JM

GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

Recommended Posts

(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
 
 
 
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

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 by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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...bfmB787.jpg?itok=KbQQ9Tcs

Source: Bloomberg

Prediction markets are soaring in Trump's favor and even the polls are swinging higher now...

bfm8F3D_1.jpg?itok=5cRA3xNW

Edited by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by Ecocharger
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Animated: 70 Years of U.S. Electricity Generation by Source

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. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by Ecocharger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by notsonice
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by notsonice
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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 by TailingsPond
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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?????????? 

 

Chart shows Support for expanding wind, solar power in the U.S. has fallen since 2020

Edited by notsonice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.