|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here. It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts. Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off. By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass.
You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls".
And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters?
|
On June 03 2017 03:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:43 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:14 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 02:04 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:00 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 01:45 Godwrath wrote:
Giving credence to an article that attempts to discredit the Paris accord because it's "merely symbolic" just to be able to missdirect the criticism about the self-denial running rampant amongst republican party, that's rich and deep. As if, the republicans actually gave a shit about the issue and left it because "it wasn't good enough".
Of course the Paris accord wasn't good enough. It is a first fucking step. This is part of the reason I linked a fairly reasoned article concluding that it's likely the last step and people that think otherwise are fooling themselves. What's rich and deep is your deflection and misdirection while claiming others do so. I wonder if it will ever sink it that inattention to counterarguments isn't sufficient to restate your primary argument. I conclude x, and any articles that conclude otherwise are obvious misdirection. But I'm not really following the conclusion that he believes it's the last step and not the first. I think that’s the case here. I think Paris was not just the first step, I think it was likely the last step, that those who hoped it would lead to “deepening future commitments” were fooling themselves and others. I think Paris was agreed to only because national leaders realized it was impossible to get a numerically meaningful set of binding national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific large amounts. If I'm trying to address a problem, especially a big problem (and affecting long term positive change for the environment is big), I'd start by defining it. Put some framework around an issue, get consensus, start working towards solutions. I acknowledge that you don't believe the costs of action are being sufficiently considered, and that's an ok argument to have. But the US staking the position of "nah, we're just gonna go home instead" doesn't put us in a better position to solve the problem. Unless I'm missing something, I don't get the assumption that there would be not further steps taken beyond Paris. Getting the globe on the same page is where it starts, but it feels like the US was spacing out while reading, so we've had to flip back to the last chapter before we can move forward again. You quote a paragraph in the middle of the article that follows from the argumentation in the paragraphs preceding. Pay special attention to the political interest and comparison between changing direction in inches when different outcomes are miles apart. I did read it, and I don't necessarily disagree with your point that symbolic gestures are meaningless if there's no plan for follow through. But it seems that he (and you) are starting on the assumption that there will be no follow through, and as a result, this gesture is meaningless. If it were up to many of us, there would but a more expedited and stringent framework for follow through. But when we have to continually argue internally about whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem (or, in some cases, whether the problem even exists), that significantly slows down the capacity for follow through. So, I guess my question to you is - what should be done to make it (any plan, not necessarily Paris) less symbolic and actually effective? I'm kind of at a loss if you only want to draw from what "seems" to be a starting assumption, but not what arguments were ineffective and why, or how they were reliant on those assumptions and collapse without them. I could just as easily respond to "whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem/problem exists" with "whether or not anybody that acknowledges the problem actually wants to pay the associated costs with fixing it in this manner" which also slows follow through. I would raise my hand and say "here is someone who is interested in paying the associated costs with fixing the problem this way". With that said, though, I would agree with y'all that I'd like better understanding of what those costs are and more concrete plans of moving forward. But, again, I would think that gathering the consensus, even if symbolic at the beginning, is the start of formulating the plan forward. Do you agree with xDaunt that it would be better to create more bandaids instead of looking for ways to treat the wound? Is there a good/better way to do both at the same time? A consensus on signing symbolic agreements is a consensus to talk about how serious we are to continue talking about how big, huge, impactful the problem is. It's not a useful consensus. Why try to repaint what xDaunt said and ask for my agreement? If this is an important issue, surely you can take the man at his word and not mischaracterize his description.
I'm not trying to misconstrue what he said:
On June 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:23 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... Then what do we need? A stronger deal? A symbolic withdrawal from the commitment as a means of protest? A show of "two can play at that game" and an unwillingness to reduce emissions? While I'm skeptical of a lot of aspects of the deal, even this is a big deal compared to the attitude China had towards this as recently as five years ago which could be effectively summarized as "fuck the environment that shit don't matter to us." China is going to get its own shit in order regardless of the Paris Accord because its people are tired of living in filth. But if you're going to bother with a treaty, then it needs an enforcement mechanism. Ok, that much is fair. Would you support such a treaty? If you want a specific treaty, say, Paris plus incorporated trade consequences for non-compliance? No, because the cost-benefit analysis is still out of whack for the reasons discussed yesterday. I'd rather spend the money on mitigating the consequences of global warming instead of trying to stop global warming. We don't have an effective means of doing the latter.
"mitigating the consequences of global warming" = bandaid
"trying to stop global warming" = treating the wound
What I'm trying to find out is what you suggest we do instead. I think you have some valid points in your opposition to Paris (whether or not I agree with them), so I'm curious what your preferred alternative is.
Do we focus on addressing consequences as they emerge? Do we try to design a different agreement that is enforceable? Do we not address the problem(s) at all? Out of the full spectrum of options, I don't know where you stand beyond opposing the agreement before us.
|
On June 03 2017 04:12 Buckyman wrote:
Climate change is absolutely controversial, scientifically. Rational discussion has not been able to take place in the "absolutist vs denier" environment, so controversies remain unsettled behind the scenes.
I hope that, if nothing else, Trump will lead to having the hard scientific discussions now that we should have had in the '90s.
Do you have any sources for this claim?
|
On June 03 2017 04:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story. Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies. My point is that the heritage foundation is not doing a good job at being a placeholder. If I make a proposition to you, but I only include the cons, you probably won't agree to it. If I say, "yo, daunty-fresh, I've got a thing for you to buy. It is $100. You in?", you'll ask me what it is. If I said it was a MAGA hat, you'd say no. If I told you it was a beachfront property with a built in pizza hut, you'd even include a $10 tip along with the purchase. How about our huge thrust to build our interstate highways? Railroads? People could have easily said "The way I see it, we are doing just fine transporting material across our great nation and I can't justify telling my customers they need to pay another dollar because of some new fancy technology", and it would be very similar. They didn't just look at the cons. They looked at the positive impact of the Paris Accord and found it wanting in light of the cost. Outside of industry special interests, no one objects to the green energy and green policy just for the same of objecting to them. Every intelligent criticism of this stuff includes a cost-benefit analysis. The cons are that these standards are going to be set by other countries anyway. We don’t just sell cars to the US, we sell them overseas too. By leaving the agreement, we gave up our place at the table and won’t have a say in any future standards. Of course we will have a say in the standards. Our auto market is fucking gigantic -- bigger than Europe's. All of those European manufacturers aren't going to want to cede their market shares here.
I I am very sure that the desires of US car manufactures will have little impact on the EU’s emission standards.
|
On June 03 2017 04:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story. Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies. My point is that the heritage foundation is not doing a good job at being a placeholder. If I make a proposition to you, but I only include the cons, you probably won't agree to it. If I say, "yo, daunty-fresh, I've got a thing for you to buy. It is $100. You in?", you'll ask me what it is. If I said it was a MAGA hat, you'd say no. If I told you it was a beachfront property with a built in pizza hut, you'd even include a $10 tip along with the purchase. How about our huge thrust to build our interstate highways? Railroads? People could have easily said "The way I see it, we are doing just fine transporting material across our great nation and I can't justify telling my customers they need to pay another dollar because of some new fancy technology", and it would be very similar. They didn't just look at the cons. They looked at the positive impact of the Paris Accord and found it wanting in light of the cost. Outside of industry special interests, no one objects to the green energy and green policy just for the same of objecting to them. Every intelligent criticism of this stuff includes a cost-benefit analysis. The cons are that these standards are going to be set by other countries anyway. We don’t just sell cars to the US, we sell them overseas too. By leaving the agreement, we gave up our place at the table and won’t have a say in any future standards. Of course we will have a say in the standards. Our auto market is fucking gigantic -- bigger than Europe's. All of those European manufacturers aren't going to want to cede their market shares here. I I am very sure that the desires of US car manufactures will have little impact on the EU’s emission standards.
Manufacturers are designing to both markets that's why we have cars/configurations in Europe that cant be imported to the US and vise versa. The current market is split to maintain the best profits possible. Europe's standards have been more strict than ours in certain aspects for some time now.
|
Former FBI Director James Comey will have the nation captivated next Thursday when he testifies before a Senate panel about the stunning accusations that President Donald Trump pressured him to end his investigation into his former national security adviser's ties to Russia.
But can Trump stop Comey from talking?
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Friday that "the President will make that decision," raising the prospect that the White House may try to invoke executive privilege over Comey's conversations with Trump.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said later Friday the decision by the White House counsel's office hasn't been made yet.
...
Legal experts, however, are skeptical the President could successfully invoke the privilege to muzzle Comey because Trump has already written a letter about their conversations, talked about them publicly and even tweeted about them.
In other words, they say, the President can't use the privilege as a sword in one context and a shield in another.
www.cnn.com
|
On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts. Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off. By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters?
Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade.
Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary.
The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass.
|
On June 03 2017 04:36 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:30 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story. Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies. My point is that the heritage foundation is not doing a good job at being a placeholder. If I make a proposition to you, but I only include the cons, you probably won't agree to it. If I say, "yo, daunty-fresh, I've got a thing for you to buy. It is $100. You in?", you'll ask me what it is. If I said it was a MAGA hat, you'd say no. If I told you it was a beachfront property with a built in pizza hut, you'd even include a $10 tip along with the purchase. How about our huge thrust to build our interstate highways? Railroads? People could have easily said "The way I see it, we are doing just fine transporting material across our great nation and I can't justify telling my customers they need to pay another dollar because of some new fancy technology", and it would be very similar. They didn't just look at the cons. They looked at the positive impact of the Paris Accord and found it wanting in light of the cost. Outside of industry special interests, no one objects to the green energy and green policy just for the same of objecting to them. Every intelligent criticism of this stuff includes a cost-benefit analysis. The cons are that these standards are going to be set by other countries anyway. We don’t just sell cars to the US, we sell them overseas too. By leaving the agreement, we gave up our place at the table and won’t have a say in any future standards. Of course we will have a say in the standards. Our auto market is fucking gigantic -- bigger than Europe's. All of those European manufacturers aren't going to want to cede their market shares here. I I am very sure that the desires of US car manufactures will have little impact on the EU’s emission standards. Manufacturers are designing to both markets that's why we have cars/configurations in Europe that cant be imported to the US and vise versa. The current market is split to maintain the best profits possible. Europe's standards have been more strict than ours in certain aspects for some time now.
Yes, and the auto industry was specifically cited as being excited for this agreement because it would be common emission standards across the US and EU.
|
On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off. By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass.
I dont think that anyone that hasn't owned one of the vehicles long term can really talk about the "the performance for things that matter to people" not to mention the fact that most of the tesla cars to date have been luxury vehicles that would be more expensive than an average car regardless of emissions.
|
On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off. By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass.
While it's true that the cars are only as clean as the primary source of energy production, the bigger issue for large urban areas is pollution, which is a silent health hazard that kills more people than most other things. So cleaner air is already a big step up. That said it would be better to reduce the number of cars overall and get more traffic on rails. Cars are pretty terrible mode of transportation from just about any point of view.
How is public transportation in US cities in general? I assume not great outside of the big hubs?
|
On June 03 2017 04:52 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. I dont think that anyone that hasn't owned one of the vehicles long term can really talk about the "the performance for things that matter to people" not to mention the fact that most of the tesla cars to date have been luxury vehicles that would be more expensive than an average car regardless of emissions.
Electric cars aren't new; we all know their faults from a technical performance perspective. If you want to spend more than xDaunt's 20 year loss projection for better feels about a marginal reduction in emissions, be my guest. Preferably that will happen without government handouts.
|
On June 03 2017 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +
Former FBI Director James Comey will have the nation captivated next Thursday when he testifies before a Senate panel about the stunning accusations that President Donald Trump pressured him to end his investigation into his former national security adviser's ties to Russia.
But can Trump stop Comey from talking?
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Friday that "the President will make that decision," raising the prospect that the White House may try to invoke executive privilege over Comey's conversations with Trump.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said later Friday the decision by the White House counsel's office hasn't been made yet.
...
Legal experts, however, are skeptical the President could successfully invoke the privilege to muzzle Comey because Trump has already written a letter about their conversations, talked about them publicly and even tweeted about them.
In other words, they say, the President can't use the privilege as a sword in one context and a shield in another.
www.cnn.com
Do we have anyone around here who thinks Trump blocking Comey's testimony would be a good idea?
|
On June 03 2017 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. While it's true that the cars are only as clean as the primary source of energy production, the bigger issue for large urban areas is pollution, which is a silent health hazard that kills more people than most other things. So cleaner air is already a big step up. That said it would be better to reduce the number of cars overall and get more traffic on rails. Cars are pretty terrible mode of transportation from just about any point of view. How is public transportation in US cities in general? I assume not great outside of the big hubs?
Reducing pollution and reducing cars in general is definitely a good thing. But I am not convinced electric cars are the answer, and I am quite convinced that Musk fanboy trains are definitely not the answer.
Public transportation varies by location; some places have good service, other places you'd be an idiot not to drive everywhere. The overarching problem is more that the US is a huge country and public transit scales rather poorly for large distances. In my previous job I drove ~50 km in one direction to work, which would be a slow hell on public transportation. In my current job, a public transport commute would not be unreasonable, and under proper incentives I could be coerced into taking the train to work.
|
On June 03 2017 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:
Former FBI Director James Comey will have the nation captivated next Thursday when he testifies before a Senate panel about the stunning accusations that President Donald Trump pressured him to end his investigation into his former national security adviser's ties to Russia.
But can Trump stop Comey from talking?
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Friday that "the President will make that decision," raising the prospect that the White House may try to invoke executive privilege over Comey's conversations with Trump.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said later Friday the decision by the White House counsel's office hasn't been made yet.
...
Legal experts, however, are skeptical the President could successfully invoke the privilege to muzzle Comey because Trump has already written a letter about their conversations, talked about them publicly and even tweeted about them.
In other words, they say, the President can't use the privilege as a sword in one context and a shield in another.
www.cnn.com Do we have anyone around here who thinks Trump blocking Comey's testimony would be a good idea?
I think it would be a good idea. Would speed along the impeach process pretty quickly.
|
On June 03 2017 04:36 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:30 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 04:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On June 03 2017 04:00 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:55 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:50 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 03:42 Mohdoo wrote:On June 03 2017 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Just so that everyone is on the same page, here's what the Heritage Foundation posted in its summary regarding the costs: Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:
An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent. If you have some other estimate that you want to point for what the cost of the Paris Accord would have been, go ahead and post it. The problem with "overall job loss" is examples like when cars started being a thing. Cars destroyed a lot of jobs. Same with trains. There was an enormous shift, but it didn't mean cars or trains were job killers. It meant that other shitty stuff was getting replaced. How many jobs exist because of cars today? Not a perfect comparison, but the mechanism is sound. Pointing out the ways that aggressive technological advancement kills jobs is only telling half the story. Look, here's the point. Stuff like the Paris Accord very clearly bears certain economic costs. No one reasonable is going to deny that. If you don't like how the Heritage Foundation has illustrated it, I'm all ears for alternative studies. My point is that the heritage foundation is not doing a good job at being a placeholder. If I make a proposition to you, but I only include the cons, you probably won't agree to it. If I say, "yo, daunty-fresh, I've got a thing for you to buy. It is $100. You in?", you'll ask me what it is. If I said it was a MAGA hat, you'd say no. If I told you it was a beachfront property with a built in pizza hut, you'd even include a $10 tip along with the purchase. How about our huge thrust to build our interstate highways? Railroads? People could have easily said "The way I see it, we are doing just fine transporting material across our great nation and I can't justify telling my customers they need to pay another dollar because of some new fancy technology", and it would be very similar. They didn't just look at the cons. They looked at the positive impact of the Paris Accord and found it wanting in light of the cost. Outside of industry special interests, no one objects to the green energy and green policy just for the same of objecting to them. Every intelligent criticism of this stuff includes a cost-benefit analysis. The cons are that these standards are going to be set by other countries anyway. We don’t just sell cars to the US, we sell them overseas too. By leaving the agreement, we gave up our place at the table and won’t have a say in any future standards. Of course we will have a say in the standards. Our auto market is fucking gigantic -- bigger than Europe's. All of those European manufacturers aren't going to want to cede their market shares here. I I am very sure that the desires of US car manufactures will have little impact on the EU’s emission standards. Manufacturers are designing to both markets that's why we have cars/configurations in Europe that cant be imported to the US and vise versa. The current market is split to maintain the best profits possible. Europe's standards have been more strict than ours in certain aspects for some time now.
Funnily enough that the VW emission manipulation scandal originated in the US and spread all over different manufacturers and the world.
Think about the EPA's capability to do that under Trumpet...
On June 03 2017 04:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:52 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. I dont think that anyone that hasn't owned one of the vehicles long term can really talk about the "the performance for things that matter to people" not to mention the fact that most of the tesla cars to date have been luxury vehicles that would be more expensive than an average car regardless of emissions. Electric cars aren't new; we all know their faults from a technical performance perspective. If you want to spend more than xDaunt's 20 year loss projection for better feels about a marginal reduction in emissions, be my guest. Preferably that will happen without government handouts.
have you complained abou the government funding nuclear fusion projects yet?
they burn rather than generate money (as well as energy) for many decades now
The U.S. has spent tens of billions of tax dollars on fusion R&D—currently $0.4 billion a year—and now startups are emerging too, some with nine-figure budgets.
forbes
|
On June 03 2017 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:
Former FBI Director James Comey will have the nation captivated next Thursday when he testifies before a Senate panel about the stunning accusations that President Donald Trump pressured him to end his investigation into his former national security adviser's ties to Russia.
But can Trump stop Comey from talking?
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Friday that "the President will make that decision," raising the prospect that the White House may try to invoke executive privilege over Comey's conversations with Trump.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said later Friday the decision by the White House counsel's office hasn't been made yet.
...
Legal experts, however, are skeptical the President could successfully invoke the privilege to muzzle Comey because Trump has already written a letter about their conversations, talked about them publicly and even tweeted about them.
In other words, they say, the President can't use the privilege as a sword in one context and a shield in another.
www.cnn.com Do we have anyone around here who thinks Trump blocking Comey's testimony would be a good idea?
I think the more interesting question is wether anyone thinks he'll actually block it...
He said he didn't expect that backlash after firing him, but there's so no way in hell he's going to think that blocking his testimony will make him look good, right? Right? Even he will have to be aware of how horrible that would make him look no matter what kind of bullshit Bannon and co are forcefeeding him
|
On June 03 2017 04:59 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:
Former FBI Director James Comey will have the nation captivated next Thursday when he testifies before a Senate panel about the stunning accusations that President Donald Trump pressured him to end his investigation into his former national security adviser's ties to Russia.
But can Trump stop Comey from talking?
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said Friday that "the President will make that decision," raising the prospect that the White House may try to invoke executive privilege over Comey's conversations with Trump.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said later Friday the decision by the White House counsel's office hasn't been made yet.
...
Legal experts, however, are skeptical the President could successfully invoke the privilege to muzzle Comey because Trump has already written a letter about their conversations, talked about them publicly and even tweeted about them.
In other words, they say, the President can't use the privilege as a sword in one context and a shield in another.
www.cnn.com Do we have anyone around here who thinks Trump blocking Comey's testimony would be a good idea? I can't think of an argument for it being a good idea. If Trump has nothing to hide or worry about, he should let Comey testify. Blocking the testimony implies he has something to hide.
So naturally I think he'll probably block it. My logic with Trump the last bit has been to take what a normal, reasonable person would think about something, and then conclude he will do the opposite.
|
On June 03 2017 04:25 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:30 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:43 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:14 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 02:04 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:00 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 01:45 Godwrath wrote:
Giving credence to an article that attempts to discredit the Paris accord because it's "merely symbolic" just to be able to missdirect the criticism about the self-denial running rampant amongst republican party, that's rich and deep. As if, the republicans actually gave a shit about the issue and left it because "it wasn't good enough".
Of course the Paris accord wasn't good enough. It is a first fucking step. This is part of the reason I linked a fairly reasoned article concluding that it's likely the last step and people that think otherwise are fooling themselves. What's rich and deep is your deflection and misdirection while claiming others do so. I wonder if it will ever sink it that inattention to counterarguments isn't sufficient to restate your primary argument. I conclude x, and any articles that conclude otherwise are obvious misdirection. But I'm not really following the conclusion that he believes it's the last step and not the first. I think that’s the case here. I think Paris was not just the first step, I think it was likely the last step, that those who hoped it would lead to “deepening future commitments” were fooling themselves and others. I think Paris was agreed to only because national leaders realized it was impossible to get a numerically meaningful set of binding national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific large amounts. If I'm trying to address a problem, especially a big problem (and affecting long term positive change for the environment is big), I'd start by defining it. Put some framework around an issue, get consensus, start working towards solutions. I acknowledge that you don't believe the costs of action are being sufficiently considered, and that's an ok argument to have. But the US staking the position of "nah, we're just gonna go home instead" doesn't put us in a better position to solve the problem. Unless I'm missing something, I don't get the assumption that there would be not further steps taken beyond Paris. Getting the globe on the same page is where it starts, but it feels like the US was spacing out while reading, so we've had to flip back to the last chapter before we can move forward again. You quote a paragraph in the middle of the article that follows from the argumentation in the paragraphs preceding. Pay special attention to the political interest and comparison between changing direction in inches when different outcomes are miles apart. I did read it, and I don't necessarily disagree with your point that symbolic gestures are meaningless if there's no plan for follow through. But it seems that he (and you) are starting on the assumption that there will be no follow through, and as a result, this gesture is meaningless. If it were up to many of us, there would but a more expedited and stringent framework for follow through. But when we have to continually argue internally about whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem (or, in some cases, whether the problem even exists), that significantly slows down the capacity for follow through. So, I guess my question to you is - what should be done to make it (any plan, not necessarily Paris) less symbolic and actually effective? I'm kind of at a loss if you only want to draw from what "seems" to be a starting assumption, but not what arguments were ineffective and why, or how they were reliant on those assumptions and collapse without them. I could just as easily respond to "whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem/problem exists" with "whether or not anybody that acknowledges the problem actually wants to pay the associated costs with fixing it in this manner" which also slows follow through. I would raise my hand and say "here is someone who is interested in paying the associated costs with fixing the problem this way". With that said, though, I would agree with y'all that I'd like better understanding of what those costs are and more concrete plans of moving forward. But, again, I would think that gathering the consensus, even if symbolic at the beginning, is the start of formulating the plan forward. Do you agree with xDaunt that it would be better to create more bandaids instead of looking for ways to treat the wound? Is there a good/better way to do both at the same time? A consensus on signing symbolic agreements is a consensus to talk about how serious we are to continue talking about how big, huge, impactful the problem is. It's not a useful consensus. Why try to repaint what xDaunt said and ask for my agreement? If this is an important issue, surely you can take the man at his word and not mischaracterize his description. I'm not trying to misconstrue what he said: Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:23 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... Then what do we need? A stronger deal? A symbolic withdrawal from the commitment as a means of protest? A show of "two can play at that game" and an unwillingness to reduce emissions? While I'm skeptical of a lot of aspects of the deal, even this is a big deal compared to the attitude China had towards this as recently as five years ago which could be effectively summarized as "fuck the environment that shit don't matter to us." China is going to get its own shit in order regardless of the Paris Accord because its people are tired of living in filth. But if you're going to bother with a treaty, then it needs an enforcement mechanism. Ok, that much is fair. Would you support such a treaty? If you want a specific treaty, say, Paris plus incorporated trade consequences for non-compliance? No, because the cost-benefit analysis is still out of whack for the reasons discussed yesterday. I'd rather spend the money on mitigating the consequences of global warming instead of trying to stop global warming. We don't have an effective means of doing the latter. "mitigating the consequences of global warming" = bandaid "trying to stop global warming" = treating the wound What I'm trying to find out is what you suggest we do instead. I think you have some valid points in your opposition to Paris (whether or not I agree with them), so I'm curious what your preferred alternative is. Do we focus on addressing consequences as they emerge? Do we try to design a different agreement that is enforceable? Do we not address the problem(s) at all? Out of the full spectrum of options, I don't know where you stand beyond opposing the agreement before us.
"We don't have an effective means of doing the latter."
That means we have no effective measures of treating the wound. It doesn't mean to stop looking for measures. He's already on the record supporting green energy development and investment. Your analogy is fallacious and misrepresentative. I hardly know if you're ignorant or deliberate with the flurry of responses and posters.
|
On June 03 2017 05:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. While it's true that the cars are only as clean as the primary source of energy production, the bigger issue for large urban areas is pollution, which is a silent health hazard that kills more people than most other things. So cleaner air is already a big step up. That said it would be better to reduce the number of cars overall and get more traffic on rails. Cars are pretty terrible mode of transportation from just about any point of view. How is public transportation in US cities in general? I assume not great outside of the big hubs? Reducing pollution and reducing cars in general is definitely a good thing. But I am not convinced electric cars are the answer, and I am quite convinced that Musk fanboy trains are definitely not the answer. Public transportation varies by location; some places have good service, other places you'd be an idiot not to drive everywhere. The overarching problem is more that the US is a huge country and public transit scales rather poorly for large distances. In my previous job I drove ~50 km in one direction to work, which would be a slow hell on public transportation. In my current job, a public transport commute would not be unreasonable, and under proper incentives I could be coerced into taking the train to work.
I don't really see the hate for electric cars. Yes they're less convenient right now but I see them take off in a couple years personally and I don't think the basic idea behind them is flawed. Instead of having a thousand different things you want to improve individually including cars you let most things run on electricity and suddenly all you have to improve is your energy production.
Obviously ignoring the nasty parts like how "unhealthy" batteries are etc but I don't think that's your argument
|
On June 03 2017 05:06 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 05:00 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego?
What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. While it's true that the cars are only as clean as the primary source of energy production, the bigger issue for large urban areas is pollution, which is a silent health hazard that kills more people than most other things. So cleaner air is already a big step up. That said it would be better to reduce the number of cars overall and get more traffic on rails. Cars are pretty terrible mode of transportation from just about any point of view. How is public transportation in US cities in general? I assume not great outside of the big hubs? Reducing pollution and reducing cars in general is definitely a good thing. But I am not convinced electric cars are the answer, and I am quite convinced that Musk fanboy trains are definitely not the answer. Public transportation varies by location; some places have good service, other places you'd be an idiot not to drive everywhere. The overarching problem is more that the US is a huge country and public transit scales rather poorly for large distances. In my previous job I drove ~50 km in one direction to work, which would be a slow hell on public transportation. In my current job, a public transport commute would not be unreasonable, and under proper incentives I could be coerced into taking the train to work. I don't really see the hate for electric cars. Yes they're less convenient right now but I see them take off in a couple years personally and I don't think the basic idea behind them is flawed. Instead of having a thousand different things you want to improve individually including cars you let most things run on electricity and suddenly all you have to improve is your energy production. Obviously ignoring the nasty parts like how "unhealthy" batteries are etc but I don't think that's your argument
They are more expensive and while that might change it's nowhere close to doing so. It takes significantly longer to charge a battery than to fill up on gas. Repairs are trickier. You get less miles per tank. Harder to find places to fill up, though this may change in the future. All of these are performance demerits that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
