Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, notsonice said: no surprise you do not bother to include a link or the whole story..... the next point made in the article is ".. https://www.carscoops.com/2024/09/americans-increasingly-dont-believe-evs-are-cleaner-than-ice-cars/#:~:text=The number of American drivers,percent in 2022%2C Ipsos found. Even factoring in electricity production and mining for battery minerals, EVs have been proven in multiple studies to be greener overall. love it that you could not post the next point...shows how fragile of a Drama Queen you are and lets look at the bigger picture ....you should do that once in a while https://www.autoremarketing.com/ar/analysis/survey-ev-owners-are-eager-to-come-back-for-more/ the highlight showed 77% of those who don’t already have an EV and are considering buying or leasing a car in the next 12 months are considering a battery electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle. Clunkers are doomed Friday, Sep. 6, 2024, 01:04 PM Auto Remarketing Staff FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailShare Owners of electric vehicles are ready to come back for more. The 2024 EV Driver Survey, conducted early this year by nonprofit organizations Plug In America and EPRI, found 89% of EV owners said they are likely or very likely to purchase an EV as their next vehicle, a result Plug In America said has been consistent since the survey was first done in 2021. And among Tesla drivers and EV drivers age 65 and older, more than 90% of the respondents said their next vehicle would likely be an EV. The survey of more than 4,200 consumers, including more than 3,300 EV drivers, showed 77% of those who don’t already have an EV and are considering buying or leasing a car in the next 12 months are considering a battery electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle. The study has nothing to do with buyer intentions, which are extremely vague in any event, but with the perceived environmental impact of switching from fossil fuel vehicles to EV. I guess you have trouble with that. Edited October 23 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 47 minutes ago, notsonice said: Progaganda is no substitute for research??? you did not even address the articles...... and then you post your standard Drama Queen BS babble I have already shown you the reduction in air particulates from better technology????? Yeah the reduction of the use of Coal also means the reduction in air particulates..... the last 15 years in the US is proof... Higher MPG vehicles results in less pollution.......EVs and Plug in hyrbids means even less pollution than your beloved clunkers put out and you are against tougher emission standards.. which means your clunkers are sent to the crushers....or getting rid of the sale of clunkers....and you get all giddy when coal is used .... shows how mentally challenged you are Any reduction is certainly not due to more EVs, but rather better technology in fossil fuel equipment and vehicles. I guess you missed that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 23 20 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Says the Non-Economist...I have heard that same assessment before from other non-economists. Like your employers? My alma mater offers economics under arts not science. https://www.ualberta.ca/en/undergraduate-programs/bachelor-of-arts-with-honors-economics.html 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 23 4 hours ago, Ecocharger said: No, smoking is in the first instance interior to the human body and not included in the stats. Further it is resistant to new technology, thus not responding over time to technological change. Have you heard of a vape pen? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 23 5 hours ago, Ecocharger said: No, it is called The Economist and is not written by economists. You are correct; the author of that article on The Economist calls himself a statistician and political scientist. However, he also has publications in economics journals so.... http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM October 23 56 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: You are correct; the author of that article on The Economist calls himself a statistician and political scientist. However, he also has publications in economics journals so.... http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/ political scientist????? hmmmmm ....poly sci in college.......for those who do not know what they want to do with their life....A useless Liberal arts degree....nothing to do with science 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP October 23 10 hours ago, Ecocharger said: You mean that a drastically reducing share of Americans are being fooled by the standard propaganda line? Yes, that appears to be the case. But there are still one or two die-hards who will fight to the end despite the science. Right, Rob? No not right at all. Its not "1 or 2 diehards" its 58% of the population, so you are in the minority, thats a fact, enjoy! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 (edited) Just now, Rob Plant said: No not right at all. Its not "1 or 2 diehards" its 58% of the population, so you are in the minority, thats a fact, enjoy! I think that you better enjoy while you still can, given the continuing drop in your numbers. Edited October 23 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 23 (edited) It appears that the election is already falling into place. Do I smell the clean air of Freedom of Transportation coming down? https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Gold-Surges-to-New-Highs-Amidst-Trump-Trade-Momentum.html "So with all that said - and ignored - the market is now transfixed on the election... and the bets are one-way... on Trump... Source: Bloomberg Prediction markets are soaring in Trump's favor and even the polls are swinging higher now... Edited October 23 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 24 31 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: It appears that the election is already falling into place. Do I smell the clean air of Freedom of Transportation coming down? The clean air you might smell will be from more EVs. Did you see rich Musk jumping around on stage with Trump? If you think that a Trump victory will hurt EV sales you need to think harder. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 24 On 10/22/2024 at 6:25 PM, Ecocharger said: No, smoking is in the first instance interior to the human body and not included in the stats. Further it is resistant to new technology, thus not responding over time to technological change. Didn't hear back from you about the vape pens. Embarrassed again? 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 24 (edited) It appears that oil is experiencing an all-time high market demand in spite of the depressed demand conditions of the present day. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Standard-Chartered-Global-Oil-Demand-Hit-An-All-Time-High-In-August.html "The analysts have been able to calculate global demand after the release of the latest Joint Organisations Data Initiative (JODI) data on October 17, and concluded that demand hit an all-time high of 103.79 million barrels per day (mb/d) in August, an upwards surprise of about 450 thousand barrels per day (kb/d) above their (pre-JODI data release) forecast. August becomes the third successive month in which a new all-time demand high has been set, " Edited October 24 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: The clean air you might smell will be from more EVs. Did you see rich Musk jumping around on stage with Trump? If you think that a Trump victory will hurt EV sales you need to think harder. There will be no government challenges to fossil fuel vehicles. Edited October 24 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 October 24 On 10/1/2024 at 2:56 AM, notsonice said: Natural gas destroyed coal long before any wind turbines or solar plants???? notice the peak in coal nat gas combined in 2007....same year that Wind Generation took off.......total nat gas/coal has decreased every since...... and overall net generation has been flat since 2007 , now you still think that nat gas alone is destroying Coal?????? and now renewables are taking on Nat gas generation in the US,,,,,,, Same as the UK............ Now where did the Luddite that keeps crying Coal is King run off to??????? PS and the Coal miners friend in the US who claimed in 2015 that he was going to reverse the decline???? , he did nothing to stop the slide in coal, all BS talk But it has cost consumers way too much. Natural gas is the better choice for price to the consumers. Wind and solar are good if made in Western countries or ones that are not our international rivals like China is. We need to quit subsidizing them at all though and include the price of needed transmission lines, etc. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 24 1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said: But it has cost consumers way too much. Natural gas is the better choice for price to the consumers. Wind and solar are good if made in Western countries or ones that are not our international rivals like China is. We need to quit subsidizing them at all though and include the price of needed transmission lines, etc. Abandoning free market capitalism. 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM October 24 1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said: But it has cost consumers way too much. Natural gas is the better choice for price to the consumers. Wind and solar are good if made in Western countries or ones that are not our international rivals like China is. We need to quit subsidizing them at all though and include the price of needed transmission lines, etc. But it has cost consumers way too much????? and yet you post nothing to back up your claim the wind belt in the US has the lowest cost electricity...take a look at the wind states ...they all have electricity costs that are less than the US average US Electricity Profile 2023 Name Average retail price (cents/kWh) Net summer capacity (MW) Net generation (MWh) Total retail sales (MWh) Alabama 11.47 31,097 139,435,010 84,880,359 Alaska 21.41 2,821 6,717,825 6,024,598 Arizona 12.19 29,885 111,838,736 85,918,798 Arkansas 9.73 15,062 63,195,647 48,649,300 California 24.87 90,375 216,628,794 239,480,452 Colorado 11.76 19,541 57,541,720 55,565,819 Connecticut 24.24 9,936 40,666,418 26,685,176 Delaware 12.85 3,296 4,772,059 11,081,671 District of Columbia 16.50 52 171,870 9,879,714 Florida 13.53 68,723 259,798,479 250,940,214 Georgia 11.06 37,786 129,221,513 142,028,831 Hawaii 38.60 3,222 9,194,164 8,927,252 Idaho 9.08 5,353 17,842,446 25,673,977 Illinois 11.75 45,419 177,737,641 130,578,217 Indiana 11.49 26,578 90,046,880 95,995,350 Iowa 9.42 22,706 69,836,973 54,400,259 Kansas 10.80 19,197 58,456,598 41,052,008 Kentucky 9.96 18,336 63,217,080 71,223,021 Louisiana 8.91 24,963 97,784,565 95,374,457 Maine 20.84 5,252 12,512,181 11,336,030 Maryland 14.34 11,924 36,000,650 57,033,085 Massachusetts 23.21 12,850 19,695,884 50,011,964 Michigan 13.68 31,120 120,656,625 97,588,690 Minnesota 12.21 17,842 57,276,862 66,215,800 Mississippi 10.95 14,833 72,933,440 48,421,762 Missouri 10.87 21,172 66,703,285 76,975,799 Montana 10.97 6,698 26,895,758 15,504,699 Nebraska 9.14 10,781 39,445,955 33,571,199 Nevada 13.09 14,536 42,164,375 38,249,355 New Hampshire 22.96 4,467 16,824,999 10,631,313 New Jersey 15.27 16,838 64,228,924 71,096,939 New Mexico 9.47 10,724 39,269,073 28,347,490 New York 18.28 40,230 124,039,988 139,421,936 North Carolina 10.61 35,864 126,553,394 133,091,108 North Dakota 8.03 9,402 42,068,807 28,202,179 Ohio 11.04 29,104 133,223,464 146,640,983 Oklahoma 9.30 31,690 89,236,024 68,978,840 Oregon 10.32 17,469 61,691,869 57,984,962 Pennsylvania 12.57 48,526 235,924,937 138,710,993 Rhode Island 21.62 2,289 10,430,846 7,300,788 South Carolina 10.50 24,422 100,853,387 81,202,185 South Dakota 10.49 6,799 17,436,158 13,505,999 Tennessee 10.69 20,924 77,791,204 99,046,005 Texas 10.04 155,010 547,294,552 492,820,385 Utah 9.03 9,710 33,496,554 33,343,537 Vermont 17.53 856 2,480,199 5,364,023 Virginia 10.68 28,218 91,059,344 132,318,505 Washington 9.58 30,884 102,960,605 89,552,630 West Virginia 10.26 15,005 52,286,784 32,070,687 Wisconsin 12.72 17,580 62,548,705 68,563,904 Wyoming 8.39 10,192 43,181,420 16,790,115 U.S. Total 12.68 1,187,555 4,183,270,672 3,874,253,362 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 24 (edited) 12 hours ago, notsonice said: But it has cost consumers way too much????? and yet you post nothing to back up your claim the wind belt in the US has the lowest cost electricity...take a look at the wind states ...they all have electricity costs that are less than the US average US Electricity Profile 2023 Name Average retail price (cents/kWh) Net summer capacity (MW) Net generation (MWh) Total retail sales (MWh) Alabama 11.47 31,097 139,435,010 84,880,359 Alaska 21.41 2,821 6,717,825 6,024,598 Arizona 12.19 29,885 111,838,736 85,918,798 Arkansas 9.73 15,062 63,195,647 48,649,300 California 24.87 90,375 216,628,794 239,480,452 Colorado 11.76 19,541 57,541,720 55,565,819 Connecticut 24.24 9,936 40,666,418 26,685,176 Delaware 12.85 3,296 4,772,059 11,081,671 District of Columbia 16.50 52 171,870 9,879,714 Florida 13.53 68,723 259,798,479 250,940,214 Georgia 11.06 37,786 129,221,513 142,028,831 Hawaii 38.60 3,222 9,194,164 8,927,252 Idaho 9.08 5,353 17,842,446 25,673,977 Illinois 11.75 45,419 177,737,641 130,578,217 Indiana 11.49 26,578 90,046,880 95,995,350 Iowa 9.42 22,706 69,836,973 54,400,259 Kansas 10.80 19,197 58,456,598 41,052,008 Kentucky 9.96 18,336 63,217,080 71,223,021 Louisiana 8.91 24,963 97,784,565 95,374,457 Maine 20.84 5,252 12,512,181 11,336,030 Maryland 14.34 11,924 36,000,650 57,033,085 Massachusetts 23.21 12,850 19,695,884 50,011,964 Michigan 13.68 31,120 120,656,625 97,588,690 Minnesota 12.21 17,842 57,276,862 66,215,800 Mississippi 10.95 14,833 72,933,440 48,421,762 Missouri 10.87 21,172 66,703,285 76,975,799 Montana 10.97 6,698 26,895,758 15,504,699 Nebraska 9.14 10,781 39,445,955 33,571,199 Nevada 13.09 14,536 42,164,375 38,249,355 New Hampshire 22.96 4,467 16,824,999 10,631,313 New Jersey 15.27 16,838 64,228,924 71,096,939 New Mexico 9.47 10,724 39,269,073 28,347,490 New York 18.28 40,230 124,039,988 139,421,936 North Carolina 10.61 35,864 126,553,394 133,091,108 North Dakota 8.03 9,402 42,068,807 28,202,179 Ohio 11.04 29,104 133,223,464 146,640,983 Oklahoma 9.30 31,690 89,236,024 68,978,840 Oregon 10.32 17,469 61,691,869 57,984,962 Pennsylvania 12.57 48,526 235,924,937 138,710,993 Rhode Island 21.62 2,289 10,430,846 7,300,788 South Carolina 10.50 24,422 100,853,387 81,202,185 South Dakota 10.49 6,799 17,436,158 13,505,999 Tennessee 10.69 20,924 77,791,204 99,046,005 Texas 10.04 155,010 547,294,552 492,820,385 Utah 9.03 9,710 33,496,554 33,343,537 Vermont 17.53 856 2,480,199 5,364,023 Virginia 10.68 28,218 91,059,344 132,318,505 Washington 9.58 30,884 102,960,605 89,552,630 West Virginia 10.26 15,005 52,286,784 32,070,687 Wisconsin 12.72 17,580 62,548,705 68,563,904 Wyoming 8.39 10,192 43,181,420 16,790,115 U.S. Total 12.68 1,187,555 4,183,270,672 3,874,253,362 These are only retail costs, not social costs, needless to say. Edited October 24 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM October 25 (edited) On 10/24/2024 at 10:44 AM, Ecocharger said: These are only retail costs, not social costs, needless to say. tell us Mr Econ as retail costs for electricity go down because of wind and solar...........how does the social costs go?????? from the EPA The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the social cost of electricity generated from coal is nearly 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). One estimate put the total cost of coal's externalities at 17.84 cents per kWh, while another estimate put it at between 9.42 cents and 26.89 cents per kWh. so you want to discuss .......they have a name for it......The social cost of carbon (SCC)....yep they study the crap out of it and it does not help those that love Coal or Oil in making a case against renewables... do you think less air pollution has a negative social affect????????? or are you only concerned with less coal being mined???? How do you think the last two whopper hurricanes in Florida this past month affected your Social costs babble???? you post These are only retail costs, not social costs, needless to say ......and then you do not even bother to discuss social costs.......guess that is what one would expect out of low IQ econ grad such as yourself..... I would think that clean cheaper electricity, is much better than dirty coal based electricity production, socially that is ....unless you like smog and years chopped off of your life expectancy The social cost of burning coal is the cost to society of the damage caused by coal-fired power plants, and it includes a number of factors: Climate change Coal-fired power plants release greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, which can lead to billions of dollars in costs to deal with the effects, such as wildfires and flooding. Health Coal-fired power plants release air pollutants that can cause health problems, including illnesses and premature mortality. Water Coal plants compete with farmers for water resources, which can lead to political tensions and social unrest. Economy The costs of climate change can lead to rising insurance costs and other economic damages. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the social cost of electricity generated from coal is nearly 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, other estimates vary depending on the scope and assumptions of the study. For example, one estimate put the total cost of coal's externalities at 17.84 cents per kWh, while another estimate put it at between 9.42 cents and 26.89 cents per kWh. The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a metric used to inform federal decision-making on environmental policies. The SCC is calculated using integrated assessment models that simulate the impact of an extra ton of emissions on the climate and the resulting damage to the economy and human welfare. Edited October 25 by notsonice 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 26 (edited) 6 hours ago, notsonice said: tell us Mr Econ as retail costs for electricity go down because of wind and solar...........how does the social costs go?????? from the EPA The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the social cost of electricity generated from coal is nearly 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). One estimate put the total cost of coal's externalities at 17.84 cents per kWh, while another estimate put it at between 9.42 cents and 26.89 cents per kWh. so you want to discuss .......they have a name for it......The social cost of carbon (SCC)....yep they study the crap out of it and it does not help those that love Coal or Oil in making a case against renewables... do you think less air pollution has a negative social affect????????? or are you only concerned with less coal being mined???? How do you think the last two whopper hurricanes in Florida this past month affected your Social costs babble???? you post These are only retail costs, not social costs, needless to say ......and then you do not even bother to discuss social costs.......guess that is what one would expect out of low IQ econ grad such as yourself..... I would think that clean cheaper electricity, is much better than dirty coal based electricity production, socially that is ....unless you like smog and years chopped off of your life expectancy The social cost of burning coal is the cost to society of the damage caused by coal-fired power plants, and it includes a number of factors: Climate change Coal-fired power plants release greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, which can lead to billions of dollars in costs to deal with the effects, such as wildfires and flooding. Health Coal-fired power plants release air pollutants that can cause health problems, including illnesses and premature mortality. Water Coal plants compete with farmers for water resources, which can lead to political tensions and social unrest. Economy The costs of climate change can lead to rising insurance costs and other economic damages. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the social cost of electricity generated from coal is nearly 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, other estimates vary depending on the scope and assumptions of the study. For example, one estimate put the total cost of coal's externalities at 17.84 cents per kWh, while another estimate put it at between 9.42 cents and 26.89 cents per kWh. The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a metric used to inform federal decision-making on environmental policies. The SCC is calculated using integrated assessment models that simulate the impact of an extra ton of emissions on the climate and the resulting damage to the economy and human welfare. Well, as a non-Economist, you cannot absorb the concept of social cost, which is foreign to you, obviously. You have tried here to switch the conversation away from your own chart above. The "estimates" of social costs for non-electrical energy and fossil fuel energy from an extreme biased source is what I would expect from you. The actual monetary government costs of EVs and electricity are available, should they ever be effectively tabulated. Also the major costs of misallocation of investments into electricity and EVs. Edited October 26 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 26 So it appears that fossil fuel cars will be the transportation of choice going forward. The bad old days of using coercion and threats to control the choices which people make on their personal transportation vehicles will be thrown out. https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/10/16/presidential-election-odds-2024-betting-polls-donald-trump/75684287007/ "Trump's odds of winning rise as his lead widens in battleground polling Real Clear Politics' analysis shows 104 electoral votes in nine states remain toss-ups. But if the election were based on current polling in those states, Trump and Ohio Sen. JD Vance would easily surpass the necessary 270 electoral college votes." 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM October 26 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Well, as a non-Economist, you cannot absorb the concept of social cost, which is foreign to you, obviously. You have tried here to switch the conversation away from your own chart above. The "estimates" of social costs for non-electrical energy and EVs from an extreme biased source is what I would expect from you. The actual monetary government costs of EVs and electricity are available, should they ever be effectively tabulated. Also the major costs of misallocation of investments into electricity and EVs. Well, as a non-Economist, you cannot absorb the concept of social cost????? newflash Econ concepts are not difficult topics to master....look at you you mastered it (????) and you are an idiot you cannot absorb the concept of social cost????? You have tried here to switch the conversation away from your own chart above????? Hey you brought up the subject of social cost and yet you do not even debate the Social Costs I presented . I am still laughing that you even brought to the table social costs....What pro coal pro oil loser such as yourself even brings it up......love your post......."These are only retail costs, not social costs, needless to say"........so when you add the retail cost of coal powered electricity with the social costs........you come up with a whopper of a number......you can do the math???? I mean you have an econ degree, surely you can add in the social costs...or should we wait for you to figure out how to use your calculator???? too fucking funny that you even brought up social costs to the table.............ha ha ha ha PS where I went to school Econ Majors were the guys that could not hack real studies such as Engineering or Physics or Chemistry or Pre -med....Econ classes where full of those who washed out of real majors CareerExplorer: The typical early career salary for someone with a bachelor's degree in economics in 2024 is $49,552, and within five years of graduation, this average salary goes up to $68,011. lol I was making $50,000 a year when I graduated from college over 40 years ago Edited October 26 by notsonice 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL October 26 6 hours ago, notsonice said: Well, as a non-Economist, you cannot absorb the concept of social cost????? newflash Econ concepts are not difficult topics to master....look at you you mastered it (????) and you are an idiot you cannot absorb the concept of social cost????? You have tried here to switch the conversation away from your own chart above????? Hey you brought up the subject of social cost and yet you do not even debate the Social Costs I presented . I am still laughing that you even brought to the table social costs....What pro coal pro oil loser such as yourself even brings it up......love your post......."These are only retail costs, not social costs, needless to say"........so when you add the retail cost of coal powered electricity with the social costs........you come up with a whopper of a number......you can do the math???? I mean you have an econ degree, surely you can add in the social costs...or should we wait for you to figure out how to use your calculator???? too fucking funny that you even brought up social costs to the table.............ha ha ha ha PS where I went to school Econ Majors were the guys that could not hack real studies such as Engineering or Physics or Chemistry or Pre -med....Econ classes where full of those who washed out of real majors CareerExplorer: The typical early career salary for someone with a bachelor's degree in economics in 2024 is $49,552, and within five years of graduation, this average salary goes up to $68,011. lol I was making $50,000 a year when I graduated from college over 40 years ago Your annual income is not relevant to the study of Economics, old boy. And yes, the concept of social cost is enormously central to the "transition", with the term itself indicating a massive social adjustment. Something that would not remotely happen without the heavy boot of government intervention into the basic energy supply. You should really think before you talk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 26 9 hours ago, Ecocharger said: So it appears that fossil fuel cars will be the transportation of choice going forward. The bad old days of using coercion and threats to control the choices which people make on their personal transportation vehicles will be thrown out. https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/10/16/presidential-election-odds-2024-betting-polls-donald-trump/75684287007/ "Trump's odds of winning rise as his lead widens in battleground polling You keep ignoring that Trump has been bought by the owner of a EV company. Follow the money / political donations... Zero chance Musk is giving Trump millions without some potential policy kickbacks. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE October 26 (edited) 3 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Your annual income is not relevant to the study of Economics, old boy. And yes, the concept of social cost is enormously central to the "transition", with the term itself indicating a massive social adjustment. Something that would not remotely happen without the heavy boot of government intervention into the basic energy supply. You should really think before you talk. The externalities from the oil industry are huge. Polluted air and water is a massive social burden, as are explosions. The deepwater horizon disaster alone was epic. Lac-Megantic was also terrible. Edited October 26 by TailingsPond 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM October 26 (edited) 13 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Your annual income is not relevant to the study of Economics, old boy. And yes, the concept of social cost is enormously central to the "transition", with the term itself indicating a massive social adjustment. Something that would not remotely happen without the heavy boot of government intervention into the basic energy supply. You should really think before you talk. Your annual income is not relevant to the study of Economics, old boy........ well how much Guys with econ majors gets paid is relevant .....society does not think much of those getting BA Econ degrees.....I have never heard of anyone advising anyone that they need to hire an Economist to help get through life nor to understand what is happening with supply and demand in oil or coal or renewables and the Social cost of the use of oil or coal. I have worked on many 43-101's (which are ecomonic assessments) and guess what.......A guy with an Econ degree is not consider to be QP's (Qualified Persons) who can sign off on 43-101's ..No one is willing to pay you very much......as those with BA degrees in Economics are valued not much more than someone with a High School Diploma...... any Tom Dick and Harry can get the piece of paper .....BA Econ........pay at $50,000 a year to start today...starting pay for a laborer these days...shortage of laborers in the US and too many people with Econ degrees that spout they have superior knowledge. 4 years wasted in my book....now if you said you have a PhD in Economics and have published tons of papers that others cite.......then you might get my attention. So when you try to discount the Social costs of using oil or coal and you do not reference anything (or your own published papers) it does not mean squat to me. But one, such as yourself, trying you discredit others who do not have degrees in Econ .........Says the Non-Economist...I have heard that same assessment before from other non-economists. .........I get that you are not working nor have ever studied economics .........Well, I guess I have to teach you again what an economist is (hint: an economist is not a journalist or a political scientist). and the topper.............Well, as a non-Economist, you cannot absorb the concept of social cost????? I am still laughing my ass off on that statement you put out.................Too Fucking Funny that you make such a claim. and now you post ............. Something that would not remotely happen without the heavy boot of government intervention into the basic energy supply.?????? you mean that Americans themselves to not want change????????????? 78 percent want more solar............ now is that the heavy boot of Government or the voice of what a majority of Americans want....... the heavy boot?????????? CBS News CBS News poll finds big majority of Americans support U.S. taking steps to reduce climate change A big majority of Americans feel the US needs to address climate change, with those who report experiencing extreme weather more likely to say we should do so... . Apr 21, 2024 Edited October 26 by notsonice Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
