joed1rtty2 wrote:
It's worth remembering that Obama's actions on coal didn't due anything to decrease global coal consumption. It simply moved manufacturing jobs to non-regulated nations like China and India where coal consumption went through the roof.
In fact China's coal consumption peaked around 2013 and has essentially flat since then.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265491/chinese-coal-consumption-in-oil-equivalent/Monkeys typing wrote:
joed1rtty2 wrote:
It's worth remembering that Obama's actions on coal didn't due anything to decrease global coal consumption. It simply moved manufacturing jobs to non-regulated nations like China and India where coal consumption went through the roof.
In fact China's coal consumption peaked around 2013 and has essentially flat since then.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265491/chinese-coal-consumption-in-oil-equivalent/
And that's at the same time China's economy was growing by leaps and bounds.
China is going electric and they are doing it faster and better than we are. That's puts us at a strategic disadvantage.
burt parks wrote:
1101 wrote:
Agip is the best poster on LRC. So, if he posts garbage, then the rest of us must be posting sh!t.
(not that hard to believe, come to think of it)
He is a partisan hack with no objectivity. How is he a quality poster? He was ready to cry when he thought Trump might be re-elected.
sh!t ^
It's always hilarious how much people just make stuff up here.
Monkeys typing wrote:
joed1rtty2 wrote:
It's worth remembering that Obama's actions on coal didn't due anything to decrease global coal consumption. It simply moved manufacturing jobs to non-regulated nations like China and India where coal consumption went through the roof.
In fact China's coal consumption peaked around 2013 and has essentially flat since then.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265491/chinese-coal-consumption-in-oil-equivalent/
Fat hurts wrote:
Yes it is. The federal government has always been the driving force of large infrastructure projects such as the interstate highway system, the railroad system, aviation, rural electrification, and on and on and on.
The demand for oil will slow to a trickle compared to what we have today. That's quite obvious.
Companies do need a sane and rational regulatory framework to operate. Building out more oil infrastructure at a time when humanity's survival depends on a transition off of oil is an insane thing to do.
You have no idea how our system of government works. Private investors put up the money for these pipelines. If it is a bad idea, that's their problem. If you believe the government shouldn't allow any pipelines, then congress should pass a law to forbid it. They haven't. In no way is it ever appropriate for the President to step in and stop it himself. The fact that it won't even reduce oil consumption just adds to the stupidity and proves why the President is not there to micromanage economic deals that happen to be politically expedient on a given day.
Hardloper wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Yes it is. The federal government has always been the driving force of large infrastructure projects such as the interstate highway system, the railroad system, aviation, rural electrification, and on and on and on.
The demand for oil will slow to a trickle compared to what we have today. That's quite obvious.
Companies do need a sane and rational regulatory framework to operate. Building out more oil infrastructure at a time when humanity's survival depends on a transition off of oil is an insane thing to do.
You have no idea how our system of government works. Private investors put up the money for these pipelines. If it is a bad idea, that's their problem. If you believe the government shouldn't allow any pipelines, then congress should pass a law to forbid it. They haven't. In no way is it ever appropriate for the President to step in and stop it himself. The fact that it won't even reduce oil consumption just adds to the stupidity and proves why the President is not there to micromanage economic deals that happen to be politically expedient on a given day.
Keystone XL crosses through the Oglala aquifer and sacred tribal lands. The primary reason for stopping the pipeline is that it is reckless to put a pipeline through a hugely important fresh water aquifer. Pipelines leak and spill all the time. A big spill in the Oglala aquifer would have massive impacts on the availability of clean water for the Midwest.
Also, it is not true that it won't reduce oil consumption or, more importantly, have an impact on CO2 emissions. The Keystone XL is primarily needed to transport very heavy crude from Canadian tar sands projects. If this crude has to be shipped via rail or truck, it becomes prohibitively expensive. Tar sands is the most carbon intensive form of oil production from extraction to refining.
Hardloper wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Yes it is. The federal government has always been the driving force of large infrastructure projects such as the interstate highway system, the railroad system, aviation, rural electrification, and on and on and on.
The demand for oil will slow to a trickle compared to what we have today. That's quite obvious.
Companies do need a sane and rational regulatory framework to operate. Building out more oil infrastructure at a time when humanity's survival depends on a transition off of oil is an insane thing to do.
You have no idea how our system of government works. Private investors put up the money for these pipelines. If it is a bad idea, that's their problem. If you believe the government shouldn't allow any pipelines, then congress should pass a law to forbid it. They haven't. In no way is it ever appropriate for the President to step in and stop it himself. The fact that it won't even reduce oil consumption just adds to the stupidity and proves why the President is not there to micromanage economic deals that happen to be politically expedient on a given day.
I do know how government works. I notice you didn't question what I said about how the government has a huge role in infrastructure.
Your understanding of government is downright hilarious. You say that the president should not manage pipelines but congress should do it instead.
Congress did pass laws about this. Congress passed laws giving the federal government authority to handle permits for pipelines. As the head of the federal government, the president has the power and the responsibility to see that the permitting is done in the national interest.
New oil infrastructure is contrary to our national interest. Therefore, Biden made the right move in revoking the Keystone permit.
22 days in, 32 pages. Down to 1.45 pages/day.
It's beyond obvious at this point that you people weren't really voting for a president. You were voting to not have a president, just a self-directing mashup of bureaucracy. Nobody's pretending the guy's really in charge.
You are like lab rats who don't care who feeds you or cleans your cage, as long as it happens. And as long as you are comfortable, you don't mind being caged.
Bad Wigins wrote:
22 days in, 32 pages. Down to 1.45 pages/day.
It's beyond obvious at this point that you people weren't really voting for a president. You were voting to not have a president, just a self-directing mashup of bureaucracy. Nobody's pretending the guy's really in charge.
You are like lab rats who don't care who feeds you or cleans your cage, as long as it happens. And as long as you are comfortable, you don't mind being caged.
Why the caged rat sings.
Fat hurts wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
You have no idea how our system of government works. Private investors put up the money for these pipelines. If it is a bad idea, that's their problem. If you believe the government shouldn't allow any pipelines, then congress should pass a law to forbid it. They haven't. In no way is it ever appropriate for the President to step in and stop it himself. The fact that it won't even reduce oil consumption just adds to the stupidity and proves why the President is not there to micromanage economic deals that happen to be politically expedient on a given day.
I do know how government works. I notice you didn't question what I said about how the government has a huge role in infrastructure.
Your understanding of government is downright hilarious. You say that the president should not manage pipelines but congress should do it instead.
Congress did pass laws about this. Congress passed laws giving the federal government authority to handle permits for pipelines. As the head of the federal government, the president has the power and the responsibility to see that the permitting is done in the national interest.
New oil infrastructure is contrary to our national interest. Therefore, Biden made the right move in revoking the Keystone permit.
He has the power to do it. He has the responsibility to delegate that decision to the appropriate agency, not overrule them. Your position is laughable because we've approved dozens of other new pipelines in the meantime. This would be like if the government took away YOUR car to fight climate change, but not your neighbors same car (because you happened to be in the media crosshairs). A sane regulatory framework means all infrastructure is regulated by the same set of rules and not overruled by the whim of one dictator wannabe.
Precious Roy wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
You have no idea how our system of government works. Private investors put up the money for these pipelines. If it is a bad idea, that's their problem. If you believe the government shouldn't allow any pipelines, then congress should pass a law to forbid it. They haven't. In no way is it ever appropriate for the President to step in and stop it himself. The fact that it won't even reduce oil consumption just adds to the stupidity and proves why the President is not there to micromanage economic deals that happen to be politically expedient on a given day.
Keystone XL crosses through the Oglala aquifer and sacred tribal lands. The primary reason for stopping the pipeline is that it is reckless to put a pipeline through a hugely important fresh water aquifer. Pipelines leak and spill all the time. A big spill in the Oglala aquifer would have massive impacts on the availability of clean water for the Midwest.
Also, it is not true that it won't reduce oil consumption or, more importantly, have an impact on CO2 emissions. The Keystone XL is primarily needed to transport very heavy crude from Canadian tar sands projects. If this crude has to be shipped via rail or truck, it becomes prohibitively expensive. Tar sands is the most carbon intensive form of oil production from extraction to refining.
Hardloper gets schooled again.
Running jamin close for the biggest LRC clown in Seattle.
The post election hurt is palpable ?
Precious Roy wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
You have no idea how our system of government works. Private investors put up the money for these pipelines. If it is a bad idea, that's their problem. If you believe the government shouldn't allow any pipelines, then congress should pass a law to forbid it. They haven't. In no way is it ever appropriate for the President to step in and stop it himself. The fact that it won't even reduce oil consumption just adds to the stupidity and proves why the President is not there to micromanage economic deals that happen to be politically expedient on a given day.
Keystone XL crosses through the Oglala aquifer and sacred tribal lands. The primary reason for stopping the pipeline is that it is reckless to put a pipeline through a hugely important fresh water aquifer. Pipelines leak and spill all the time. A big spill in the Oglala aquifer would have massive impacts on the availability of clean water for the Midwest.
Also, it is not true that it won't reduce oil consumption or, more importantly, have an impact on CO2 emissions. The Keystone XL is primarily needed to transport very heavy crude from Canadian tar sands projects. If this crude has to be shipped via rail or truck, it becomes prohibitively expensive. Tar sands is the most carbon intensive form of oil production from extraction to refining.
Extra thorough state department environmental reviews determined that wasn't a problem. And if your goal is to make crude oil prohibitively expensive, then just increase taxes on it so we can still have more energy independence from the middle east and more efficient infrastructure, rather than shooting ourselves in the foot.
Hardloper wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I do know how government works. I notice you didn't question what I said about how the government has a huge role in infrastructure.
Your understanding of government is downright hilarious. You say that the president should not manage pipelines but congress should do it instead.
Congress did pass laws about this. Congress passed laws giving the federal government authority to handle permits for pipelines. As the head of the federal government, the president has the power and the responsibility to see that the permitting is done in the national interest.
New oil infrastructure is contrary to our national interest. Therefore, Biden made the right move in revoking the Keystone permit.
He has the power to do it. He has the responsibility to delegate that decision to the appropriate agency, not overrule them. Your position is laughable because we've approved dozens of other new pipelines in the meantime. This would be like if the government took away YOUR car to fight climate change, but not your neighbors same car (because you happened to be in the media crosshairs). A sane regulatory framework means all infrastructure is regulated by the same set of rules and not overruled by the whim of one dictator wannabe.
A sane regulatory framework means that we don't build new oil pipelines.
He wouldn't take away my car because I drive an EV.
Fat hurts wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
He has the power to do it. He has the responsibility to delegate that decision to the appropriate agency, not overrule them. Your position is laughable because we've approved dozens of other new pipelines in the meantime. This would be like if the government took away YOUR car to fight climate change, but not your neighbors same car (because you happened to be in the media crosshairs). A sane regulatory framework means all infrastructure is regulated by the same set of rules and not overruled by the whim of one dictator wannabe.
A sane regulatory framework means that we don't build new oil pipelines.
He wouldn't take away my car because I drive an EV.
In your opinion, a sane REGULATION is no new oil pipelines. But congress has not passed that and the President hasn't done that by EO either. He just picked one to reject. A sane regulatory FRAMEWORK is one where everyone plays by the same predictable set of rules.
Hardloper wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
A sane regulatory framework means that we don't build new oil pipelines.
He wouldn't take away my car because I drive an EV.
In your opinion, a sane REGULATION is no new oil pipelines. But congress has not passed that and the President hasn't done that by EO either. He just picked one to reject. A sane regulatory FRAMEWORK is one where everyone plays by the same predictable set of rules.
Biden has only been president a very short time. I expect that more pipeline permits will be revoked as needed.
The overall climate policy is making its way through congress and through the federal government at the direction of the new president.
It is predictable in that if you are trying to build out new oil infrastructure you can predict that you will have a difficult time getting it approved by the Biden administration. That's good news for the future of America and the future of our species.
Hardloper wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
A sane regulatory framework means that we don't build new oil pipelines.
He wouldn't take away my car because I drive an EV.
In your opinion, a sane REGULATION is no new oil pipelines. But congress has not passed that and the President hasn't done that by EO either. He just picked one to reject. A sane regulatory FRAMEWORK is one where everyone plays by the same predictable set of rules.
And yes, my opinion is that we should stop building new oil infrastructure. This goes from new drilling and exploration all the way down to new gas stations. None of it should be built. We must drastically cut oil production so there is no reason to build new infrastructure for less oil. Just keep it in the ground.
I don't think Biden is quite as strict about it as I would be, but I support all efforts in my direction. And, I've been pleasantly surprised at his performance on climate so far.
Big data dump but all it shows is that trends are continuing for quick improvement in many places, including the US.
7 day averages
USA
Cases down 61%
Deaths down 23%
have had at least one shot: 11%
UK
cases down 75%
deaths down 43%
have had at least one shot: 21%
Israel
cases down 35%
deaths down 38%
have had at least one shot: 44%
France (low vax uptake)
cases down 10%
deaths down 3%
have had at least one shot: 3%
although france has a differently shaped curve than other nations so could be unfair...weird stuff there.
US vaccination pace accelerating slowly :new high of 1.66 million per day
US safest states
ND
ME
go to a cold empty space, stat.
US most dangerous states
TX
KY
SC
NY
NJ
AZ
KS
AL
DE
Just checking on The Gap for Biden--currently stands at 17.2 percentage points:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
NOTE that The Gap runs in a different direction for Biden than it did for Trump. Trump's final Gap was 19.3 percentage points--he managed to PR in disapproval right at the very end of his tenure (but still had approval from almost 40% of Americans--crazy!):
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
"How popular is Joe Biden" LMAO
So popular this thread has to be rescued from page 2 by more of my charity.
Let's see, 24 days in now, still only 32 pages. That's 1.33 pages/day. What a popular guy.
Just checking to see if I have been indicted yet?