| There are 49 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
"The only way to address climate change substantively is to find clean-energy alternatives that undercut the price of fossil fuels. Yet the Biden administration pours hundreds of billions into inefficient regulations and subsidies, while neglecting research and development on new energy technology." Clean energy alternatives like hydrogen? Investments in R&D or new energy technology like those identified in the DOE's Hydrogen Shot and funded in both the inflation reduction act and the infrastructure bill?
For sure it sucks. We can’t just keep burning dead trees and dinosaurs. The energy transition is a massively complex and tremendously expensive global challenge for humanity acknowledged by experts and governments all around the world. We’ve seen the writing on the wall for decades (see Exxon's climate studies from 1977!) it would have been a lot easier and cheaper to fix if we’d started then and will only get harder and more expensive to mitigate the longer we vacillate. The planned regulations and subsidies may end up being inefficient but who from the other side is offering any credible alternatives? Inefficient progress is better than no progress.
Private enterprise will solve it? Not so far, and check out all the subsidies Tesla relied on to get started and continues to rely on to roll out EV charging infrastructure.
Yes; China are the #1 emitter today, India is building new refineries blah blah blah. All true. But we are by far the largest contributor to historical greenhouse gas emission and have a responsibility and a vested interest in leading the transition as fast as practical and an opportunity to lead in the technologies of the future.
|
|
|
Sounds good but what are you saying we should do?
Continue wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on EV's and their infrastructure?
Or, spend that money more wisely on efforts that will do something more than a rounding error in carbon reduction?
This is classic econ 101.
Where's our best bang for the buck?
For the record, I'm a huge fan of both hydrogen and hybrids.
EV's are a huge waste of precious resources.
Goldman is only in it for the money, they don't give a shit about climate change unless their bottom line gets fatter. Love "Wait, Wait" on NPR, beyond that it's a waste of space.
But, good stuff......keep it coming.
|
|
|
The shrimp boat deckhand Butz would say...
"When in doubt, send more money to Ukraine "
|
|
|
"Inefficient progress is better than no progress."
Absolutely untrue.
Inefficient use of resources (both labor and materials) being pushed by the IRA creates higher prices to consumers, resource misallocation and worse. No different than the Chinese running up massive debt to build thousands of empty high rise apartments now sitting unused. Almost like the "broken window" theory........
A vandal breaks your window or a hurricane wreaks havoc. Great opportunity for vendors to get paid, spread the insurance money around? Not so. Those funds could've been used by you to do something else productive rather than just spinning in place.
Remember that the numbers show that even if we follow the Paris Agreement (which we're not), we make almost NO NET PROGRESS on carbon reduction by 2100.
Gotten sharpen your wits and give us better reasoning.
Some other good stuff though in what you've posted.
|
|
|
"Those funds could've been used by you to do something else productive rather than just spinning in place." As I stated above. I'm more than open to a suggestion of better use of incentives. I just don't see any credible alternatives being suggested by the GOP. The practical major supply chain issues today are electrolizers, transformers and rectifiers; exacerbated by Trumps China tariffs (extended under Biden). You want to nationalize those industries? Lots of lessons learned from Solyndra / solar panels but will we learn from them?
|
|
|
"Remember that the numbers (who's?) show that even if we follow the Paris Agreement (which we're not), we make almost NO NET PROGRESS on carbon reduction by 2100." Great and probably realistic. So basically capitulation? Consequences...? Glad I won't be around to expereince them.
|
|
|
I dont understand how we justify forking out the $3B annually to the Paris Climate agreement when China is still building coal burning energy plants.
We are destroying our economy overnight for an idealized end goal for which the bridge and path forward has not yet been developed to the point of sustainability.
|
|
|
^ Have you seen any indications that either China or India have or will respond to our "leadership"? And what does our "historical greenhouse emissions" have to do with anything? Is there someone out there giving international brownie points? Will brownie points solve climate change?
|
|
|
China and India wont respond to the spirit of these agreements.
Our "history" which is cited purposely makes the US look like the aggressor in this issue which is bullshit.
And call me a conspiracy theorist but when I see govt throwing money at bullshit it's a money laundering scheme.
I mean dont get me wrong... there are problems to solve but right now we have ineptitude putting on clown makeup and pretending to be problem solvers.
|
|
|
Don't forget to tell them about 15 minute cities coming to a town near you. And the 3 Billionaries that bought up a bunch of acreage / farmland next to Travis AFB. Thank God they are not the Chinese.
I remember waking up to those Sheep, couldn't tell if it was the real ones or the PF Animals tape with Sheep starting to play. As the timer kicked on the Stereo.
Oh and it's suppose to be a Utopia for them. Can't seem to find the latest video about them. Lucky you 
.
|
|
|
Who cares... You're writing code, laundering butt hole, or something else?
If it's about global warming, you guys are way worse than any cow, so stop doing bad things
and tell jabba and his little rat to do the same or the planet will die. Also, if you cant spell nasa, you cant be there.
|
|
|
Wasn't Lahaina recently designated as a 15 minute city?...
🔥
|
|
|
Did mankind cause the ice age?
Was it fossil fuel that stopped the ice age?
Does the sun have anything to do with earth's temperature?
Asking for Luo. The Devil Dude.
|
|
|
precious resources..
well isnt fossil fuel also a precious resource, which will eventually dry up.
nuclear or fusion powerplants
EVs are just the beginning
hydrogen vehicles are really just EVs, the hydrogen converts to elec energy - and yes it runs electric motors and stores in a batt
even though the climate change may be up for discussion, the use of fossil fuel will end sooner or later and then its great we have worked so hard to find alternative energy sources.
|
|
|
^ totally agree
We just need to get the idiot money hungry politicians out of the way of real progress on truely sustainable alternatives.
|
|
|
" I just don't see any credible alternatives being suggested by the GOP."
#1 Let's remove party from the discussion. We got the GOP slow-walking, for a very good number of reasons. AND, we got the DNC fast-walking in the wrong direction for a very good number of reasons.
#2 We can all agree that the current amount of carbon IN the system NOW, will STAY in the system into the future, unless we figure out carbon sequestration/removal. NOTHING we do with EV's or any other mainstream tech will remove what's there. All the EV thing does is stop additional carbon being added but it's a rounding error..........even if every vehicle in the US or the World was an EV (practicably impossible), it will still only be a rounding error in reducing the ADDITION of carbon to the system.
#3 The modern world depends on energy, regardless of it's source cause there's nobody that wants to return to cave dwelling (except Progs) and there's more than a few billion people that would like to live like we do, right? AND, it goes far beyond transportation (only 15% of carbon addition).
Suggested reading, "How the World Really Works" by Vaclav Smil, Distinguished Professor Emeritus Environmental Science University of Manitoba. Four pillars of modern civilization; Ammonia, Plastics, Steel, Concrete.
#4 Where should the funding go.............NOT to electrically powered vehicles and NO, hydrogen is NOT the same as an electrical EV. Electrical EV's require a huge transformation in our electrical infrastructure, as Nick says, lots of stuff has to be added to an existing electrical grid to make electric EV's work in just the US........not to mention a world woefully under-powered by a high-tension electrical grid...........billions or even hundreds of billions would need to be invested in just the grid, not to mention the EV chargers, etc. Hydrogen requirements are much different AND EV hybrids are actually a great transition vehicle to the other side.......hybrids make use of the inherently higher energy per weight of fossil fuels than EV batteries (argue all you like about that).
So, to clean out existing carbon, we need NEW technologies and this is where guvmint could be spending the billions currently being wasted on EV's. The Progs fight this approach because to them, this would simply encourage higher energy usage and they want to basically send us back to the stone age.......no bueno!
There are literally dozens of new technologies waiting for funding AND human resources to make the progress we need beyond fossil fuels/EV's
There is no rational person that truly thinks we'll be getting rid of fossil fuels anytime in the next 30 - 50 years........unless fusion energy is perfected on an economical scale for general use......probably the same time frame. So, let's STOP pretending about the "end of fossil fuels" and get real. Lastly on this issue, fossil fuel peak production has been foretold for over 100 years........we are NOT there yet and will NOT be for many many years due to technological progress.
There ARE alternatives but NOT if we allow the guvmint to essentially JAM us into a course that the IRA proposes.........it is garbage law and it is garbage science.
|
|
|
Another resource, see link.
Remember this, even is every vehicle in the world were to magically change into an EV AND we had the infrastructure to support it (which we are far from currently)..........
#1 Existing carbon will NOT be removed from the system
#2 It would be a rounding error in the reduction of carbon addition to the system
It's a very bad deal and makes NO economic sense.
Especially if you add in the damage done by resourcing all the materials needed to create a billion EV batteries, landfill, recycle, etc.
Should I even mention that a great deal of these resources are controlled by guvmints that are inimical to the US???
Let's NOT be like the Progs, let's be smart instead!!!
|
|
|
oops, forgot...........
|
|
|
College students > hx libtards
|
|
|
hydrogen vehicles are really just EVs, NOPE
The similarity is that they both have motors that run on electrical energy. And that is where the similarity stops.
You can 'fill up' your hydrogen vehicle in about 5 minutes like a gasoline vehicle.
There is NO drop in driving range or increased 'charging time' due to cold weather.
The battery is very small, like that of a hybrid, to be able to use regenerative braking to recapture wasted energy as it slows down and to allow for greater acceleration in times of need.
Use of resources for hydrogen vehicles is FAR less than an EV.
But our government has decided to make EVs the winner and not allow other technologies to proceed and win if they are better.
|
|
|
you gays are splitting hairs.
hydrogen cars are propelled by an electric motor, hooked up to a battery similar to that of an EV, alas the batt is smaller.
in 2015 I was very close to getting the Toyota hydrogen car, then i found out that essentially I could not get to Phoenix because the range on one fill was not enough and there was no filling station midway.
the resources to build batteries is essentially the same materials, just more is needed for fully EVs.
but like anything there will be improvements to the EV and its cycle, someone will buy up the used batts and find a way to re=generate them and then new ways will be found to build even more efficient batteries, step by step the EV will become what we want it to become.
this is the way
|
|
|
Restrictions on oil production, cap and trade, emissions taxes and regulations, etc., are the only thing that works to incentivize private corporations to move toward clean energy, along with clean energy subsidies. You're right, this is classic economics 101. Our goal is to make unclean energy expensive to produce and give clean energy a competitive advantage. You can't just issue a Paris Accord without some economic coercion and expect capitalists to prioritize a vague agreement over shareholders.
While regulations increase price in the short term, they make the planet livable in the long term. If you're a boomer and you don't give a shit about your children or grandchildren's futures, then I can see why you'd be upset that your money is essentially subsidizing the future. I guess if America could crash and burn as long as you got to spend your last cent before the end, then the concept of a society itself seems like "theft". But of course, Gen Z and beyond are the ones that have to live with the consequences, so it only makes sense that they push for clean energy if they aren't suicidal or stupid.
|
|
|
"Carbon removal"
No amount of technology could save the planet if there isn't the policy in place to convince people to live more efficiently. Technology could never outpace the destruction by itself. This was written about in the Garrett Hardin's classic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Even when carbon removal becomes possible en masse there will still be people whining about our deficit and say we can't afford it because they'd prefer our tax dollars go to the globalist corporations instead, just so they could go broke living vicariously through the next issue of Forbes.
|
|
|
the resources to build batteries is essentially the same materials, just more is needed for fully EVs.
Yeah, about 10 times or more.......per vehicle.
|
|
|
I just typed in “fix climate change” into Chat GPT.
It said “kill off about 4 billion people.”
Now I’m asking it for an algorithm to sort people by merit…
It’s still working.
|
|
|
Good dialogue. Massive challenges for sure with no clear answers. For California (the only state with any Hydrogen fueling stations – except one in Hawaii), the country and the world.
The Advanced Clean Transportation Expo was in Anaheim earlier this year. Lots of interesting tech’ like Nikola with both BEV and FCEV trucks. As far as I could tell, the current industry consensus for transportation is electrification where practical, essentially Battery Electrical Vehicles for cars where you can live with their range, weight and charging times. Hydrogen electric vehicles (mostly fuel cell electric but potentially some hydrogen burning engines) for long distance trucks, heavy duty vehicles (mining etc.), long distance buses etc.
Balancing the supply and demand for hydrogen and building the associated infrastructure for charging and fueling for all EV’s are daunting challenges and won’t happen without a clear plan, government support (through multiple administrations) and industry collaboration to say nothing of consumers signing up.
My bet is we are probably screwed.
|
|
|
^ right on, screwed it is most likely
"Our goal is to make unclean energy expensive to produce and give clean energy a competitive advantage."
Poor raki, it's back to class for you.
You didn't get the point of this whole discussion, lol.
Dislocations in the marketplace and misallocation of resources due to the overly heavy hand of guvmint.......sheesh dude. Did you always fall asleep in class?
In essence, you're saying "fuck you" to everyone from the middle class on down, so what if your cost of living is more expensive you poor schmuck......we're PRETENDING to save the world over here.
And, how did you completely miss the point of "Tragedy of the Commons"........wow....just wow.
Nick, good input on that local stuff but one point on this "current industry consensus for transportation is electrification". This is so because both CA and the Feds have so skewed the playing field. The majors lose a pile of money on every EV, so subsidize those losses by selling high end pickups and SUV's.........completely defeating the purpose of the EV. As a car company, you'd have to be a fool to fight the two entities that determine if you live or die.
Even with the huge subsidy, most people DON'T want an EV.
Guvmint policy run amok for almost no net carbon benefit, very sad.
"Screwed" is our new word of the day.
|
|
|
"But our government has decided to make EVs the winner and not allow other technologies to proceed and win if they are better."
Holy Fuck!
Read this ten times or until you sell your EV, it is pure gold.
Thank you.
|
|
|
It makes very little sense to assert that EVs can never reach price parity for consumers because, essentially, they already have. And I do not just mean Tesla, which is the only company that actually takes them seriously, just like Ford used to be the only person who took the internal combustion engine seriously. In 1900 only 22% of cars were gasoline. 38% were electric. The others were steam. Porsche and Edison were very pro electric.
Anyways. Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt make clear profits and good cars. The fact of the matter is that corporations never do anything for a loss, even if it looks like they are losing for the time being.
Further more, if we spend all our time focusing on the cost of EV subsidies and not the much higher costs of fossil fuel subsidies, then we are not truly calculating which of these technologies has higher actual costs.
|
|
|
As usual, Hey0 did zero homework and led with his politics, not his reasonoing.......but he makes one valid point.
First, both the Leaf and Bolt lose money and are being discontinued:
"The Bolt is not a money-maker for GM
The Bolt was an investment in building an EV ecosystem. Early reports had GM losing $9,000 per vehicle sold. Recalls have been costly. We don't have the exact figures. But it's safe to say that the Bolt and Bolt EV are not mission-critical (and may even be mission-detrimental) to GM turning a profit on EVs by 2025."
Same for the Leaf.
The valid point?
Fossil fuel subsidies vs. EV subsidies, both skew the playing field and should be proscribed, or at least, very curtailed.
Regardless, EV's still do not make more than a rounding error effect on global carbon. No matter how you slice and dice it, without massive tax incentives and subsidies....EV's are a dead end that very few people want. And, all of us are subsidizing the few that buy them.
We can do better, but you'll have to leave your politics and your virtual signaling at the door.
|
|
|
Ignoring the global percentages and challenges a minute for simplicity’s sake. Transportation accounts for approximately 28% of US greenhouse gas emissions according to the EPA. Between BEV and FCEV we can (at significant cost for sure but with no practical alternatives I'm aware of today) eliminate those emissions. BEV and FCEV's, at mass production scale, are inherently less mechanically complex than combustion engine based vehicles and shouldn’t cost more or have a worse user experience once the big three ramp up production.
Challenges abound transitioning from PetroStates to ElectroStates for sure. We may have to kiss the DRC’s ass the way we have Saudi’s for decades but the realpolitik sucks either way.
At least with hydrogen it’s water in and water out and depending on the electrolyzer technology can be 100% clean energy independent.
|
|
|
"in 2015 I was very close to getting the Toyota hydrogen car, then i found out that essentially I could not get to Phoenix because the range on one fill was not enough and there was no filling station midway."
If we'd started spending a fraction then of what we've spent on electrical EV's since then.......
We'd have converted enough gas stations to make a cross country trip easy.
Am I the only one that read the article by yhe journalist that went 1,100 miles by EV?
Took her something like 3 days due to standard charging times and over half the chargers along the way......if I find it I'll post it.
My neighbor has a Ford EV pickup.....and hates it, lol. Forced to drive it by his company, says its a POS.
|
|
|
As I said "Balancing the supply and demand for hydrogen and building the associated infrastructure for charging and fueling for all EV’s are daunting challenges and won’t happen without a clear plan, government support (through multiple administrations) and industry collaboration to say nothing of consumers signing up."
There are something like 5,000 fueling stations for trucks in the US that will need to be supplemented with Hydrogen fueling for trucks and many many more need with EV charging points for cars. I agree that we would be absolutely better off if we’d taken this seriously in 2015, or way earlier. As I and many other did.
We’ve known this challenge is coming for decades and every day we delay just makes it harder to fix.
Basically, due to continued denial and inaction we are screwed.
|
|
|
If we had a decent hydrogen network, I'd seriously consider the Hyundai Nexo.
But, hydrogen production is primarily from natural gas, there we are back to fossil fuels, lol
The guvmint should be in the business of flattening the playing field, then let the best man win.
Instead, what they've done is pick the winner, then start beating us over the head......and yet, most people still don't want an EV.
Meanwhile, impoverishing the lower income Californian along the way. Every Prog will tell you they really care about the downtrodden and will join your march down the street. It's an intellectual exercise only, in reality they disdain these people as lesser human beings. If they can't afford to live here.....fuck 'em, move out.
Oh, by the way, your rent, taxes, food and gas are going up again.
Why the fuck you think we have so many homeless?
Poor decision making exemplified by the IRA boondoggle and unhealthy obsession with EV's is a perfect example.
|
|
|
Cannot disagree with your assessment in that last post, nick.
|
|
|
Ooops......
"over half the chargers along the way were broken or otherwise dysfunctional"
|
|
|
Regarding the 250 word opinion in the original post written by the Hitler Youth for Murdochs flagship paper, well, this is what happens when an idiot quotes an idiot.
Her piece is filled with wild assertions.
Her: the Biden administration is making performative sacrifices to climate-change deities and undermining national security.
I do not know what a climate change deity is, unless she means the 97% of climate scientists who agree that humans are causing global warming. As far as undermining national security goes both Rand and the Pentagon have implored Congress to take action on climate change for national security purposes.
Her: Restrictions on domestic oil production do almost nothing to combat global warming.
This is just stupid. GHG emissions from fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change. Yes, we have relatively clean carbon energy compared to some countries, but it all is bad. It certainly is not nothing.
Her: Yet the Biden administration pours hundreds of billions into inefficient regulations and subsidies, while neglecting research and development on new energy technology.
Okay. Now she is not even trying.
Commit to cut total greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030. Achieved.
Pass a major climate-smart economic stimulus package after COVID. Achieved.
Tackle super pollutants. Achieved.
Require all new passenger vehicles sold after 2035 to produce zero emissions. Significant Progress.
Scale up carbon dioxide removal. Significant Progress.
Only taxing pollution is the most significant step left to take.
Her: This restricts domestic supply, increases prices and weakens Western economies. It also bankrolls our adversaries. Russia depends on higher oil prices to finance its war.
Completely fucking wrong.
Russia fossil fuel export earnings hit the lowest monthly value since the beginning of the invasion.
Russia fossil fuel export revenues fell for the third consecutive month to EUR 591 mn per day in June 2023, 8% lower than May and 18% below April levels.
The largest drop in Russia fossil fuel export value was in seaborne crude oil, falling EUR 24 mn per day (-12%) in June compared to May 2023.
Russian fossil fuel exports to China are down 15% in value terms for June 2023 compared to May, whilst falling by 24% to India compared to the prior month.
Her: Mr. Biden has also drawn down the strategic petroleum reserve and, more recently, allowed huge Iranian oil sales to China.
No. Just no. The sanctions against Iran have not changed one iota from Trump to Biden. Iran employs a range of evasion tactics to circumvent sanctions and conceal shipments bound for China. We do what we can, but we can not be everywhere all at once. Under any administration.
|
|
|
Goebbels they are both being replaced by next generation EV models, just like car companies have always done for nearly a century with combustible engine models.
No Homo Sapien can biologically be as stupid as you, even in cases of incest. So you are either performance art tragically misconceived or a foreign agent trying to exaggerate the common conception of the American Idiot.
|
|
|
Yeesh, almost everything you've posted is easily rebuttable.
Take the whole Russia oil garbage.
Oil prices are obviously higher hence almost $7 gas, oil closing in on $100bbl
Artificial oil price caps at $60bbl have reduced russian oil revenue and that has nothing to do with Biden oil restrictions/price rise.
Look, Hey0.....I'm not spending the next 20 minutes posting answers to your politically driven agenda.
Just remember.....you've never been NOT wrong.
Ergo, what you post has a high likelihood of being 99% wrong.......again.
|
|
|
"Commit to cut total greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030. Achieved.
Pass a major climate-smart economic stimulus package after COVID. Achieved.
Tackle super pollutants. Achieved.
Require all new passenger vehicles sold after 2035 to produce zero emissions. Significant Progress.
Scale up carbon dioxide removal. Significant Progress.
Only taxing pollution is the most significant step left to take."
).gif)
Only a partisan imbecilic halfwit believes any of that crap.
Commit this, tackle that, require this, scale up that......you're a joke Hey0
All you gotta know is the US and the world ain't getting to the goal they've set......
BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION.
Regardless all your grandstanding, virtue signaling, poverty inflicting bullshit.
Irrational true believers like you are the bane of the planet
You sound like Greta spewing spittle while her butt plug gets dislodged
|
|
|
My apologies to the rest of the posters for allowing Hey0 to "dumb down" the blog.
Unfortunately, there's no way to prevent the riff raff from posting
Sad
|
|
|
I think the reason why battery electric vehicles have been favored over hydrogen, hybrids, diesel, etc.. is because of efficiency. In terms of energy produced that is transformed into kinetic energy, battery powered vehicles are much more efficient.
Now, just. focusing on efficiency may be overlooking factors already mentioned in this thread such as infrastructure, charging/fueling time, dependency on rare earth metals, energy-expensive manufacturing, etc...
|
|
|
I’ll add a couple things:
Goebbels quoted conservative propaganda, claiming to be a female Gen-Zer to make it more palatable, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
As I posted in another blog, Biden hasn’t restricted domestic oil production. The amount of oil being produced domestically is more than when Trump was president. This country has never produced more oil than we do today, and we produce more oil than any other country including Saudi Arabia. So this statement is complete bullshit.
So if that assertion is flat out false, I don’t trust anything this person writes. For example, she also writes:
“If the U.S. and other countries implemented their commitments under the Paris Agreement from 2030 onward, it would cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion a year and only reduce the global temperature increase by 0.05 degree Fahrenheit by 2100.”
That’s obviously false and she pulls that temperature reduction number out of her ass. I had to find two sources to get the actual projected numbers (linked).
“For starters, in a high-emission scenario, the global temperature would rise by 3.3 to 5.7ºC by the end of this century, according to estimates in the IPCC report.”
“Long-term temperature goal (Art. 2) – The Paris Agreement, in seeking to strengthen the global response to climate change, reaffirms the goal of limiting global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.“
As most of you know, any increase in the temperature of ocean waters creates bigger and more frequent hurricanes. Reducing the projected temperature increase by 50% or more appears to be the target of the Paris Agreement, which would be a substantial achievement. Of course it isn’t 0.05 degree Fahrenheit that was alleged. That’s just pure stupidity and an outright fabrication. Countries all over the world agreed to spend $70 to $140 trillion to reduce global warming by a tiny fraction of one degree Fahrenheit? Come on.
Any investment in alternative energy will result in more expensive options that will decrease in price over time. The first Teslas were priced at $100,000 to $128,000. It had to be that expensive to justify investment in the technology. As EV producing companies become more efficient and develop better technologies, unit prices will drop significantly. Beyond EVs, other technologies need to be tested and developed. Investments made now will pay off handsomely in the future. Simply looking at those investments as a waste is meant to justify continued reliance on fossil fuels.
|
|
|
That is nice.
Now address China. They don't care so what is your fix?
|
|
|
You’re right. Fuck it. Let’s all do nothing. Right?
That’s old oil company propaganda meant to discourage US participation because “why should we shoulder the burden when other countries (especially China) doesn’t care.”
China actually does care about climate change and is particular vulnerable to it. They actually want to dominate the sustainable energy sector, including producing more EVs than any other country. They already make 50% of all Teslas.
|
|
|
If you wanna make something work, adjust the Earth rotation to get it farther away from the sun..
What you're doing now is pissing in the wind.
|
|
|
^ chimp
|
|
|
Did any of you live in LA in the 70’s and 80’s? Remember being near Pasadena and not being able to see the hills a few miles away? Didn’t you just love those smog alerts?
I’m sure your families also criticized reduced car emissions because who gives a shit about what we breathe, right?
Maybe regulations are actually necessary for the greater good. Stop being shortsighted and start thinking beyond the immediate year or two.
|
|
|
M1A
Years ago when this country was pretty well represented by the Constitution.
We had almost free speech.
My take on mankind . A bunch of greedy, egotistical, sobs.
They jump on shit and down the road that great idea is a cluster fuck. Resolving nothing, but creating ten more problems.
The materials for batteries are mined for profit. Who is the watchdog on that front?
China, the Cartel will do anything for profit. Shit the Cartel controls avocados.
Disposing of the used batteries. How do you not screw up Earth ?
When an entity proves they have their shit together I'll listen. To date nope.
No one has their ducks in a row. They think trial and error is great, while fucking the planet for profit is ok.
Name calling in a discussion is for the chosen ones.
And M1A was not a mistake.
|
| There are 49 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
