Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 07 2019 01:16 Sermokala wrote: America has natural gas like Norway has fish.
Just want to chuckle over the strangest analogy ever. Proportionally Norway has natural gas over and beyond anything America has. Norway has natural gas... like Norway has fish I guess?
If I'm not mistaken, we're going to be the worlds biggest exporter of Natural gas once Johan Sverdrup is up and running. But we don't use any of it ourselves. Only a few minorities of houses still uses gas (and according to my brother who used to own one, it's a real pain), and zero of our power plants does.
We like to sit high on our horses scoffing at everyone still using fossil fuels while we provide it to them..
Natural gas is still less damaging than coal to my knowledge. My state (Michigan) in the United States wanted to close 3 coal factories and open 1 natural gas one instead. Yet there were protests.
DTE pledged to increase renewable energy to 25% in the next few years, and end coal usage by 2040, but I guess it's not enough of a start. They also pledge to be on 100% renewable by 2050.
Oh it is, much much less, but it's not zero. So while it might be a lesser evil, it's definitively still an evil which needs to be replaced at some point.
I like those who are attempting to keep themselves in line with the EU directive for emission neutrality at 2050, it shows some real backbone, but I suspect you're going to need a president with some real driving force on the subject to stand any kind of chance against the majority of companies who simply doesn't give a shit other than their short term profits (And a congress and house to back him up of course). And you're going to need it sooner than later. Another Trump won't do, obviously, but I'm not even certain another Obama would be enough.
On March 07 2019 01:16 Sermokala wrote: America has natural gas like Norway has fish.
Just want to chuckle over the strangest analogy ever. Proportionally Norway has natural gas over and beyond anything America has. Norway has natural gas... like Norway has fish I guess?
If I'm not mistaken, we're going to be the worlds biggest exporter of Natural gas once Johan Sverdrup is up and running. But we don't use any of it ourselves. Only a few minorities of houses still uses gas (and according to my brother who used to own one, it's a real pain), and zero of our power plants does.
We like to sit high on our horses scoffing at everyone still using fossil fuels while we provide it to them..
Natural gas is still less damaging than coal to my knowledge. My state (Michigan) in the United States wanted to close 3 coal factories and open 1 natural gas one instead. Yet there were protests.
DTE pledged to increase renewable energy to 25% in the next few years, and end coal usage by 2040, but I guess it's not enough of a start. They also pledge to be on 100% renewable by 2050.
Oh it is, much much less, but it's not zero. So while it might be a lesser evil, it's definitively still an evil which needs to be replaced at some point.
I like those why are attempting to keep themselves in line with the EU directive for carbon neutrality at 2050, but I suspect you're going to need someone with some real driving force on the subject to stand any kind of chance against the majority of companies who simply doesn't give a shit other than their short term profits. And you're going to need it sooner than later. Another Trump won't do, obviously, but I'm not even certain another Obama would be enough.
I think the idea of opening natural gas plants right now is just so that they can close coal ones...
Transitions take time, and it's meant to bridge the gap between lots of carbon emissions and pure renewable energy.
Meanwhile, China is STILL building coal factories. And they are trying to hide it from the media.
On March 07 2019 01:16 Sermokala wrote: America has natural gas like Norway has fish.
Just want to chuckle over the strangest analogy ever. Proportionally Norway has natural gas over and beyond anything America has. Norway has natural gas... like Norway has fish I guess?
If I'm not mistaken, we're going to be the worlds biggest exporter of Natural gas once Johan Sverdrup is up and running. But we don't use any of it ourselves. Only a few minorities of houses still uses gas (and according to my brother who used to own one, it's a real pain), and zero of our power plants does.
We like to sit high on our horses scoffing at everyone still using fossil fuels while we provide it to them..
Natural gas is still less damaging than coal to my knowledge. My state (Michigan) in the United States wanted to close 3 coal factories and open 1 natural gas one instead. Yet there were protests.
DTE pledged to increase renewable energy to 25% in the next few years, and end coal usage by 2040, but I guess it's not enough of a start. They also pledge to be on 100% renewable by 2050.
Oh it is, much much less, but it's not zero. So while it might be a lesser evil, it's definitively still an evil which needs to be replaced at some point.
I like those why are attempting to keep themselves in line with the EU directive for carbon neutrality at 2050, but I suspect you're going to need someone with some real driving force on the subject to stand any kind of chance against the majority of companies who simply doesn't give a shit other than their short term profits. And you're going to need it sooner than later. Another Trump won't do, obviously, but I'm not even certain another Obama would be enough.
I think the idea of opening natural gas plants right now is just so that they can close coal ones...
Transitions take time, and it's meant to bridge the gap between lots of carbon emissions and pure renewable energy.
Meanwhile, China is STILL building coal factories. And they are trying to hide it from the media.
It's not all bad in China. They are building coal plants, which undeniably is bad, but they're also making absolutely enormous strides towards becoming greener on a national scale. I'm not well versed enough in Chinese politics to know how much power local provinces has to ignore national directives, but it's suggested that these new coal plants are set up as a short term solution to keeping the local economy ticking, more than an actual needed power source.
On March 07 2019 01:16 Sermokala wrote: America has natural gas like Norway has fish.
Just want to chuckle over the strangest analogy ever. Proportionally Norway has natural gas over and beyond anything America has. Norway has natural gas... like Norway has fish I guess?
If I'm not mistaken, we're going to be the worlds biggest exporter of Natural gas once Johan Sverdrup is up and running. But we don't use any of it ourselves. Only a few minorities of houses still uses gas (and according to my brother who used to own one, it's a real pain), and zero of our power plants does.
We like to sit high on our horses scoffing at everyone still using fossil fuels while we provide it to them..
Natural gas is still less damaging than coal to my knowledge. My state (Michigan) in the United States wanted to close 3 coal factories and open 1 natural gas one instead. Yet there were protests.
DTE pledged to increase renewable energy to 25% in the next few years, and end coal usage by 2040, but I guess it's not enough of a start. They also pledge to be on 100% renewable by 2050.
Oh it is, much much less, but it's not zero. So while it might be a lesser evil, it's definitively still an evil which needs to be replaced at some point.
I like those why are attempting to keep themselves in line with the EU directive for carbon neutrality at 2050, but I suspect you're going to need someone with some real driving force on the subject to stand any kind of chance against the majority of companies who simply doesn't give a shit other than their short term profits. And you're going to need it sooner than later. Another Trump won't do, obviously, but I'm not even certain another Obama would be enough.
I think the idea of opening natural gas plants right now is just so that they can close coal ones...
Transitions take time, and it's meant to bridge the gap between lots of carbon emissions and pure renewable energy.
Meanwhile, China is STILL building coal factories. And they are trying to hide it from the media.
It's not all bad in China. They are building coal plants, which undeniably is bad, but they're also making absolutely enormous strides towards becoming greener on a national scale. I'm not well versed enough in Chinese politics to know how much power local provinces has to ignore national directives, but it's suggested that these new coal plants are set up as a short term solution to keeping the local economy ticking, more than an actual needed power source.
Moving on from coal and oil to renewable energy is also a way to compete with China in the future. At some point more of the world is going to have to move to renewable energy sources. The US can either be competitive in that market or play catch up.
We could be the nation that sells other nations the tech to power their country using light from the fucking sun and wind. We could develop news systems that work across the diverse landscape that is the US, which would mean we would have systems and practices a broad number of other countries might want to use.
But to do that, we would need have some vision in this country, rather than wishing to the economy of the 1960s and 1970s to return and complaining about how we should have to change until China does.
Edit: Although that man seems well meaning, I'm not convinced a youtuber is the best place to obtain authoritative information on the state of China's energy infrastructure. China be big after all.
On March 07 2019 01:16 Sermokala wrote: America has natural gas like Norway has fish.
Just want to chuckle over the strangest analogy ever. Proportionally Norway has natural gas over and beyond anything America has. Norway has natural gas... like Norway has fish I guess?
If I'm not mistaken, we're going to be the worlds biggest exporter of Natural gas once Johan Sverdrup is up and running. But we don't use any of it ourselves. Only a few minorities of houses still uses gas (and according to my brother who used to own one, it's a real pain), and zero of our power plants does.
We like to sit high on our horses scoffing at everyone still using fossil fuels while we provide it to them..
Natural gas is still less damaging than coal to my knowledge. My state (Michigan) in the United States wanted to close 3 coal factories and open 1 natural gas one instead. Yet there were protests.
DTE pledged to increase renewable energy to 25% in the next few years, and end coal usage by 2040, but I guess it's not enough of a start. They also pledge to be on 100% renewable by 2050.
Oh it is, much much less, but it's not zero. So while it might be a lesser evil, it's definitively still an evil which needs to be replaced at some point.
I like those why are attempting to keep themselves in line with the EU directive for carbon neutrality at 2050, but I suspect you're going to need someone with some real driving force on the subject to stand any kind of chance against the majority of companies who simply doesn't give a shit other than their short term profits. And you're going to need it sooner than later. Another Trump won't do, obviously, but I'm not even certain another Obama would be enough.
I think the idea of opening natural gas plants right now is just so that they can close coal ones...
Transitions take time, and it's meant to bridge the gap between lots of carbon emissions and pure renewable energy.
Meanwhile, China is STILL building coal factories. And they are trying to hide it from the media.
It's not all bad in China. They are building coal plants, which undeniably is bad, but they're also making absolutely enormous strides towards becoming greener on a national scale. I'm not well versed enough in Chinese politics to know how much power local provinces has to ignore national directives, but it's suggested that these new coal plants are set up as a short term solution to keeping the local economy ticking, more than an actual needed power source.
I didn't see all of it but I get the gist. It's difficult to know honestly. I would suspect people who are researching this area is doing a better job than just taking the Chinese government's word for granted, and these two guys are more on the anecdotal level than national or statistical one. However if it turns out that it's true, then I would definitively appreciate some pressure on China to lower their greenhouse gasses. That would be a more reasonable justifications for tariffs than "I'm starting a trade war because they're easy to win".
The trade war is a total failure. US is taking it in the teeth more than China is. We are still buying from them, but they are not buying from us. We are taxing Americans more and not seeing much of a benefit in in return.
On March 07 2019 01:16 Sermokala wrote: America has natural gas like Norway has fish.
Just want to chuckle over the strangest analogy ever. Proportionally Norway has natural gas over and beyond anything America has. Norway has natural gas... like Norway has fish I guess?
If I'm not mistaken, we're going to be the worlds biggest exporter of Natural gas once Johan Sverdrup is up and running. But we don't use any of it ourselves. Only a few minorities of houses still uses gas (and according to my brother who used to own one, it's a real pain), and zero of our power plants does.
We like to sit high on our horses scoffing at everyone still using fossil fuels while we provide it to them..
Natural gas is still less damaging than coal to my knowledge. My state (Michigan) in the United States wanted to close 3 coal factories and open 1 natural gas one instead. Yet there were protests.
DTE pledged to increase renewable energy to 25% in the next few years, and end coal usage by 2040, but I guess it's not enough of a start. They also pledge to be on 100% renewable by 2050.
Oh it is, much much less, but it's not zero. So while it might be a lesser evil, it's definitively still an evil which needs to be replaced at some point.
I like those why are attempting to keep themselves in line with the EU directive for carbon neutrality at 2050, but I suspect you're going to need someone with some real driving force on the subject to stand any kind of chance against the majority of companies who simply doesn't give a shit other than their short term profits. And you're going to need it sooner than later. Another Trump won't do, obviously, but I'm not even certain another Obama would be enough.
I think the idea of opening natural gas plants right now is just so that they can close coal ones...
Transitions take time, and it's meant to bridge the gap between lots of carbon emissions and pure renewable energy.
Meanwhile, China is STILL building coal factories. And they are trying to hide it from the media.
It's not all bad in China. They are building coal plants, which undeniably is bad, but they're also making absolutely enormous strides towards becoming greener on a national scale. I'm not well versed enough in Chinese politics to know how much power local provinces has to ignore national directives, but it's suggested that these new coal plants are set up as a short term solution to keeping the local economy ticking, more than an actual needed power source.
I didn't see all of it but I get the gist. It's difficult to know honestly. I would suspect people who are researching this area is doing a better job than just taking the Chinese government's word for granted, and these two guys are more on the anecdotal level than national or statistical one. However if it turns out that it's true, then I would definitively appreciate some pressure on China to lower their greenhouse gasses. That would be a more reasonable justifications for tariffs than "I'm starting a trade war because they're easy to win".
Lets just say I am concerned with the promises that an increasingly communist country is making, a country that is also in a bubble.
On March 07 2019 03:37 Plansix wrote: The trade war is a total failure. US is taking it in the teeth more than China is. We are still buying from them, but they are not buying from us. We are taxing Americans more and not seeing much of a benefit in in return.
On March 07 2019 03:37 Plansix wrote: The trade war is a total failure. US is taking it in the teeth more than China is. We are still buying from them, but they are not buying from us. We are taxing Americans more and not seeing much of a benefit in in return.
There was a great drop between 2016 to 2017, yet Trump's tariffs were not even in effect until 2018.
The data doesn't really support the statement here.
I would say the increase is due to the economy doing well + tax cuts allowing businesses to buy more...
Yes, that is how trade defecates get bigger, the issue is with the tariffs we are now spending more on these things. They are not doing what they were intended to do and are just hurting every day americans
On March 07 2019 03:37 Plansix wrote: The trade war is a total failure. US is taking it in the teeth more than China is. We are still buying from them, but they are not buying from us. We are taxing Americans more and not seeing much of a benefit in in return.
There was a great drop between 2016 to 2017, yet Trump's tariffs were not even in effect until 2018.
The data doesn't really support the statement here.
I would say the increase is due to the economy doing well + tax cuts allowing businesses to buy more...
Usually "the economy is doing well" is used to explain nations rising trade surplus / shrinking trade deficit.
And I like how Trumps tax cuts lead to business buying more foreign goods. This sounds pretty much like the antithesis to the original official reasoning for those tax cuts...
On March 07 2019 03:37 Plansix wrote: The trade war is a total failure. US is taking it in the teeth more than China is. We are still buying from them, but they are not buying from us. We are taxing Americans more and not seeing much of a benefit in in return.
There was a great drop between 2016 to 2017, yet Trump's tariffs were not even in effect until 2018.
The data doesn't really support the statement here.
I would say the increase is due to the economy doing well + tax cuts allowing businesses to buy more...
Yes, that is how trade defecates get bigger, the issue is with the tariffs we are now spending more on these things. They are not doing what they were intended to do and are just hurting every day americans
"every day americans" no, it's really not, or at least we haven't felt it. The United States is still doing well. It's brought China to the negotiation table and is hurting them also. Find whatever source you want and it will probably say what you want.
The real issue with china and their green energy initiative runs into the buzzsaw that is their strange and frankly broken government. They have a mix of communism and federalism that feeds into insane levels of corruption and structural incompetence that is kept rolling through the will of the party and the momentum the country has established. It doesn't matter really what the government in Beijing wants when most of the country will act its its own short term best intrest. God help them when the peoples 70 year lease to the land beneath them starts to creep closer to it reverting back to the government.
On March 07 2019 03:37 Plansix wrote: The trade war is a total failure. US is taking it in the teeth more than China is. We are still buying from them, but they are not buying from us. We are taxing Americans more and not seeing much of a benefit in in return.
There was a great drop between 2016 to 2017, yet Trump's tariffs were not even in effect until 2018.
The data doesn't really support the statement here.
I would say the increase is due to the economy doing well + tax cuts allowing businesses to buy more...
Yes, that is how trade defecates get bigger, the issue is with the tariffs we are now spending more on these things. They are not doing what they were intended to do and are just hurting every day americans
"every day americans" no, it's really not, or at least we haven't felt it. The United States is still doing well. It's brought China to the negotiation table and is hurting them also. Find whatever source you want and it will probably say what you want.
I am not moved by economists trying to predict that who will be hurt more in a trade war any more than I am by people trying to predict that who will be hurt more in a real war. And much like a lot of real wars throughout history, trade wars normally end with both sides gaining very little. There is a reason we stop engaging in them. Little has changed.
On March 07 2019 01:16 Sermokala wrote: America has natural gas like Norway has fish.
Just want to chuckle over the strangest analogy ever. Proportionally Norway has natural gas over and beyond anything America has. Norway has natural gas... like Norway has fish I guess?
If I'm not mistaken, we're going to be the worlds biggest exporter of Natural gas once Johan Sverdrup is up and running. But we don't use any of it ourselves. Only a few minorities of houses still uses gas (and according to my brother who used to own one, it's a real pain), and zero of our power plants does.
We like to sit high on our horses scoffing at everyone still using fossil fuels while we provide it to them..
Natural gas is still less damaging than coal to my knowledge. My state (Michigan) in the United States wanted to close 3 coal factories and open 1 natural gas one instead. Yet there were protests.
DTE pledged to increase renewable energy to 25% in the next few years, and end coal usage by 2040, but I guess it's not enough of a start. They also pledge to be on 100% renewable by 2050.
Oh it is, much much less, but it's not zero. So while it might be a lesser evil, it's definitively still an evil which needs to be replaced at some point.
I like those why are attempting to keep themselves in line with the EU directive for carbon neutrality at 2050, but I suspect you're going to need someone with some real driving force on the subject to stand any kind of chance against the majority of companies who simply doesn't give a shit other than their short term profits. And you're going to need it sooner than later. Another Trump won't do, obviously, but I'm not even certain another Obama would be enough.
I think the idea of opening natural gas plants right now is just so that they can close coal ones...
Transitions take time, and it's meant to bridge the gap between lots of carbon emissions and pure renewable energy.
Meanwhile, China is STILL building coal factories. And they are trying to hide it from the media.
It's not all bad in China. They are building coal plants, which undeniably is bad, but they're also making absolutely enormous strides towards becoming greener on a national scale. I'm not well versed enough in Chinese politics to know how much power local provinces has to ignore national directives, but it's suggested that these new coal plants are set up as a short term solution to keeping the local economy ticking, more than an actual needed power source.
I didn't see all of it but I get the gist. It's difficult to know honestly. I would suspect people who are researching this area is doing a better job than just taking the Chinese government's word for granted, and these two guys are more on the anecdotal level than national or statistical one. However if it turns out that it's true, then I would definitively appreciate some pressure on China to lower their greenhouse gasses. That would be a more reasonable justifications for tariffs than "I'm starting a trade war because they're easy to win".
Lets just say I am concerned with the promises that an increasingly communist country is making, a country that is also in a bubble.
China's fall will be harsh.
How exactly is China increasingly communist? A bubble is basically a capitalist phenomenon, be it tulips, or dotcom, or construction.
On March 07 2019 04:07 Sermokala wrote: The real issue with china and their green energy initiative runs into the buzzsaw that is their strange and frankly broken government. They have a mix of communism and federalism that feeds into insane levels of corruption and structural incompetence that is kept rolling through the will of the party and the momentum the country has established. It doesn't matter really what the government in Beijing wants when most of the country will act its its own short term best intrest. God help them when the peoples 70 year lease to the land beneath them starts to creep closer to it reverting back to the government.
Which part is it that you consider communist? State control and authoritarianism isn't the same thing as communism. Though I agree they have an insane level of corruption, they appear to be generally competent, at least when it come to their "federal" projects.
On March 07 2019 01:39 Dangermousecatdog wrote: [quote]Just want to chuckle over the strangest analogy ever. Proportionally Norway has natural gas over and beyond anything America has. Norway has natural gas... like Norway has fish I guess?
If I'm not mistaken, we're going to be the worlds biggest exporter of Natural gas once Johan Sverdrup is up and running. But we don't use any of it ourselves. Only a few minorities of houses still uses gas (and according to my brother who used to own one, it's a real pain), and zero of our power plants does.
We like to sit high on our horses scoffing at everyone still using fossil fuels while we provide it to them..
Natural gas is still less damaging than coal to my knowledge. My state (Michigan) in the United States wanted to close 3 coal factories and open 1 natural gas one instead. Yet there were protests.
DTE pledged to increase renewable energy to 25% in the next few years, and end coal usage by 2040, but I guess it's not enough of a start. They also pledge to be on 100% renewable by 2050.
Oh it is, much much less, but it's not zero. So while it might be a lesser evil, it's definitively still an evil which needs to be replaced at some point.
I like those why are attempting to keep themselves in line with the EU directive for carbon neutrality at 2050, but I suspect you're going to need someone with some real driving force on the subject to stand any kind of chance against the majority of companies who simply doesn't give a shit other than their short term profits. And you're going to need it sooner than later. Another Trump won't do, obviously, but I'm not even certain another Obama would be enough.
I think the idea of opening natural gas plants right now is just so that they can close coal ones...
Transitions take time, and it's meant to bridge the gap between lots of carbon emissions and pure renewable energy.
Meanwhile, China is STILL building coal factories. And they are trying to hide it from the media.
It's not all bad in China. They are building coal plants, which undeniably is bad, but they're also making absolutely enormous strides towards becoming greener on a national scale. I'm not well versed enough in Chinese politics to know how much power local provinces has to ignore national directives, but it's suggested that these new coal plants are set up as a short term solution to keeping the local economy ticking, more than an actual needed power source.
I didn't see all of it but I get the gist. It's difficult to know honestly. I would suspect people who are researching this area is doing a better job than just taking the Chinese government's word for granted, and these two guys are more on the anecdotal level than national or statistical one. However if it turns out that it's true, then I would definitively appreciate some pressure on China to lower their greenhouse gasses. That would be a more reasonable justifications for tariffs than "I'm starting a trade war because they're easy to win".
Lets just say I am concerned with the promises that an increasingly communist country is making, a country that is also in a bubble.
China's fall will be harsh.
How exactly is China increasingly communist? A bubble is basically a capitalist phenomenon, be it tulips, or dotcom, or construction.
On March 07 2019 04:07 Sermokala wrote: The real issue with china and their green energy initiative runs into the buzzsaw that is their strange and frankly broken government. They have a mix of communism and federalism that feeds into insane levels of corruption and structural incompetence that is kept rolling through the will of the party and the momentum the country has established. It doesn't matter really what the government in Beijing wants when most of the country will act its its own short term best intrest. God help them when the peoples 70 year lease to the land beneath them starts to creep closer to it reverting back to the government.
Which part is it that you consider communist? State control and authoritarianism isn't the same thing as communism. Though I agree they have an insane level of corruption, they appear to be generally competent, at least when it come to their "federal" projects.
When I say federalism I mean it in its literal term as in the different levels of government being responsible for increasingly narrow jurisdictions. In the chinese state this manifests as governors and down being selected by the national congress. However this then works in reverse as the national congress is selected in a rather complicated method of elections that is at its core has the electors organized into groups to make their vote.
Its impossible to say what china really is when you take into account all of the differences in the laws they've carved out to allow capitalism in. What are special economic zones really? They're under commune elected state control but have the capitalist freedoms of a western country.
ANYWAY. Those "federal" projects are indeed legit it seems from everything I have seen. the real issue is what comes at the more local level. Stuff like the south china mall until recently and the apartment buildings that end up being little more then a series of concrete coffins so that people can buy their "third home".
I'm not going to tell you that I even 70% understand the chinese election system but at the end of the day the communist party controls the super majority of the seats and has always done. If you can't trust that they at least belive that they are comunist then I don't know what to judge things.
That China is not a democracy does not make China communist. Saudi Arabia and Iran and Russia are not democracies, and they aren't communist either. They haven't actually been communist for 20 years now. The ideas of communism doesn't seem to drive China's leaders anymore, but rather retaining power and wealth does. You'll have to point to something that is actually communist to make China communist. There is a large element of state control, that is true, but there is also a large element of market economy.
I didn't say that china not being a democracy makes them communist. Repeatedly I talked about their elections. My first paragraph said that their electors are organized into groups. In the second I talked about how their commune elected state has control. And the last paragraph has me saying that they call themselves communist.
Your post doesn't reference or reply to anything in my post. I don't think you read it in the slightest.
EPT
