Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

I believe the correct descriptor is “special”.

[Jeff Buchanan]

In re the discussion on gas prices yesterday, this is a great piece from the Heritage Foundation. Never mind this organization's distinctly conservative bias. It makes some great points. One of the central ones is that policy choices made by governments based on the undeniable shift to liberal thought in the last decade add significant costs to energy unrealized at the time these policies choices are made and laws enacted to implement said policy. A shot across the bow of the Biden administration.

https://www.heritage.org/energy-economics/commentary/rising-gas-prices-look-under-the-hood

[iam416]

That would fall into the category of "NFS". But, expensive energy isn't a drawback of liberal policy -- it's the goal.

[AlabamAlum]

It appears so. Here is an article about Biden shutting down oil and gas lease sales. Because, you know, climate change.

https://apnews.com/article/why-is-biden-halting-federal-oil-and-gas-sales-b8f03552c2c2fa7ec0dfc5debeb3f882

[Jeff Buchanan]

That would fall into the category of "NFS". But, expensive energy isn't a drawback of liberal policy -- it's the goal.

Sure ..... the principle reason for linking this piece was to help those on the left that post here see how silly it is to defend a Biden administration's unrestrained green energy policy and it's consequences - mostly unrealized and un-talked about. There is no defense. It's dangerous, costly and liberals and conservatives alike are already feeling the cost of this stupid shit.

[iam416]

Well, it's defensible if your goal is expensive energy. And expensive energy is defensible if you're radically concerned about climate change and want to price out "dangerous" emissions. Further, you can defend certain energy policies as driving varous fuel efficient technology advances, although, there's an obvious market component to that.

It's not defensible, however, to say that "green energy" is just going to replace everything and the same cost. That's just fantasyland. Liberal polices DO make energy more expensive. I think most really honest "progressives" acknowledge as much and would defend the policies as described above.

Now, I happen to think green policy is at odds with human advancement. IMO, cheap, dependable, readily available energy is the absolute core component to human advancement. Perhaps we're now rich enough that we don't need to care as much about the "cheap" part. I don't know. I don't think so and I absolutely think that increasing the costs of energy is absolutely regressive and, as such, completely at odds with the "progressive" economic policies.

[lineygoblue]

As far as the climate change piece of the liberal goal of eliminating fossil fuels for cars, trucks, etc., it seems to me like its a policy of taking away from Pete to pay off Paul.

One of the stated goals of the liberal climate change folks is that if we eliminate vehicles that burn gasoline and diesel fuel, we'll have cleaner air. But, the only alternative to fossil fueled vehicles right now is electric vehicles. Electric vehicles must be recharged. The electric power that comes from the socket that an electric vehicle is charged from, has power that was generated by a power plant that uses natural gas, coal, or in some rare instances, nuclear power. All of those are anathema to the liberal conservationists as well.

So, maybe we need to invest in horses. But, we can't do that either, because its cruel to make a horse (or any animal) do labor that benefits mankind.

I'm all for using clean fueled vehicles. I think fuel cell technology that uses hydrogen is where the real focus should be. But we're not close to making that happen yet. Until that is something that is at hand, I think fossil fuels, properly filtered thru exhaust, are the best way to go. And its the best way for the majority of people to have transportation.

[Da Geezer]

In any conversation, remember that those who believe in anthropogenic global warming vigorously oppose hydroelectric power.

[lineygoblue]

I read last week where some California politicians want Chairman Joe to set a date for the elimination of internal combustion engines. He's probably going to do so, unless he leaves that for President Kamala when she takes over.

But doing that takes away transportation from those who need it the most. Restaurant workers, convenience store personnel and employees of big box stores can't just go out and plop down 80K for an electric vehicle, or even a decent hybrid. They don't have that kind of money. So, you take away their ride to work, and their way of getting around.

"Let them take the bus" ... lol

[Hannibal]

That would fall into the category of "NFS". But, expensive energy isn't a drawback of liberal policy -- it's the goal.

It's not just going to make energy more expensive. It's going to make food more expensive. A lot more expensive. The primary competition with fossil fuels is bean oils and rendered fats, both of which are food. And there is no institutional opposition to any of it. All of the oil majors are fully on board with it now. So are all of the airlines and every major media outlet and university in the country. Exxon just came out with a statement praising Joe Biden for rejoining the Paris accords. BP says that they are going to be "carbon neutral" in 30 years. Bill Gates is telling you to eat soyburgers and he has buying up farmland so that he can get rich off of it. My advice to anyone reading this is to cease resistance and get in on the scam while you still can.

In 20 years, you will be buying gasoline for $20 per gallon and the profits from it will fund sex change operations and the Black Lives Matter brick palette budget.

[Ghengis Jon]

In any conversation, remember that those who believe in anthropogenic global warming vigorously oppose hydroelectric power.

Why would that be? Seems counter intuitive (at a high level) if the design is complementary to the local geography.

[Hannibal]

I read last week where some California politicians want Chairman Joe to set a date for the elimination of internal combustion engines. He's probably going to do so, unless he leaves that for President Kamala when she takes over.

But doing that takes away transportation from those who need it the most. Restaurant workers, convenience store personnel and employees of big box stores can't just go out and plop down 80K for an electric vehicle, or even a decent hybrid. They don't have that kind of money. So, you take away their ride to work, and their way of getting around.

"Let them take the bus" ... lol

California has already set that date. It's going to be hilarious watching a state that wants to build neither power plants nor transmission lines try to electrify their entire vehicle fleet and increase the demand on their grid by 50-fold or so. The electricity that it takes to run your espresso machines and plasma TVs is a tiny portion of what it takes to propel a ton or two of steel at sixty miles an hour on the highway. And it will take 8 hours to charge your vehicle at home. A "fast" charging station like what retail outlets are putting in will give you 100 miles of range or so in a half hour And that's with super lightweight vehicles. Our trucking industry will run great when loaded-up trucks take three times as long to get where they are going because they have to charge up their mega batteries every 100 miles.

[CGVT]

Thank goodness their will never be any changes in technology or all of y'all's hand wringing will all be for naught.

Jesus.

[UMStan White]

"One of the stated goals of the liberal climate change folks is that if we eliminate vehicles that burn gasoline and diesel fuel, we'll have cleaner air. But, the only alternative to fossil fueled vehicles right now is electric vehicles. Electric vehicles must be recharged. The electric power that comes from the socket that an electric vehicle is charged from, has power that was generated by a power plant that uses natural gas, coal, or in some rare instances, nuclear power."

This I agree with. It has always been an issue since the first electric cars were introduced in the 70's

[UMStan White]

""Let them take the bus""

There are millions of people world-wide that get where they need by using mass transit. Hell millions of people in New York get by without a car.