Post A3ZOPDZSLDWVRIQZaC by Demosthenes@qoto.org
(DIR) More posts by Demosthenes@qoto.org
(DIR) Post #A3ZLqpc4i2kJNi80J6 by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:18:55Z
1 likes, 3 repeats
Yet another indication Joe is clueless.. I dont care so much about the pipeline workers, but I do care about the environment. Blocking pipelines means more pollution, and a hell of a lot of it. But Joe is either not smart enough to understand that or cares more about his image than doing good. No surprise.#USPol #Biden #environment #Oil
(DIR) Post #A3ZMFfTpWLBxC67AGG by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:23:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I think you pasted the wrong image. That's not talking about a pipeline. Anyway, are you saying that an oil pipeline does not facilitate burning fossil fuels?
(DIR) Post #A3ZMYxi1yBC3ETxORU by Demosthenes@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:26:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo blocking the pipeline means less economical fossil fuels, which will aid in the transition to renewable energies. CO2 accumulation will be far more important in the long run than just spilled oil.
(DIR) Post #A3ZMbA4Oz1tg9FTBC4 by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:27:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog The image is Bidens response when asked about how he blocked the pipeline the effect it would have on workers. So yea its about the pipeline.. why what image do you see?"And yes i am saying that a pipeline does not facilitate burning oils, well not exactly. Oil can get from point A to point B many ways, the three main ways are train, truck, and pipeline. The quantity of oil transported is based on demand, blocking one of these only causes the oil to move by the other and has no effect on the amount of oil in circulation or consumed.Combine that fact with the fact that of those three ways pipeline contributes by far the least amount of pollution per barrel.So the effect of blocking the most evo-friendly mode of transport and forcing companies to utilize significantly less eco-friendly modes of travel is not that there is less facilitation of oil, only that there is far far more pollution and little else to gain.
(DIR) Post #A3ZMlgVvDFJjfPMMbo by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:29:14Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Demosthenes Incorrect, blocking the pipeline means more pollution as it is transported via other means, the overall supply of oil is uneffected, they just buy more trucks and/or trains to move it. Same amount gets moved but now you have a ton of pollution while you do it.Its not about oil spilled either, the ways in which they move oil that isnt pipelines equates to **huge** quantities of CO2, it essentially equates to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of extra trucks on the roads.
(DIR) Post #A3ZMvE4Pov4SLX2kvQ by djsumdog@djsumdog.com
2021-01-24T17:31:04.953817Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog @freemo There are tradeoffs going on. First, telling people they can get other jobs is just as shitty as Gov Cummo saying something similar to people who lost their jobs back in March. It's tone-deaf and callous. Some of those energy companies can move their contractors, but many though they were part of a multi-year contract and this totally fucks them (my dad immigrated to the US working for an energy contractor in the 70s).Also, it's all tradeoffs. A pipeline is going to use way less fuel than moving resources via trucks. It also ensures less dependences on foreign companies and interests. Energy independences does come at a cost: fracking might permanently damage ground water supplies.So risk destroying our water resources or risk being dependent on countries with horrific human rights policies for oil. It's complex, and the media tries to dumb it down into garbage.
(DIR) Post #A3ZMwo47Tb42Gzeu4O by Atlas@atlas.fedi.live
2021-01-24T17:31:20.664798Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo It's all virtue signaling to the leftist base. Dont waste time trying to apply logic to the situation. You have to look at it teleologically to understand it
(DIR) Post #A3ZMySk9ipIOiu6uki by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:31:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo ah, my bad.. I pasted the wrong URL (I use bitlbee not a GUI). The pipeline reduces the delivery cost, which has the ultimate effect of increasing consumption.
(DIR) Post #A3ZN1RQN5COTV7HE6C by Demosthenes@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:32:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo the amount of oil mined is heavily influenced by the profit margins available in the market. Are you saying that oil moved without the pipeline is cheaper than oil moved with it?
(DIR) Post #A3ZN7PO1ZYMcuz1ZoG by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:33:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog Not really the effect is marginal..That would be like arguing we need to push for more coal energy because coal is less economical and costs people more therefore it reduces consumption.Increasing price by 10 cents and then ensuring the oil you deliver pollutes x3 as much as it would otherwise is no win.
(DIR) Post #A3ZNOgloC4l5ktOC4e by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:36:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Demosthenes No I am saying that the cost-benefit balance is nothing like what you are proposing.By that logic we should replace all our nuclea power plants (relatively nonpolluting but not perfect, but very cost effective) with coal power plants because coal costs more to operate and the added cost will decrease consumption... it doesnt work like thatIncreasing the cost per gallon by 10 cents for the consumer by forcing the oil to be moved by trucks, but at the same time ensuring each gallon of gas contributes 2x the amount of pollution it did before, is not a win, not by any measure. You cant **increase** pollution by a huge margin and expect you to have a net positive result simply because the price goes up a little. Thats an aburd and self-defeating tactic.
(DIR) Post #A3ZNRDokINOWpSyFwu by valleyforge@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:36:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Demosthenes @freemo Why not just increase fuel tax if this is what you want to do?
(DIR) Post #A3ZNSyymQzBfO9VJDs by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:37:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo You have to pay drivers, pay for the fuel itself, pay for the infrastructure (like office workers) to schedule deliveries, etc. So of course their's a substantial cost savings with the pipeline or the profit-driven oil co wouldn't be trying to do the pipeline. The actual pollution from the trucks/trains is marginal.
(DIR) Post #A3ZNUHtFbrtQKSXXLk by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:37:21Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Atlas Of course it is, he is the president im sure he has access to good data if he wanted. If he bothers to even check he knew damn well the end result of this is huge quantities of pollution and a step in the wrong direction. But I doubt he cares in the least what the actual effect is
(DIR) Post #A3ZNYAcEb8TmvTQqmm by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:37:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo You have to pay drivers, pay for the fuel itself, pay for the infrastructure (like office workers) to schedule deliveries, etc. So of course there's a substantial cost savings with the pipeline or the profit-driven oil co wouldn't be trying to do the pipeline. The actual pollution from the trucks/trains is marginal.
(DIR) Post #A3ZNgeqG6MEmzI2Tfk by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:39:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog None of that is based on reality unfortunately in terms of the actual data. The contributed pollution from trucks hauling oil across country is astronomical. Any area that needs a pipeline likely does not have access to trains so its going to be by truck not train.The cost for drivers is offset by the cost for pipeline engineers. You have fewer pipeline engineers but they cost 5x as much to hire, so thats a moot point.I dont think you realize just how many trucks we are talking here, 10,000 + more trucks ont he road is a **lot** of pollution.
(DIR) Post #A3ZNp99FJ7xvIUy4IK by Demosthenes@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:41:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@valleyforge @freemo that would be a much better, more efficient solution in every way, but I'm not sure it's politically possible in the USA.
(DIR) Post #A3ZNxv1FCyng5DPMLg by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:42:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Demosthenes Not a "much better solution"... the only solution of the two considered. The other one isnt a solution anymore than building coal power plants is a solution to reduce power generatione missions.@valleyforge
(DIR) Post #A3ZO7PTFMKZx8L21dA by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:39:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo it would be ideal to allow the pipeline but then introduce a cost-prohibitive tax on the fuel, but that's impossible to do politically.
(DIR) Post #A3ZO7Pt7o7HMQb8gy0 by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:42:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo It was tried in California. Sadly, even CA democrats who are generally pro-environment fought fiercely to shut-down the democrat in office who tried to increase the gas tax. Ppl's tune changes as soon as their own lifestyle becomes threatened.
(DIR) Post #A3ZO7QJiDGXvl3ZvPM by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:44:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog If you cant implement solutions that reduce oil consumption, real solutions, then better to do nothing.Blocking pipelines is a huge step backwards and is effectively dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air with no real benefit other than costing people a few pennies on their gas price which we already know people will easily pay anyway.
(DIR) Post #A3ZO96euGxILMuIJsm by tursiops@tooting.ch
2021-01-24T17:44:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I'm sorry but I don't understand how blocking a pipeline construction can worsen the environment. The less we build the less we have to destroy the land to build. Then a pipeline moves petrol which is highly bad for the environment, so to me it's a win!
(DIR) Post #A3ZOActhtYzFe1wT0C by Demosthenes@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:44:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @valleyforge making oil less economical than other energy sources is the only way to actually drive widespread change. There are multiple ways to make oil use more expensive.
(DIR) Post #A3ZOGPSqkhobih8aTw by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:46:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Demosthenes yes but if you have a marginal impact on the cost and a HUGE impact on the CO2 output you arent having any positive impact, your just punching yourself in the face repeatidly.@valleyforge
(DIR) Post #A3ZOPDZSLDWVRIQZaC by Demosthenes@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:47:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @valleyforge "[increased fuel tax] would be a much better, more efficient solution in every way"
(DIR) Post #A3ZOQBwZsNfYgNhsx6 by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:47:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo if the fuel cost raises by 10 cents due to market circumstances, car drivers will pay it. But if the cost of fuel increases by 10 cents due to an artificial gas tax, ppl will stop at nothing to send the politician packing and overturn the tax.
(DIR) Post #A3ZORhZnkhIt4xm1VA by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:48:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tursiops Except the reality isnt that simple.You block a pipeline it doesnt reduce the quantity of oil being consumed in any noticeable quantity. all you've done is move the transport from the most evo-friendly mode of transport (pipelines) to the least eco friendly modes of transport (like trucks)... So the end result is 10,000+ new trucks on the road in an endless line of moving oil from point A to point be and a few million more tons of CO2 in the air than before.
(DIR) Post #A3ZOZ8gTMhYfB9RMP2 by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:49:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog Exactly... which is why its good to try to push for an increase fuel tax (particularly if that fuel tax is going towards ecological investments). But should you fail to get such a law passed (and as you say its likely you may not) then its better to do nothing then to block a pipeline out of desperation and cause far far more damage than doing nothing.
(DIR) Post #A3ZOkjOxBtlIF1m1Q0 by tursiops@tooting.ch
2021-01-24T17:51:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo well when you're addict to a substance you're ready to do anything to get it, including cutting the branch where you're sitting.
(DIR) Post #A3ZOloXRZrMaSlGFSC by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:49:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo so it's important to embrace scenarios that cause the market price to increase.
(DIR) Post #A3ZOlozRtjlTrcMc6a by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:51:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog not when those scenarios have a net result of more pollution and not less. Blind ignorance towards a goal without analylizing the results of an action is how we cause more harm than good...Dice it however you want the simple fact, and what the numbers show, is that if you block pipelines the net result is more pollution, not less. Pipelines contribute negliible pollution, Trains for transporting oil alone (and thats more ecofriendly than trucks) contributes 10 million tons of just CO2 for the transport of oil inside the USA. Trucks produce significantly more than that.
(DIR) Post #A3ZOw9k1bHIX7P4qYa by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:53:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tursiops Well thats the problem isnt it... people will pay the extra 10 cents to get their gas when a pipeline is cut and it doesn't matter that it costs 10 cents extra or that it equates to an extra few million tons of CO2 in the air than it would have if a pipeline was used.Which is the very reason stopping pipelines is one of the most idiotic things any president who cares about the environment could possibly do. It tells you they care more about their image (because public will see it as a good thing even when it isnt, just like you did) then they care about the environment.
(DIR) Post #A3ZPDMkGVOU0N8ObZI by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:55:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo it's a given that car drivers out number non-car drivers, and that they will fight like hell to maintain their lifestyle. And this is not just in the US. Brussels shows the effect of the car lobby bullying to the point that it only costs 30eur to park on the street & the street is so ram-packed with cars that communes disallow garages on (which removes a public parking spot from
(DIR) Post #A3ZPLbDeZj1XZy4HBI by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T17:57:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog yea the car drivers are of course a big part of the issue, but in fact they arent the bulk of the pollution or the majority of gas consumers. So they really arent where the focus should be. Airplanes and freighters (large boats) are the bigger problem
(DIR) Post #A3ZPVIT19NPwJesX4K by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T17:59:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo The figures you're talking about apparently don't account for cost reducing demand. Not that they're sloppy, but how could they? It's guesswork. And as you've said, your working assumption is that a cost increase doesn't decrease consumption. This is why the figures are bad.
(DIR) Post #A3ZPmSp7tjJRMLPDFY by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T18:03:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog As a data scientist ive worked on this problem before, and yes it factored in cost cutting demand, and it isnt hard to do actually. We look closely how gasoline prices effect consumption and it isnt very significant, and certainly does not outweigh the cost-benefits your describing.
(DIR) Post #A3ZQOPUEkjiM0wjFrs by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T18:09:51Z
0 likes, 2 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog Since I worked on this in a data science role I know the numbers intimately. To give you an idea of just how insignificant the price-demand curve is for consumers:In 2008 we have the most telling data, the average national gasoline price shot down from $4 dollars a gallon to $1.75 a gallon (nominal price) before rising back up again to $4 dollars a gallon in the year or two that followed.Despite the price having decreased by more than half there was no noticable difference in number of miles driven by vehicals in on the road (total across all vehicles). In fact it **decreased*** slightly from 3.275 trillion miles traveled per year to 3.2 trillion miles traveled per year.Likewise as the prices rose again there was no significant difference seen either.Definitively showing that an increase in gas price (or decrease as the case may be) has a negligible effect on consumption, even when the difference in price is extremely significant.@Demosthenes @tursiops
(DIR) Post #A3ZRH2DgxZyZmS2MoS by anonymoose@fedi.club
2021-01-24T18:19:50.619183Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Demosthenes @freemo This is a false dichotomy. The relevant alternative would be to have a tax produce the desired disincentive. By making production inherently less efficient, you're giving up the direct environmental gains AND the revenue to use for other social goals. It's hard to imagine such a vociferous defense of such an obviously inept policy would be grounded in reasoned analysis rather than political tribalism.
(DIR) Post #A3ZRlmXRJUHg7dw3DE by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T18:25:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@anonymoose Well said, and exactly... Plus as i stated earlier in this post: https://qoto.org/@freemo/105612036766523680There is almost 0 impact on the consumption rate of oil anyway.So what you'd see is at best a amrginal decrease in oil consumption (1% if your lucky, or if at all) and a HUGE spike in CO2 production.Its equivalent to forcing all power to be generated with coal rather than nuclear because although coal produces way more pollution it costs more so people will buy less.Its a self defeating ideology when done naively.@Demosthenes
(DIR) Post #A3ZS8FlRKiBB8SCOvo by koherecoWatchdog@freeradical.zone
2021-01-24T18:29:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @tursiops @Demosthenes i heard that ppl take more recreational road trips when fuel is cheap.
(DIR) Post #A3ZSJIPpoaucXoMJrE by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T18:31:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@koherecoWatchdog That could be true, but the data shows little if no effect.Presuming that is true my guess would be that they just replace their normal commute to work with a similar number of miles taking the family on vacation. The net miles in the end being somewhat the same. Just speculation though, all I know is gas prices have a surprisingly small and insignificant effect on consumption.@tursiops @Demosthenes
(DIR) Post #A3ZSqRq7nVzFKRSpdo by Wanyo@noagendasocial.com
2021-01-24T18:37:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo let them eat cake !
(DIR) Post #A3ZT8LxGPrEwI1LCsK by bonifartius@qoto.org
2021-01-24T18:40:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo i think of car travel more like other utilities like electricity, you usually have a stable consumption, with the possibility of some savings if you cut down on comfort or are enabled to do so by technical advancement.
(DIR) Post #A3ZTe5QhOMXgIvEzLM by tursiops@tooting.ch
2021-01-24T18:46:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo @koherecoWatchdog @Demosthenes if I take the analogy of a drug addict you need to slowly but surely need to get out of the addicting substance. It is very difficult and needs a lot of different measures. As with lots of things there is no silver bullet
(DIR) Post #A3ZTgUb8msQawSGvo0 by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T18:46:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bonifartius yea, as a general rule you wont find price has a very strong influence on consumption.
(DIR) Post #A3ZTtzhSSjoPAQfIMC by FailForward@qoto.org
2021-01-24T18:49:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I am not following this closely, so maybe I am wrong, but my understanding is that this is about a pipeline which is not operational yet (in planning, or in construction?). If I am right, then technically speaking, stopping the pipeline project _is not_ going to put more trucks on roads, because nothing needs to be replaced. The volumes of oil which now will not be transported were not transported anyway. So there your argument fails a bit.So (theoretically speaking) the effect of this decision can have twofold effect: 1) curb the supply side (or better said: keep it constant); and 2) incentivise seeking an alternative replacement for whatever purpose there was - e.g., if this single step would increase prices of oil (which I highly doubt), it could incentivise people to move to electric cars. But all that is theory. In reality it's clear what is going on: 1) the administration wants to have environmentally friendly image, 2) there is an opportunity to boost that, 3) the opposition to this project is significant. In the end there is little risk taking this political decision.@tursiops
(DIR) Post #A3ZTyJ1YYdXGG57cFk by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T18:49:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tursiops Yes but those measures ultimately need to be productive to the purpose. Varied measures just for the sake of varying them, even if some of those measures are counter to the goal, wont result in improvements.So if this were to be taken as analogy to drug addicts then banning pipelines would be like telling one of the biggest drug dealers in their city that they must lace all their coke with heroin before selling it, with the logic that heroin costs more so it would discourage consumption and naively ignoring the fact that it causes more harm than the original.@koherecoWatchdog @Demosthenes
(DIR) Post #A3ZUFvIJWTmrsHMPyq by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T18:53:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@FailForward > If I am right, then technically speaking, stopping the pipeline project _is not_ going to put more trucks on roads, because nothing needs to be replaced. The volumes of oil which now will not be transported were not transported anyway. So there your argument fails a bit.This statement makes no sense to me. Why would that matter. They have an oil field somewhere, right now the oil is being transported by trucks, building the pipeline means no trucks would be needed, reducing the CO2 footprint. Why does the fact that the pipeline doesnt already exist matter or effect the equation?Even if we were talking about an oil field that isnt operational, it still would be a failed counter argument. If someone owns a huge oil field and gets denied the pipeline they need to transport it why would you think they wont spend that money on trucks to get it operational? The oil is a source of money and they wont pass that up and is not related to if its in operation or not.> So (theoretically speaking) the effect of this decision can have twofold effect:Since your axioms are invalid all the other points made hereafter are likewise invalid.@tursiops
(DIR) Post #A3ZVsAupzWRlHWBRNw by FailForward@qoto.org
2021-01-24T19:11:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo> This statement makes no sense to me.Let me explain it then :-) :I do not know whether the purpose of the pipeline was to 1) strictly shift the current truck transport into a pipe (and thus reduce CO2 emissions), or 2) to do 1 and on top of that also increase the amount of oil coming into the country. If the former, then the CO2 emissions will not be realised and the situation stays as it was 2 weeks ago. We can call that a missed opportunity, but it does not change anything (in terms of emissions).If the latter, then not constructing the pipeline will in principle *not lead* to increased oil supply, i.e., *will not* increase CO2 emissions to a level higher than it was 2 weeks ago.What I am saying is that (again, strictly technically speaking!) not building the pipeline is not going to have a negative environmental effect in comparison to today's situation.> Since your axioms are invalid all the other points made hereafter are likewise invalid.Conversations with you are a bliss :-). Of course you are always right. Fortunately, I have a deep and very intimate understanding of a technical mind manhandling politics with cold logic :-). @tursiops
(DIR) Post #A3ZWOowwgIl4iAjhfk by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T19:17:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@FailForward the failure here is in your 2nd point:> 2) to do 1 and on top of that also increase the amount of oil coming into the country. You are under the mistaken impression that a pipeline, under any scenario, will increase the overall amount of oil being moved. This is false and not bore out by the data.1) If there is a truck transport going on, then a pipeline reduces the number of trucks. 2) If there is no truck transport going on and the pipeline is being built to support a new operation, then if the pipline is blocked then they buy trucks and transport in the oil that way.No one sits on a pile of black gold and goes "Oh well if we cant transport it via a pipeline we will just ignore all the other ways we can transport it and not sell this extremely expensive product we have millions of tons of it"The fact is, the oil, whether a new construction or old, once identified and owned is getting sold one way or another, blocking a pipeline, doesnt change that fact if the setup is established or not, it just means instead of the pipeline replacing already existing trucks the pipeline would be preventing new trucks from being bought... either way its the same deal and there is no reason to think a preexisting condition changes that equation.> If the former, then the CO2 emissions will not be realised and the situation stays as it was 2 weeks ago.Again since the axiom is still incorrect everything that follows it is likewise incorrect.@tursiops
(DIR) Post #A3Za065mD05gSGKipM by FailForward@qoto.org
2021-01-24T19:57:35Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo First, let me say that this is my last response in this conversation. I see little point in continuing it, I said most of what I felt was useful, apparently it does not make sense to you and I do not care enough to change that - to me that pipeline decision is like Uzbekistan deciding to change their default timezone. I was just seeking some little sparring on Sunday evening, which I got. Thanks for that.> Again since the axiom is still incorrect everything that follows it is likewise incorrect.Well, now, when we together derived falsity, obviously I am banished into the void hell of inconsistency among all the other low beings (99% of humankind?) and shall never ever crawl back again to the daylight where the pure logic resides. What a lovely way to tell the conversation partner they are an idiot. 🙂 To question others is a great start. But it is just that. To teach ourselves (outside of technical fields, so politics etc.), it is vital to listen and deeply understand why other human beings think what they do, while assuming all along that they are at least as smart as we are (in this case Biden's administration, not me).@tursiops
(DIR) Post #A3ZanbtWkyQtHIDHxQ by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T20:06:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@FailForward >Well, now, when we together derived falsity, obviously I am banished into the void hell of inconsistency among all the other low beings (99% of humankind?) and shall never ever crawl back again to the daylight where the pure logic resides. What a lovely way to tell the conversation partner they are an idiot. 🙂 That is purely your own interpretation and neither my intent nor what my words suggested.The fact is if your going to make an argument that leads from one logical point to the next if you do not make an argument that convinces me of your axiom (your first point) then any arguments you make that rely on that axiom/assumption cant be considered.It has nothing to do with your character or your argument.. What it means is, you either need to do a better job at arguing your axioms before you continue on, at least if you want me to be convinced, or you can abandon the conversation (as you did)> To question others is a great start. But it is just that. To teach ourselves (outside of technical fields, so politics etc.), it is vital to listen and deeply understand why other human beings think what they do, while assuming all along that they are at least as smart as we are (in this case Biden's administration, not me).Biden is a family friend, he has been over my family home, even spent the night and had dinner with us. My mom likes the guy but neither me nor my dad like him, he is very fake and a slimeballl in ever respect IMO.More importantly I never said he was an idiot, what I said was:> But Joe is either not smart enough to understand that or cares more about his image than doing good.I gave two options, and honestly the answer is not that he is an idiot, it is that he doesnt care about right or wrong and he only cares about how he is perceived... Listening to others is great, but you need to make sure you listen to people who have demonstrated they bring value to the conversation in the first place. Otherwise your just wasting everyones time.@tursiops
(DIR) Post #A3ZekTxMDKNJbcliiW by ArturoGoosnargh@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-24T20:50:34.510880Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Another point: i think Texas burns excess natural gas because they are unable to export it economically.So same emissions and no economic use. Hard to regulate away because gas is a byproduct of oil and it would stop production on some wells.I might be wrong on this tho.
(DIR) Post #A3ZeqnZ8DhusA0RuNc by ArturoGoosnargh@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-24T20:51:43.001650Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Yet another point: Oil is getting stockpilled in big deposits in Cushing and Texas, they plan to sell it and burn it eventually.
(DIR) Post #A3ZewXOTGAuxk2CQBk by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T20:52:59Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@ArturoGoosnargh Well presumably if there were an actually effective regulation that reduced oil consumption (this isnt one of them) then it would in turn reduce the amount of natural gas burned.Likewise it could be addressed through regulation by investing more infrastructure in natural gas pipelines (which many eco-conscious people do tend to promote for many reasons).
(DIR) Post #A3Zf10UP1bFd8e6ZOK by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T20:53:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ArturoGoosnargh I doubt anyone would just burn off oil, they will just find ways to transport it by buying trucks (which is what the data shows they do).. if they truely were ever forced to just burn oil why dont they just stop pumping it instead?
(DIR) Post #A3ZfEAb0lBOGFRTMyu by ArturoGoosnargh@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-24T20:55:56.431563Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Yeah, I'm for MOAR pipelines.It was a pointmade for the pipeline. Removing the pipeline doesn't inhibit the production of oil that much, instead they just stockpile it for years. Eventually the CO2 impact will be the same.
(DIR) Post #A3ZfRBkTmlT9aV6pHM by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T20:58:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ArturoGoosnargh Yea I get that, the point I am disagreeing with is that they will burn it, they wont.What happens is they just stockpile it as they invest in trucks to haul it. Generally they quickly have more than enough trucks to be able to haul it away at a greater rate than it is produced. It almost never gets to the point where it sits around for very long.
(DIR) Post #A3ZfWqlKizi6EnCxqC by ArturoGoosnargh@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-24T20:59:18.989533Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Not sure trucks are economically worthy.But tankers are.
(DIR) Post #A3ZfezJonSlN5hDcZ6 by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T21:00:46Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@ArturoGoosnargh They are, but less so than other sources. The number of trucks on the road hauling crude oil is enough to produce 10 million tons of CO2 a year in the USA alone. So clearly it is economical enough.
(DIR) Post #A3Zfrhw0k1WswL9FUu by ArturoGoosnargh@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-24T21:03:05.160875Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo In any case I don't worry that much about CO2 emissions, we are going to need CO2 capture anyways at this point.As a non-american I think that is OK for the US to be oil self-sufficient :)My country(Spain) has oil and gas deposits but due to eco-politics we are not extracting a drop. Doesn't stop us from mining expensive and bad quality coal "cuz it many jobs depend on it"
(DIR) Post #A3ZgRW3uMQvoXhuu1I by freemo@qoto.org
2021-01-24T21:09:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ArturoGoosnargh I'm not sure the fact taht things have gotten so bad that we will need CO2 capture to repair it is a justification to just keep spewing CO2.. the more we spew the more CO2 capture we will need to advert the worst case scenario and the less likely we will be able to provide those levels of capture. So regardless of any need for CO2 capture it is still in our best interest to reduce CO2 emissions.
(DIR) Post #A3ZgbaVSgvk3DrbibI by ArturoGoosnargh@freespeechextremist.com
2021-01-24T21:11:22.664214Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo OK, I agree