43 comments:

  1. Hal_10000

    Yeah! Fewer jobs! More expensive goods for all of us!  A big expansion of China’s sphere of influence! How awesome!  How grand!  How …

    … wait a minute.

    Thumb up 6

  2. ilovecress

    ???

    They reported the event accurately? I’m not sure what your point is. What would your reporting of this news look like?

    Thumb up 2

  3. Hal_10000

    They reported the event accurately? I’m not sure what your point is. What would your reporting of this news look like?

    Breitbart, I’m guessing.

    Thumb up 4

  4. stogy

    In doing so, he demonstrated that he would not follow old rules, effectively discarding longstanding Republican orthodoxy that expanding global trade was good for the world and America — and that the United States should help write the rules of international commerce.

    As a free market fundamentalist, Alex, I can’t see why you would support an approach – protectionism – that essentially calls for the government to pick winners and losers at the expense of the free market.

    The US is actually wealthier than it has ever been at any time in its history. The issue is more that the benefits of the massive expansion in global trade have not reached those at the bottom, and that the very very wealthy have invested more abroad rather than at home. I fail to see how contracting the size of the pie and threatening to start a trade war will change this situation.

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  5. AlexInCT *

    Yeah! Fewer jobs! More expensive goods for all of us!  A big expansion of China’s sphere of influence! How awesome!  How grand!  How …

    … wait a minute.

    You were talking about the Obama years, I was not. this will bring the jobs, and as for China’s influence don’t make me laugh. Those 11 countries will now be offered a fairer deal where we are not giving up everything and they are making out like bandits, but hey, go ahead an pretend you fucking commie douchebags care about commerce or capitalism. I bet you will be all asshurt when another deal is proposed, especially if it is a better one for the US.

    Thumb up 0

  6. stogy

    You were talking about the Obama years, I was not. this will bring the jobs

    There are far more jobs in renewables – unlike this pipeline – and they aren’t temporary jobs.

    And Canadian tar sands oil is currently trading at a big loss, with production costs well higher than the price of oil per barrel. Unless oil prices recover (which they may do temporarily), it’s hard to see Keystone as a good investment.

    Thumb up 2

  7. AlexInCT *

    There are far more jobs in renewables – unlike this pipeline – and they aren’t temporary jobs.

    B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T..

    The only people that have done well with renewables are the ones that pocketed all the money that government throws their way (google solyndra) and the lefty politicians that in turn have been given a huge pay-off for the favor. Them and Al Gore. Say what you want about the crazy dickhead, he sure has made some serious money peddling nonsense.

    Thumb up 2

  8. stogy

    B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T..

    Rather than just call bullshit, let’s look at the actual data from Bloomberg:

    The number of U.S. jobs in solar energy overtook those in oil and natural gas extraction for the first time last year, helping drive a global surge in employment in the clean-energy business as fossil-fuel companies faltered.
    Employment in the U.S. solar business grew 12 times faster than overall job creation, the International Renewable Energy Agency said in a report on Wednesday. About 8.1 million people worldwide had jobs in the clean energy in 2015, up from 7.7 million in 2014, according to the industry group based in Abu Dhabi.

    Bloomberg biased? But this was fairly widely reported at the time. If you have other data, I would be interested. You should put it up so we can compare.

    The only people that have done well with renewables are the ones that pocketed all the money that government throws their way (google solyndra.

    You know that more than double the money lost on Solyndra was lost on a clean coal project in Mississippi? You must be spitting chips over that one, based on how you reacted to the Solyndra scandal, which was the Bush administration. Blame for the Southern Company scandal goes squarely on the Obama administration.

    The plant was not only a central piece of the Obama administration’s climate plan, it was also supposed to be a model for future power plants to help slow the dangerous effects of global warming. The project was hailed as a way to bring thousands of jobs to Mississippi, the nation’s poorest state, and to extend a lifeline to the dying coal industry.
    The sense of hope is fading fast, however. The Kemper coal plant is more than two years behind schedule and more than $4 billion over its initial budget, $2.4 billion, and it is still not operational.
    The plant and its owner, Southern Company, are the focus of a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation, and ratepayers, alleging fraud, are suing the company. Members of Congress have described the project as more boondoggle than boon. The mismanagement is particularly egregious, they say, given the urgent need to rein in the largest source of dangerous emissions around the world: coal plants.

    The cost of unsubsidized solar PV is now below with coal and oil for power generation, and very competitive with gas. The costs of renewables are declining so quickly that it now doesn’t make much sense to invest in new fossil fuel power plants. There are very few new jobs going to be created in the fossil fuel industries, and many investors are increasingly looking at the industry as a potential risk for massive stranded assets.

    and the lefty politicians that in turn have been given a huge pay-off for the favor.

    The real scandal is the big money moving around to prop up fossil fuels.

     

    Thumb up 3

  9. stogy

    I like this: Trump said that he has won numerous awards for the environment – except that he hasn’t.

    There are only the awards that he should have won, according to his paid lacky:

    The White House pointed us to “Donald J. Trump: An Environmental Hero,” a 90-page book self-published by Edward Russo, Trump’s longtime environmental consultant who oversaw most of the environmental work on Trump’s golf courses. A White House spokesman told us the book “lists the environmental awards President Trump has received.”
    The book does not list any environmental awards. (It does mention awards that Russo believes Trump should have received.) The only award it mentions is one supposedly from the New Jersey Audubon Society: “New Jersey Audubon offered to recognize the work that was done at Trump National Bedminster — but not with an award to Donald, just to ‘Trump National.’ That wasn’t right,” Russo wrote.
    But New Jersey Audubon rejected Russo’s claim: “NJ Audubon never presented an award to Donald Trump, Trump National nor any of its employees, nor did NJ Audubon apply for one on his behalf,” spokesman Jonathan Jaffe said.

    Bwahahahahahaha! I am going to pay someone to write a book of me describing me as the best person ever…. EVER! And then I can use it as evidence that I am the best person ever! Too fuckin’ stupid for words!! This just keeps getting better and better!

    Keep it up Alex, the cognitive dissonance going on up there must be mind-boggling (literally!).

     

    Thumb up 3

  10. AlexInCT *

    Keep it up Alex, the cognitive dissonance going on up there must be mind-boggling (literally!).

    You are talking to yourself because I don’t give a rats ass what you are saying unless I feel like making fun of you, and I am the one with cognitive dissonance? Yeah, sure…

    Hey Stogy, who is the president and what’s he gonna do to the legacy of the tyrant that finally left the WH?

    Thumb up 0

  11. stogy

    You are talking to yourself because I don’t give a rats ass what you are saying unless I feel like making fun of you, and I am the one with cognitive dissonance? Yeah, sure…

    Much easier to ignore the lie that was told by Trump, his flunky, and then repeated as though it was true, eh? You didn’t actually deal with it – you noticed that, didn’t you? It’s making you look silly.

    Hey Stogy, who is the president and what’s he gonna do to the legacy of the tyrant that finally left the WH?

    Again, if he’s not in power now, he’s not and he wasn’t a tyrant. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with his policies or actions or methods when in power. Trump is not a tyrant either (yet), but as you have continually refused to note, his methods (appeal to the mob) and characteristics (lots of divisiveness and blaming others for social ills) match Plato’s description rather well. Whether Obama did or not do this also is irrelevant, however much you believe he may have played a role in undermining US institutions. It’s now in the past. Focus on current policy direction and the behavior of the current incumbent.

    It looks bleak to me.

    Thumb up 2

  12. Iconoclast

    There are far more jobs in renewables – unlike this pipeline – and they aren’t temporary jobs.

    Well, according to the link you have subsequently provided, there are indeed more jobs, but it’s debatable whether that qualifies as “far more”.   Regardless, the simple reality is that, for the immediate future, our economy is dependent on fossil fuels, and while the jobs for building pipelines are indeed temporary, that can be said of any construction project.  Furthermore, your claim of more jobs in the renewable sector wasn’t even true until late 2014, according to the graph in your link.

    If the market chooses renewable solutions, and if those solutions do indeed address existing needs, more power to all concerned.  I personally have no problem with market-driven solutions.  If the graph in your link reflects market-driven growth, again, I’m all for it. But if it’s a result of being propped up by subsidies and such, then I have a problem with it.

    One final observation:  The fossil fuel industry has been around for decades, while the solar industry is relatively new, so it stands to reason that a newer industry would experience more growth than one that’s been around a while and is therefore more established, all else being equal.

    Thumb up 1

  13. Hal_10000

    One final observation:  The fossil fuel industry has been around for decades, while the solar industry is relatively new, so it stands to reason that a newer industry would experience more growth than one that’s been around a while and is therefore more established, all else being equal.

    This is a good point.  I think we will reach a saturation point on renewables because there are things they can’t do: ramp up and down rapidly, store energy, provide the intense energy density needed for transportation, etc.  The “look at these growth!” analyses reminds me of the people who said we’d have twenty billion people on the planet by now.

    Thumb up 1

  14. stogy

    I take your point, but there is another factor at play here too. Much of the work in fossil fuel extraction that was previously done by humans no longer needs them to do it. I know that in Australia and increasingly Canada too, there are new mines where the heavy machinery is now operated remotely from hundreds of miles away. There is little special skill involved – it’s like playing a video game. And rural towns that relied on fly-in-fly-out labor are once again worried about their future.

    A lot of the new renewable stuff – such as installation and reworking the grid – is work that needs to be done by hand. Given the size of the industry, and the size of the energy sector that it will displace, at the moment, I think it is reasonable to expect steady (if not spectacular) growth in renewables until the end of the century. There are reasons why we will need fossil fuels for a long time to come – particularly coking coal for steel production. But I would rather see the carbon budget used for that than power generation, which could much more easily be replaced.

    Thumb up 1

  15. AlexInCT *

    Holy shit, Stogy. Alex couldn’t even respond to that. Well done.

    Respond to what Hal? I am here to make fun of you libs, not to let you sidetrack things with inconsequential shit that means nothing. Call me when you have Trump engaging in criminal activity or sicking government entities on his enemies and maybe I will spend time responding to your post. This shit you guys are linking, after 8 years of Obama and you specifically making excuses for him whenever you could, is not going to do anything but reinforce my belief that I picked the right one to back. If you had only been as concerned about the bullshit then, you might have some ground to stand on. Id don’t care about Trump claiming he won awards he didn’t or the left feels he didn’t earn, or whatever such inconsequential nonsense you guys keep linking. as much as I cared about the lies about Obamacare making healthcare cheaper and better while letting people keep their doctor, or for that matter Hillary claiming she came under fire when she was in Bosnia.

    Want to know what I care about? This, and this, and a ton more of this this. That’s what I care about, and I am getting it. So I will ignore or make fun of the left’s tantrums and pooh flinging (like the link above and too many of your posts).

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT *

    Non-renewables also benefit from decades and decades of past subsidies so any reasonable comparison must account for that.

    Yeah, because renewables aren’t subsidized at something close to 10x that much. And of course, economies being built and grown on energy seems to be something the left has always hated, so anything that helped make that happen was subsidy. In fact, I would make the case that without the subsidies practically every thing labeled renewables would never survive today (or ever, unless you talk about nuclear, which the left never will). Fossil fuels never had or will have that problem for the simple reason that it does what it does well.

    Thumb up 0

  17. stogy

    Sidetrack? You are the one who brought in the issue of the oil pipeline and made the claim that it would bring back jobs.

    Plus we were talking about “tyranny”, which you mentioned in your original post, and has been an ongoing conversation for a week or so.

    You can feel like you are taunting me all you like, whatever wets your nozzle. And yes, the Dems and leftists are hypocrites.  But again, using that as a defense of the current administration when they are doing the same thing is just more evidence that current administration are doing the wrong thing.

    is not going to do anything but reinforce my belief that I picked the right one to back. 

    You have made this abundantly clear – your choice is based on partisanship over good policy. Trump gives you the chance to mock liberals. Which makes your comments about the partisanship of the left completely laughable, when you are doing the same thing.

     

    Obama is gone, and despite your lingering somewhat unhinged feelings about him, your celebration of Trump using executive orders to push through controversial legislation without Congressional oversight – what Obama and Bush both did before Trump – is deeply concerning. The intention is clear – Trump doesn’t want to require control of Congress to govern.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  18. InsipiD

     I think we will reach a saturation point on renewables because there are things they can’t do: ramp up and down rapidly, store energy, provide the intense energy density needed for transportation, etc. 

    Honestly, this is where Tesla comes good in the next 10 years, I believe.  Having a Powerwall means that powerful but unreliable sources of energy will become practical to use.  Rely on there to be geniuses sometimes, even if he is Tony Stark.  Scientific research and engineering must always go on.

    Thumb up 0

  19. CM

    Yeah, because renewables aren’t subsidized at something close to 10x that much. And of course, economies being built and grown on energy seems to be something the left has always hated, so anything that helped make that happen was subsidy. In fact, I would make the case that without the subsidies practically every thing labeled renewables would never survive today (or ever, unless you talk about nuclear, which the left never will). Fossil fuels never had or will have that problem for the simple reason that it does what it does well.

    https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/25/the-myth-about-renewable-energy-subsidies/

    But you’re now into protectionism remember, so subsidies/picking winners/collectivism is all sweet now. You better come up with a table for how you’ve switched all your own strong opinions overnight. You were either full of shit then, or you’re full of shit now. Which is it?

    Thumb up 1

  20. CM

    Trump using executive orders

    Yep they’ll definitely need to add this to their table of over-night switcheroos too. Obama was a CRIMINAL for using them (less per year than any President since Grover Cleveland) but now it’s FASTER FASTER!

    Thumb up 1

  21. AlexInCT *

    Sidetrack? You are the one who brought in the issue of the oil pipeline and made the claim that it would bring back jobs.

    And you desperately want to pretend it won’t and that the government subsidized nonsense (like Solyndra) would do better. Now I got CM linking the same lame posts from discredited sites that are nothing but mouthpieces of the left’s ideology and agenda as if after all we now finally know without a doubt, I should just accept that nonsense because these idiots say so. Fossil fuels work. Despite Obama’s attempt to destroy the industry and prop up oil prices (which coincidentally would do wonders for most of America’s enemies including Russia, I add), the shale oil and other fossil fuel initiatives is in large part why the US economy didn’t implode (not to mention that I got to grow my 401k by an awesome 18% annually for the last 4 years focusing on trading those stocks).

    Plus we were talking about “tyranny”, which you mentioned in your original post, and has been an ongoing conversation for a week or so.

    Erm, maybe I have a comprehension problem, but my recollection of events is that we started talking about tyranny after you accused Trump of being one, leading to me pointing out that it really took a lot of gall to do so considering Obama was a real tyrant and Trump just got in the office  a few days ago but was already being accused of all sorts of shit he had not even done. Then you came back with a lame ass excuse how Obama was no longer tyrant because he was not in office, and I pointed out that by that logic, no tyrant in history was a tyrant then, at which point the topic of tyranny went away and you and CM started another circle jerk. Note that you are the one that accused Trump – without any evidence – of being tyrant, because he isn’t Clinton, whom could eat babies live on TV and receive fawning applause from people like you for being such a great person.

    You can feel like you are taunting me all you like, whatever wets your nozzle. And yes, the Dems and leftists are hypocrites.  But again, using that as a defense of the current administration when they are doing the same thing is just more evidence that current administration are doing the wrong thing.

    Great strawman there, dude. I have NOT used the fact that the left are hypocrites to give Trump any kind of a pass. When the left actually produces something that is worthy of scorn – like, lets say, Trump sicking the IRS and DOJ on his political enemies, or Trump steering billions into the pockets of some connected people and the campaign coffers of republicans, but especially when he promises he will “fix” something (like we were told the donkeys would do with healthcare, and then, not only let you keep your doctor, but pay less to cover everybody) when it is a blatant lie and what he is doing is political – then I will get on his case.

    Claiming it is the end of the world and that you have a “gotcha” moment proving that electing him over Hillary of all people was a mistake, because Trumps people said there were more people at his inauguration than the media wants you to believe there were, doesn’t even amount to newsworthy shit to me (or most others that aren’t unhinged leftist). Things like this impacts real people in no way or form, unlike the shit the dnc operatives with bylines not only turned a blind eye to, but often helped the left lie about. Trump is playing all you idiots, and I got to say I love it. Every time you all make a mountain out of a molehill – and man are you all leftists hard and desperately at work doing that – he gains more support and traction. And you are not even smart enough to realize you are being played. And speaking of being played….

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT *

    Under Obama this would absolutely be straight out FASCISM.

    DNC operatives with bylines are your source for this? Yeah, I am sure they were arrested just for being there covering the rioting. It’s not like these dnc operatives with bylines ever have an agenda and have been caught blatantly manipulating not just the news, but helping hide the fact that the left constantly sends people out to stage events that go violent, or something.

    I am sure Trump personally called up the head of police in DC, a notoriously racist, and told him to throw them commie pinkos in jail for him! After all, there is no way that the NYT was making up shit again.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Iconoclast

    Yep they’ll definitely need to add this to their table of over-night switcheroos too. Obama was a CRIMINAL for using them (less per year than any President since Grover Cleveland) but now it’s FASTER FASTER!

    Well, it does depend on how they’re used.

    The purpose of the Executive Branch, which the POTUS heads, is law enforcement.  If an Executive Order is issued in pursuit of this purpose (authorizing the hiring of more border patrol agents, customs enforcement agents, etc.), then I personally have no problem with them, regardless of who issues them.

    If, on the other hand, an Executive Order is issued in order to bypass Congress’ authority to legislate, I absolutely do have a problem with it, again regardless of who issues it.

    Remember that Obama infamously declared that he wouldn’t enforce laws he didn’t agree with.  His AG did likewise, and even went so far as to instruct state AsG to do the same.   This instills doubt as to whether Obama’s various Executive Orders were issued to aid in enforcing the law.

    Thumb up 0

  24. Iconoclast

    Also, let us remember Obama’s infamous “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” speech, the implication of which was that he wouldn’t sit around waiting for Congress to act.

    Obama On Executive Actions: ‘I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone’

    I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.

    That does sound noble, but it doesn’t sound much like law enforcement.

    Thumb up 0

  25. stogy

    And you desperately want to pretend it won’t and that the government subsidized nonsense (like Solyndra) would do better. 

    Solyndra was a failure, but in terms of renewables, it remains an exception – there are massive investments in renewables around the world, including many without government subsidies. These are making money. What happened in Mississippi was at least four times the size of the Solyndra disaster, but I haven’t you complain about the massive waste of taxpayer’s money here, or the failure that it represents in terms of cleaner fossil fuels.

    Despite Obama’s attempt to destroy the industry and prop up oil prices

    Obama massively expanded offshore drilling and made the US much more dependent on fossil fuels – I consider that to be a failure.

    Erm, maybe I have a comprehension problem, but my recollection of events is that we started talking about tyranny after you accused Trump of being one.

    Actually, I said Trump isn’t one yet, so yes, you do have a reading comprehension problem. Obama isn’t one because he is no longer President, and as CM said, he issued the lowest number of executive orders in decades.

    and I pointed out that by that logic, no tyrant in history was a tyrant then,

    Well if he was a tyrant, he was the only one that willingly respected and supported the handover of power to an opposing successor. I guess we could redefine tyrant to mean something like that if you like. Would that help?

    Note that you are the one that accused Trump – without any evidence – of being tyrant

    He’s not a tyrant. Your reading comprehension problem is resurfacing again…?

    because he isn’t Clinton, whom could eat babies live on TV and receive fawning applause from people like you for being such a great person.

    Not a Clinton fan. I said that. But she doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who would eat babies live on TV. Unlike a candidate who boasted he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and still get support.

     (like we were told the donkeys would do with healthcare, and then, not only let you keep your doctor, but pay less to cover everybody) when it is a blatant lie and what he is doing is political – then I will get on his case.

    Not a fan of Obamacare, either – I said years ago here that it makes no sense to add tens of millions of people to a broken system, and in the US, personal health accounts might help to bring down prices. But in terms of your critique then HMOs have long removed the right of people to get coverage to see the doctor of their choice. This wasn’t something that started with Obamacare. And prices have been rising faster than inflation for years before Obamacare started.  So I guess this makes this example something of a straw man, hey?

    Claiming it is the end of the world and that you have a “gotcha” moment proving that electing him over Hillary of all people was a mistake

    You said Hillary was the apocalypse, not me.I do think Trump was a mistake, and many of the policies he has announced by decree are huge mistakes – for example,  the order on not supporting organizations that even discuss  abortion in developing countries is going to result in enormous suffering and potentially tens of thousands of deaths – while doing nothing to actually lower abortion rates.

    Trump is playing all you idiots, and I got to say I love it.

    I think it’s you he’s playing…

    Ah… all this starting to bore me. Again. I don’t feel taunted or challenged, just bored. If this is your strategy, it’s working.

    Thumb up 0

  26. stogy

    That isn’t exactly accurate — the Obama Administration did propose opening up the Atlantic coast in 2015, but reversed itself last year.

    True, but the expansion in oil production had already happened:

    The greatest oil boom in this nation’s history has occurred during the tenure of self-proclaimed environmentalist Barack Obama.
    Under Obama, the steady drop in U.S. oil production which had occurred virtually unchecked since 1971 has been reversed. Crude oil production has risen every year of his administration. It has jumped 72% since he took office, producing about 3.6 million additional barrels a day during that time.
    Oil production has grown so much that last summer the nation caught and passed Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer. Before Obama leaves office, domestic oil production could top the U.S. record set in 1970.

    So yeah, my statement was pretty accurate.

    Thumb up 0

  27. AlexInCT *

    The greatest oil boom in this nation’s history has occurred during despite the tenure of self-proclaimed environmentalist Barack Obama.

    Fixed that for everyone.

    Thumb up 1

  28. stogy

    I got to grow my 401k by an awesome 18% annually for the last 4 years focusing on trading those stocks).

    You have invested well – my guess is you avoided coal companies like Peabody, who went under last year having bet heavily on mines in Australia. But remember that regardless of what happens in the US, there is likely to be declining demand internationally, as many countries gear up their commitment to the Paris Agreement. You may well end up locked into stranded assets, as global demand and prices plummet.

    Thumb up 0

  29. stogy

    Alex, when I first read your comment about how the fossil fuel industry could lead to more jobs, I have to admit, I was skeptical. But here, right here in this story, I can now see the potential. There are tons of jobs. I copying in some key parts of the story to save you the trouble of not clicking:

    A faulty pipeline has leaked 176,000 gallons of crude oil into a creek and the surrounding countryside 2.5 hours away from the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota. 

    For months, opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline have been expressing fears that it would affect local drinking water, because it was to be built under the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation – the primary water source of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.

    Perhaps even more concerning than a freak accident splitting the pipe is the fact that electronic monitoring equipment failed to detect the leak – something that would have prevented the pipe from spilling so much oil out into the countryside.

    Those Indians should really be grateful for the employment opportunities that this represents, instead of whinging about their drinking water and tying up investments by decent, law-abiding folk who are just wanting to add a very reasonable 18% per annum to their 401k by investing in oil stocks that those lying scientists say are leading to climate change just so they can get their big fat government grants. Well, time is up, collectivists, hippies, unwashed! I want my 18%! Mine!!

    Thumb up 1

  30. Iconoclast

    So yeah, my statement was pretty accurate.

    Again, no, not really.  Recall that the statement in question is:

    Obama massively expanded offshore drilling…..

    The article I cited quite definitively showed otherwise.  Your subsequently pointing out that oil production rose dramatically during the Obama Administration does absolutely nothing to change that, and is, in fact, nothing more than an attempt to move the goal posts.

    Also, the article you cited quite clearly states that Obama should receive neither credit nor blame for this increase in production;  as Alex indicated earlier, the increase happened in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them.

    Thumb up 0

  31. AlexInCT *

     But here, right here in this story, I can now see the potential.

    By that logic I recommend we ground all airplanes, stop launching rockets into space, and probably – just to be super safe – ban cars too.

    Here is my counter. That shit was done by idiot leftist with an agenda. Water across the country is polluted by it and poisoning people. While my guess is your solution would be to ban gasoline to solve the problem, mine is to ban the idiot left.

    Thumb up 0

  32. stogy

    By that logic I recommend we ground all airplanes, stop launching rockets into space, and probably – just to be super safe – ban cars too.

    Actually, I completely support the use of fossil fuels for tasks that can’t easily be replaced by other technologies – until we develop alternatives. Planes, yes certainly, until new engines come online. Cars that run on gasoline should be phased out over the next 10 – 20 years, with a few exceptions – one to two replacement cycles.

    Rockets… um use hydrogen. Aren’t you supposed to be an engineer?

    Here is my counter. That shit was done by idiot leftist with an agenda. Water across the country is polluted by it and poisoning people. While my guess is your solution would be to ban gasoline to solve the problem, mine is to ban the idiot left.

    Interesting. I haven’t heard much about this before. Why is this the problem of the idiot left?

    Thumb up 0

  33. AlexInCT *

    Actually, I completely support the use of fossil fuels for tasks that can’t easily be replaced by other technologies – until we develop alternatives. 

    For once we agree. But I bet we disagree on how this should happen. Me, I want demand and a free market to drive this, because then we will get what is best for the people. When government does it I guarantee you we end up with the shit we have today.

    Cars that run on gasoline should be phased out over the next 10 – 20 years, with a few exceptions – one to two replacement cycles.

    Great idea! As long as the people buying them, the consumers that is, decide this is what they want, without any coercion or perverse incentives to drive them to it. Otherwise no way, I pass. When the technology is really ready and better, it will happen, and because people wanted it. Not before then, and certainly not because some government idiot picks what wins or loses.

    Rockets… um use hydrogen. Aren’t you supposed to be an engineer?

    Erm, solid fuel rockets exist and the solid fuels (along with practically all plastics) come from petroleum. Besides, why limit shit that can go wrong just to oil? Electricity is deadly too, and a lot of it gets generated from fossil fuels. The argument can be made that that should be banned as well.

    Interesting. I haven’t heard much about this before. Why is this the problem of the idiot left?

    Are you being dense on purpose? AGW scaremongers and CO2 shamans are why MTBE was added to fuel. Someone decided to ignore the decade of evidence (it was first used in 1979 I think) that it never broke down, was horribly toxic, and would accumulate over time in water and reach deadly levels, because Carbon Emissions! So in 1990 they passed a law mandating all gas have this crap in it. Then, when they realized the damage and danger of it but a couple of years after it became mandatory to put this shit in gas, it still took more than 15 years to start phasing this shit out.

    If I recall correctly California finally got rid of the stuff just last year. But they got to pretend that the marginal efficiency this produced was worth the decades of hell from the contamination. At least the universe is just in that the place where it is most concentrated and doing most damage is California, where the idiots that straddled us with this Pandora’s box abound.

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    Except your “free market” wouldn’t remotely be free, as that requires ‘perfect information’ and you’d want climate change information buried from the consumer because it’s all fraudulent. So your entire premise is fundamentally flawed.

    Thumb up 0

  35. stogy

    For once we agree. But I bet we disagree on how this should happen. Me, I want demand and a free market to drive this

    Ah no you don’t. You’re only a pretend free-marketeer. A true free market has to take into account the actual costs of externalities. The pretend free market pretends they don’t exist and allows them to distort both prices and democracies. It’s called picking winners and losers, and it is something you believe profoundly in, as you have repeatedly stated.

    Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply