mans decisions. It is too bad you can't see the bigger picture as to who runs the EPA and the fact it is run without congressional oversight. Trump promised deregulation and he is doing exactly that with this bill. And I for one approve whole heartedly.

You keep saying government overreach but its governments job to protect the people.   These chemicals/pollutants are bad.  Not everything needs congressional oversight and more bureaucracy.  The entire bill like my earlier paragraphs basically say climate change isn't real. While it doesn't LITERALLY say it, it does however remove all research and un-regulates many green house gases.

Ever hear the term follow the money? You should try doing that here. Obviously you have not done so. You think that big oil is the big money? Then why has big oil been on the losing end of the climate change argument for over 40 years now? That is because there is a bigger picture. With a lot more money than all the big oil companies combined. You think politicians are bought by big oil? Some maybe. But a lot more are bought by where the big money is coming from. Climate change is a much bigger business than the big oil companies combined. Most of the countries in the world are involved in this. Too bad you have decided not to see that. They are the ones buying the climate change scientists. They are the ones buying the politicians. And buying/trading the carbon credits. And they have been winning and are still winning the fight. The ones with the most money wins. That was your insinuation a post or two ago. Well? The big money is winning around the world. But now that we have a president that can't be bought, the U.S. is going to finally regain control of these agencies with no congressional oversight. They have turned into corrupt power brokers and whoever is at the helm rakes in the big bucks. But all that stops now with this bill. The big picture is right in front of you and you refuse to see it. At least the head of the EPA will now have congressional oversight. So if he makes bad decisions, the congess can over rule him.

Big oil has been on the losing end cause they are wrong.  Its fairly simple.  There is only so much money you can throw at something to seem not wrong.  It takes alot less money when you hold the right end of the argument.  MANY are bought by big oil and coal.  Look at the states that have huge industries,  that's where many of the bills come from.  Look at who donates to politicians, look who funds commercials.  I have followed the money.  Clearly you have not.  You know why climate change is big money?   Cause people are realizing we are fucking this earth up and its time to start fixing it.  Its like if your house pipes start to leak,  your "friendly well funded water company"  wants to convince you that isnt bad.  Water is cheap why bother?  Now its getting worse and worse and now your house is starting to flood.  You desperately try and find a plumber.  Now this is happening to millions of houses.  The corruption is still with the "water company"  (oil)  trying to convince people there is no problem.  Cause once people fix their pipes they will buy less water (oil)  and they will lose profit.  We all live on this earth.  There is only one earth.  Lets not destroy it.

This really is not about climate change. This is about reining in the corrupt EPA agency. An agency with one head person in charge holding and wheeling all the power and no one to hold him accountable is the definition of a dictatorship. That is what this bill stops right here and now. I honestly wish you could see the bigger pictue here.

Its all about climate.  Its literally the EPA's job to protect the climate.  IF you eliminate the EPA its basically getting rid of the defender.   Think of the EPA like an fire insurance company.  Its job is to lower risk and save your house.  Then comes along a "dangerous candle company" who is trying to convince you to get rid of your sprinkler system.  They are saying candles don't cause fires don't worry you don't need that "EXPENSIVE" sprinkler system. Now its the fire insurance companies job to try notify you of the harm of the candles.  Try their best to ban these dangerous candles.  All to help you in the end, but cause of the dangerous candle companies propaganda you cant even see that you are being manipulated.

I'm done with this conversation. You can get the last word in if you like. I did my best to try and open your eyes to the bigger picture but I have not been successful. 

I like to say I've tried to open up your closed view.  Sadly I think you are too far gone 

electric cars are actually either dead even in environmental impact, or even worse for that environment, than a modern internal combustion gasoline car.