The article says the CO2 reduction over 30 years is the equivalent of taking 4 million cars off the road. But they don't do the math.
The projected total reduction over 30 years is equal to the emissions of 4 million cars in 1 year, based on current emissions. But cars will change over the next 30 years too.
30 minutes to any city on earth sounds pretty good, and I am pretty sure SpaceX will be getting at least one such commercial flight out in the next five years or so... they also can carry 100 people at a time, and passengers get a free sub-space visual to boot.
Even supersonic would look pokey next to that.
Even this SR-71 couldn't get to "any city on earth" in 30 minutes.
In this case the article says it flies at mach 1.4, so it can only go about 550 miles in 30 minutes.
The guy this threat is about, did not talk about the summary. He talked about the fact that he himself spends 33h per WEEK in traffic jams.
I live in NY, we aren't spending almost 4 entire days a week just sitting in traffic. Good for you:D I live in a small village, just 300k people, there are only small jams during peak hours at some construction sites. But I use bicycle or train anyway...
Ah, I see, you were referring to just this thread, not the posted article about Luxembourg. But even for this thread, the thread starter wrote "If you have a 9-5 in DC, Atlanta or LA you probably pull 33 hours in a single MONTH."
Nice you can bike to work. The distances here are too great, and right now it's too cold anyway. I've used the commuter train line a lot, but some jobs have been in locations where a train was impractical. The longest commute was 75 miles from home. It was not fun.
He said 33 hours per week that is 6h per workday, 3 hours one way... no idea what you are getting wrong.
From the summary: "A study suggested that drivers in the capital spent an average of 33 hours in traffic jams in 2016."
It's an annual number, not weekly. If you read the article it's pretty clear
"Compared with the major cities at the top of the list, the cliché of Luxembourg City as a congested capital clogged by its road traffic needs to be moderated. In comparison, for example, the inhabitants of the city of Los Angeles spent 104.1 hours in traffic jams, the inhabitants of Moscow 91.4 hours, and New Yorkers 89.4 hours."
I live in NY, we aren't spending almost 4 entire days a week just sitting in traffic.
I can't disagree with you, he does say a lot of dumb stuff. Or not so dumb, if you listen to Scott Adams.
But I will disagree on Congress. Many of the things Trump was pushing for were things the Congressmen ran on (border wall, repeal Obamacare, etc). Then when he was pushing them to act on their promises they were ineffective. They had no plan on health care despite years of whining and campaigning on the issue. Same on immigration issues. If anything he highlighted how fake they were.
As for the subsidies, he said he wants to end them. That's how any change begins. In Trumps case he ALWAYS starts with a horrible position for his opposition and works from there to something he wants. I don't understand why people haven't realized this yet, it's in his book. There was a recent article where Canada was lost on NAFTA so they went to Mexico and asked how they reached an agreement with Trump. The Mexicans told the Canadians the exact same thing - find out what he really wants and give it to him. I'd send the article if I could find the link. Unfortunately the press plays these things up as "the sky is falling" instead of "this is the start of negotiations". This is one area Trump knows very well and has a track record of success in.
Improve the environment by destroying the middle/lower class's ability to buy home. How about just tax rich people and force out coal and oil companies? The difference in benefits is several orders of magnitude, but no, we can't harm our generous donors.
I don't think that's the right way to look at it. There are lots of building and zoning codes for various reasons. This isn't that out of line. I am wondering about the details though, the article didn't provide any
In my case, it can be a normally less-than-10-minutes drive turning into half an hour. Which is what I'd need by foot. For commuters from abroad, a normal 30-45 min drive can easily turn into several hours of being stuck on the highway or country road, which happens all too often. Traffic really is at a breaking point - the least hiccup leads to monster jams. And it's literally 200k such commuters, so it really adds up.
I'm not suggesting that traffic isn't an issue for many people. I've had 3+ hour daily one way commutes with heavy traffic. But 33 hours of traffic in the course of an entire year doesn't seem like much to fret over.
But if your 5 minute drive became 9 minutes because you spent 4 minutes not moving, you might start to get impatient. TFS says 33 hours in traffic jams, not 33 hours in the car.
It's still a joke. It's 38 minutes in traffic per week, or 5 minutes/day. It's basically a few traffic lights.
A) The president can issue executive orders. Republicans used to think executive orders were bad and unconstitutional, but now they are legal, and necessary undo Obama's legacy of unconstitutionality. Even if courts rule against the executive order, they can maybe just keep making amendments until the courts are satisfied (e.g. like with the muslim ban). Trump doesn't necessarily need to change the law to prevent the federal government from issuing reimbursements through the IRS. I believe the courts will ultimately sort it out, but that may take years for people to receive the reimbursements and be very costly to the government (i.e. taxpayers)
B) The president can ask the republican controlled congress to do just about anything and they will probably listen to him if he can manage to make his request somewhat coherent.
C) They have already attempted to change this law (i.e. end subsidies prematurely) when the last federal budget was passed. Some of the revisions contained clauses to remove these subsidies, but the revision that ultimately passed incidentally did not contain that clause.
Executive orders should be minimal for sure, we don't live in a monarchy. While there are areas clearly under Executive authority they have been abused. Obama used them illegally to enact programs like DACA and DAPA. DAPA has already been blocked by the courts. DACA lawsuits were suspended because the filers expected Trump to reverse it. He did, but that has been held up in court because the Judicial branch overreaches too. "Muslin Ban" was the spin, not the regulation blocking travel from 7 nations. This is one area where the Executive branch clearly does have the authority, and the courts ultimately agreed, The Executive and the IRS can direct changes in some tax policy where they clearly have the authority. Eliminating the EV subsidy outright is not something they can just do.
The president has asked congress for a lot of things. They have a poor record of delivering.
It's pretty easy to call the tax credit a git to the wealthy and eliminate it on those grounds. Here (via reddit) from the Tesla site is how much you have to earn AFTER deductions to benefit from the credits: https://www.reddit.com/r/tesla...
Even if you are in favor of it, the American manufacturers will soon be at the sales volume point where the credit phases out anyway. After that it's pretty easy to justify eliminating it. Even Elon Musk asked Congress to do it: https://seekingalpha.com/artic... . He's no dummy, he knows it will help his competitors more than him.
Lots of bad things happen all the time. We have no choice but to deal with them. I am advocating not having an erratic child as president as a way to deal with this particular problem.
The president doesn't create laws. He can veto them, and can push for them. The EV subsidies were created by congress. Changing them requires a change in the law.
I have a good friend driving for both in NYC. He is driving a 4 or 5 year old car (he bought it I think 2.5 years ago). He makes about $50,000/year driving.
You didn't mention how many hours he's working for that money. If its 40 hours a week * 52 weeks he's grossing $24/hr, which is close to the proposed floor.
A few comments: The regulation is assuming a net after expenses of $17.22, which is $35K/yr pre-tax (at 40hrs/week). That's not really livable in NYC. From https://careertrend.com/how-ma..., a typical NYC cab driver - drives 12 hours/day. At that rate before expenses your friend would be grossing $16/hr - drives 47K miles/year, of mostly rough city stop/start miles. At that rate the car has maybe 7 years
You need someone to make your point because you can't get past the "USA BAD" meme.
Nope. My point stands by itself. By you, by the republicans pushing to end EV tax credits, and by the actions of your administration and your people.
We're not blaming anyone for anything, you are.
Sure you are. The fact that you don't see this in this very thread, in this very discussion, and in the press releases of your own government is quite telling. The ghost of Steve is floating around thinking "I thought I had a good reality distortion field, but really I was just an amateur!"
Lots of nations committing to not commit to maybe do something that they all know is ineffective anyway,
Opinions do not make it so. But hey circle jerks come in all forms. If you consider people making plans as not achieving something then you should be right beside me in criticising yourself for not only not making plans, but also not taking action... errr. Sorry that was unfair and unkind. You're taking action... just in the wrong way.
We left the circle-jerk which you guys are addicted to because we're too busy accomplishing something to waste time jerking you off.
Keep telling yourself that while you choke.
My advice is to find a new hobby
No thanks. I actively enjoy my hobby of arguing with idiots on the internet. It keeps my English skills honed and remind me that there are some incredible minds out there. And to be clear a mind has to be incredible to come up with the conclusions that you just presented. *tips hat to you*
No matter what you say, you can't refute the fact that the US emissions are down, and the Paris Accord participant nations emissions are up. That's not coming from me, that's coming from Scientific American.
And that leaves you with nothing but straw man arguments and righteous indignation which you indulge yourself in with reckless abandon. Your obsession with self-gratification would make you a perfect fit with the Paris Accords crowd. With the departure of the US there is at least one seat available at the table for you. Avoid the sticky spots.
Speaking of choking and Paris, they are doing a lot of choking in the smoke in the Paris riots. Apparently the Parisians missed the memo about how woke they all are about CO2 emissions and rejected violently the latest round of fossil fuel tax initiatives. They sent a wake up call to their government which has just announced a moratorium on the new taxes. You should wake up too.
A free market for energy does not exist. OPEC is a cartel of countries that set production levels to manipulate oil prices and control the supply.
OPEC is a cartel. But the market is less distorted than you think, at least in the US.
The US consumes about 20 million barrels/day of oil (source). Net imports are 5 million. 1/3 of imports come from OPEC countries. So OPEC is not able to exert monopolistic power.
Today's price for OPEC crude is $58.33. West Texas crude is at $53.37. Suffice it to say, any oil user in the US that has access to WTI crude is getting it. Imported crude users are likely refineries that do not have pipeline access to the domestic supply.
Once US oil exports ramp up, things might change, but for now, OPEC's price-setting ability is pretty subdued in the US.
Energy is a global market and the prices are global. Different regions have different prices because the oil is different. https://www.investopedia.com/a...
OPEC's power is way down because they no longer control so much of the supply. The low cost of fracking has wrecked their market. The US is now a major oil and gas producer, is still sitting on hundreds of years of coal, and has a growing renewable sector. It's a huge diversity of supply. Maybe not complete energy independence yet, but getting there.
That's what I've been saying all along, but then the people in the midwest tend to react violently to the realization that would make gasoline prices skyrocket to over $8 per gallon. Curiously, they don't seem to react to the hypocrisy at all.
I agree we should not have had these subsidies in the first place. But now that they have been promised by the government, this promise should not be broken. These subsidies already have a defined lifespan (for example GM who apparently triggered Trump's desire to end the subsidies, is already almost at the end of it's subsidy).
Breaking these promises damages faith in the government and leads to economic inefficiencies as car manufacturers and customers need to change their long term plans to account for the whims of an impulsive, irrational, selfish, childish, and vindictive president.
EV's are not luxury vehicles for the wealthy, and haven't been for some time.
For example, the Nissan Leaf starts at $30K -- in a country where the average price for a new car is $33K.And no one that's driven a Leaf could confuse it with a Luxury car.
The posting says the subsidies would end in 2020 or 2021. Given the cap on sales already in place the subsidy on the Leaf will probably end before that anyway. I would suggest though that tax credits should only apply to cars manufactured in America. The Leaf is made in America, Japan, and the UK.
Your standard is the inability to understand English.
The CO2 emissions of the signatories to the Paris Accord have gone up.
Some yes, some no, but since a large portion of the Paris Accord signatories are still developing nations, and nearly all of them have lower emissions per capita than the USA you're still talking from that same position of privilege.
Should your thoughts clear sufficiently someday you may comprehend the difference between talking about change and effecting it.
Before doing anything you need to talk about doing something. You're good at selectively looking into the past, now try looking into the future. USA: The only G20 country to not agree to resolutions against he Paris Accord last week. Incidentally it's also the developed nation with one of the poorest investments into green technology. Compare that to China which is investing several times more than the USA despite having orders of magnitude lower emissions per capita and still have a long way to go to develop much of their population.
But hey that's what privilege allows. No talk, no plan, no action, just a lot of circle jerking and blaming others.
You've made my point better than I ever could.
You need someone to make your point because you can't get past the "USA BAD" meme. You wallow endlessly in the smugness of your self-righteous indignation.
We're not blaming anyone for anything, you are. It's telling that thinking about the Paris Accords reminded you of a circle-jerk. Lots of nations committing to not commit to maybe do something that they all know is ineffective anyway, then stroking each other and themselves for their "accomplishment". A perfect example of a circle-jerk.
We left the circle-jerk which you guys are addicted to because we're too busy accomplishing something to waste time jerking you off. You'll have to take those matters into your own smug hands, so to speak. My advice is to find a new hobby because apparently all that jerking is releasing a lot of CO2 "emissions". And you might even go blind.
You just can't get past that mindset about "privileged Americans" and lotteries and border lines and whatever you are outraged about today.
Well of course not. How can I get "passed this" is this is exactly the bullshit I'm calling you out on.
Sell your crazy someplace else, "bro". We're not interested.
Not being interested in solving the world problems you are causing is par for the course. Keep blaming everything on everyone else.
Oh look America was the only one of the G20 who again declined to work on parts of the Paris accords this week. American Privilege is not "my" mindset. It's yours.
Another day, another standard. Your standard du jour is the Paris Accords, which actually takes us full circle. Sadly that one is still a loser for you and your outrage.
The CO2 emissions of the signatories to the Paris Accord have gone up. The US emissions have gone down. https://www.scientificamerican...
Should your thoughts clear sufficiently someday you may comprehend the difference between talking about change and effecting it.
First you insist that per capita is important. I go along with you so you change metrics when it no longer suits your argument.
Then you should learn to read. Per Capita is most definitely still important. But while we look at that per capita line maybe you should not conveniently draw a line across a tiny population of the world to exclude yourself.
The new one is just as bad, who knows what "let's focus on the top 10% of the population" is supposed to mean.
Exactly what I said. Rather than your bullshit of blaming the world's problems on 160000 people who live in Curacao let's stick with the per capita arguement but include a meaningful amount of the population of the world. Sorry kiddo that includes *you* good old number 11 on that list.
It's clear you don't really care what the truth is.
I care. That's why I am debating and calling out your abuse of stats which could only be defined as political in its dishonesty. Have you considered running for president?
*you" specifically you, and all the people who think like you are pathetic.
Your lack of education and ability to think shows. But then it did from the very beginning. Keep pretending that you aren't part of the problem while you're rolling coal down the highway bro.
You just can't get past that mindset about "privileged Americans" and lotteries and border lines and whatever you are outraged about today. Sell your crazy someplace else, "bro". We're not interested.
Go focus your righteous indignation on the top ten.
You forgot to finish your sentence. I'll finish it for you: Let's focus on the top 10% of the population. It's a great start.
But why am I not surprised a privileged American who won the lottery of where an artificial line is drawn proposes a solution that involves again drawing some artificial line conveniently in a way that only just excludes them.
*you* specifically you, and all the people who think like you are the problem.
First you insist that per capita is important. I go along with you so you change metrics when it no longer suits your argument. The new one is just as bad, who knows what "let's focus on the top 10% of the population" is supposed to mean.
It's clear you don't really care what the truth is. You just want to rant about "privilege" and borders or something. Your inferiority complex rules your life and gives you something to blame your failures on.
*you" specifically you, and all the people who think like you are pathetic.
Now explain what that nonsense means in the context of national percentage of CO2 annual emissions reduction.
Easy. Look at pollution per-capita and do your part for the world without shitting on others who are less fortunate than you.
And yes I am judgmental, a lot of people are. We are judging the USA for your cavalier attitude constantly. Worried about your quality of life going down? Don't. Just look across the Atlantic to see how your quality of life actually could still improve while your emissions could plummet.
Stop blaming China and India, two countries which per-capita are a small fraction of the problem, and yet together are investing almost an order of magnitude more into solving the problem than the pathetic contribution the USA is making.
OK, have it your way. Per-capita CO2 emissions are what's important!
Slashdot Mirror
The article says the CO2 reduction over 30 years is the equivalent of taking 4 million cars off the road. But they don't do the math.
The projected total reduction over 30 years is equal to the emissions of 4 million cars in 1 year, based on current emissions. But cars will change over the next 30 years too.
Did anyone actually read it? It doesn't actually say anything.
I love the line about "Exhausted ministers". It must have been a rough two weeks of partying with hookers.
30 minutes to any city on earth sounds pretty good, and I am pretty sure SpaceX will be getting at least one such commercial flight out in the next five years or so... they also can carry 100 people at a time, and passengers get a free sub-space visual to boot.
Even supersonic would look pokey next to that.
Even this SR-71 couldn't get to "any city on earth" in 30 minutes.
In this case the article says it flies at mach 1.4, so it can only go about 550 miles in 30 minutes.
JD knows the $22 trillion figure is a lie but he repeats it every chance he gets anyway. It's just stupid.
Especially if you combine it with eating while working with computers all day
Like "King Size Homer" https://youtu.be/-VHlwcxUUnE
The guy this threat is about, did not talk about the summary. He talked about the fact that he himself spends 33h per WEEK in traffic jams.
I live in NY, we aren't spending almost 4 entire days a week just sitting in traffic. :D I live in a small village, just 300k people, there are only small jams during peak hours at some construction sites. But I use bicycle or train anyway ...
Good for you
Ah, I see, you were referring to just this thread, not the posted article about Luxembourg.
But even for this thread, the thread starter wrote "If you have a 9-5 in DC, Atlanta or LA you probably pull 33 hours in a single MONTH."
Nice you can bike to work. The distances here are too great, and right now it's too cold anyway.
I've used the commuter train line a lot, but some jobs have been in locations where a train was impractical.
The longest commute was 75 miles from home. It was not fun.
He said 33 hours per week that is 6h per workday, 3 hours one way ... no idea what you are getting wrong.
From the summary: "A study suggested that drivers in the capital spent an average of 33 hours in traffic jams in 2016."
It's an annual number, not weekly. If you read the article it's pretty clear
"Compared with the major cities at the top of the list, the cliché of Luxembourg City as a congested capital clogged by its road traffic needs to be moderated. In comparison, for example, the inhabitants of the city of Los Angeles spent 104.1 hours in traffic jams, the inhabitants of Moscow 91.4 hours, and New Yorkers 89.4 hours."
I live in NY, we aren't spending almost 4 entire days a week just sitting in traffic.
I can't disagree with you, he does say a lot of dumb stuff. Or not so dumb, if you listen to Scott Adams.
But I will disagree on Congress. Many of the things Trump was pushing for were things the Congressmen ran on (border wall, repeal Obamacare, etc). Then when he was pushing them to act on their promises they were ineffective. They had no plan on health care despite years of whining and campaigning on the issue. Same on immigration issues. If anything he highlighted how fake they were.
As for the subsidies, he said he wants to end them. That's how any change begins. In Trumps case he ALWAYS starts with a horrible position for his opposition and works from there to something he wants. I don't understand why people haven't realized this yet, it's in his book. There was a recent article where Canada was lost on NAFTA so they went to Mexico and asked how they reached an agreement with Trump. The Mexicans told the Canadians the exact same thing - find out what he really wants and give it to him. I'd send the article if I could find the link. Unfortunately the press plays these things up as "the sky is falling" instead of "this is the start of negotiations". This is one area Trump knows very well and has a track record of success in.
Improve the environment by destroying the middle/lower class's ability to buy home. How about just tax rich people and force out coal and oil companies? The difference in benefits is several orders of magnitude, but no, we can't harm our generous donors.
I don't think that's the right way to look at it. There are lots of building and zoning codes for various reasons. This isn't that out of line.
I am wondering about the details though, the article didn't provide any
In my case, it can be a normally less-than-10-minutes drive turning into half an hour. Which is what I'd need by foot. For commuters from abroad, a normal 30-45 min drive can easily turn into several hours of being stuck on the highway or country road, which happens all too often. Traffic really is at a breaking point - the least hiccup leads to monster jams. And it's literally 200k such commuters, so it really adds up.
I'm not suggesting that traffic isn't an issue for many people. I've had 3+ hour daily one way commutes with heavy traffic.
But 33 hours of traffic in the course of an entire year doesn't seem like much to fret over.
But if your 5 minute drive became 9 minutes because you spent 4 minutes not moving, you might start to get impatient. TFS says 33 hours in traffic jams, not 33 hours in the car.
It's still a joke. It's 38 minutes in traffic per week, or 5 minutes/day. It's basically a few traffic lights.
A) The president can issue executive orders. Republicans used to think executive orders were bad and unconstitutional, but now they are legal, and necessary undo Obama's legacy of unconstitutionality. Even if courts rule against the executive order, they can maybe just keep making amendments until the courts are satisfied (e.g. like with the muslim ban). Trump doesn't necessarily need to change the law to prevent the federal government from issuing reimbursements through the IRS. I believe the courts will ultimately sort it out, but that may take years for people to receive the reimbursements and be very costly to the government (i.e. taxpayers)
B) The president can ask the republican controlled congress to do just about anything and they will probably listen to him if he can manage to make his request somewhat coherent.
C) They have already attempted to change this law (i.e. end subsidies prematurely) when the last federal budget was passed. Some of the revisions contained clauses to remove these subsidies, but the revision that ultimately passed incidentally did not contain that clause.
Executive orders should be minimal for sure, we don't live in a monarchy. While there are areas clearly under Executive authority they have been abused. Obama used them illegally to enact programs like DACA and DAPA. DAPA has already been blocked by the courts. DACA lawsuits were suspended because the filers expected Trump to reverse it. He did, but that has been held up in court because the Judicial branch overreaches too. "Muslin Ban" was the spin, not the regulation blocking travel from 7 nations. This is one area where the Executive branch clearly does have the authority, and the courts ultimately agreed, The Executive and the IRS can direct changes in some tax policy where they clearly have the authority. Eliminating the EV subsidy outright is not something they can just do.
The president has asked congress for a lot of things. They have a poor record of delivering.
It's pretty easy to call the tax credit a git to the wealthy and eliminate it on those grounds. Here (via reddit) from the Tesla site is how much you have to earn AFTER deductions to benefit from the credits: https://www.reddit.com/r/tesla...
Even if you are in favor of it, the American manufacturers will soon be at the sales volume point where the credit phases out anyway. After that it's pretty easy to justify eliminating it. Even Elon Musk asked Congress to do it: https://seekingalpha.com/artic... . He's no dummy, he knows it will help his competitors more than him.
It makes great movies look horrible
Lots of bad things happen all the time. We have no choice but to deal with them. I am advocating not having an erratic child as president as a way to deal with this particular problem.
The president doesn't create laws. He can veto them, and can push for them.
The EV subsidies were created by congress. Changing them requires a change in the law.
I have a good friend driving for both in NYC. He is driving a 4 or 5 year old car (he bought it I think 2.5 years ago). He makes about $50,000/year driving.
You didn't mention how many hours he's working for that money. If its 40 hours a week * 52 weeks he's grossing $24/hr, which is close to the proposed floor.
A few comments:
The regulation is assuming a net after expenses of $17.22, which is $35K/yr pre-tax (at 40hrs/week). That's not really livable in NYC.
From https://careertrend.com/how-ma..., a typical NYC cab driver
- drives 12 hours/day. At that rate before expenses your friend would be grossing $16/hr
- drives 47K miles/year, of mostly rough city stop/start miles. At that rate the car has maybe 7 years
You need someone to make your point because you can't get past the "USA BAD" meme.
Nope. My point stands by itself. By you, by the republicans pushing to end EV tax credits, and by the actions of your administration and your people.
We're not blaming anyone for anything, you are.
Sure you are. The fact that you don't see this in this very thread, in this very discussion, and in the press releases of your own government is quite telling. The ghost of Steve is floating around thinking "I thought I had a good reality distortion field, but really I was just an amateur!"
Lots of nations committing to not commit to maybe do something that they all know is ineffective anyway,
Opinions do not make it so. But hey circle jerks come in all forms. If you consider people making plans as not achieving something then you should be right beside me in criticising yourself for not only not making plans, but also not taking action... errr. Sorry that was unfair and unkind. You're taking action... just in the wrong way.
We left the circle-jerk which you guys are addicted to because we're too busy accomplishing something to waste time jerking you off.
Keep telling yourself that while you choke.
My advice is to find a new hobby
No thanks. I actively enjoy my hobby of arguing with idiots on the internet. It keeps my English skills honed and remind me that there are some incredible minds out there. And to be clear a mind has to be incredible to come up with the conclusions that you just presented. *tips hat to you*
No matter what you say, you can't refute the fact that the US emissions are down, and the Paris Accord participant nations emissions are up.
That's not coming from me, that's coming from Scientific American.
And that leaves you with nothing but straw man arguments and righteous indignation which you indulge yourself in with reckless abandon. Your obsession with self-gratification would make you a perfect fit with the Paris Accords crowd. With the departure of the US there is at least one seat available at the table for you. Avoid the sticky spots.
Speaking of choking and Paris, they are doing a lot of choking in the smoke in the Paris riots. Apparently the Parisians missed the memo about how woke they all are about CO2 emissions and rejected violently the latest round of fossil fuel tax initiatives. They sent a wake up call to their government which has just announced a moratorium on the new taxes. You should wake up too.
A free market for energy does not exist. OPEC is a cartel of countries that set production levels to manipulate oil prices and control the supply.
OPEC is a cartel. But the market is less distorted than you think, at least in the US.
The US consumes about 20 million barrels/day of oil (source). Net imports are 5 million. 1/3 of imports come from OPEC countries. So OPEC is not able to exert monopolistic power.
Today's price for OPEC crude is $58.33. West Texas crude is at $53.37. Suffice it to say, any oil user in the US that has access to WTI crude is getting it. Imported crude users are likely refineries that do not have pipeline access to the domestic supply.
Once US oil exports ramp up, things might change, but for now, OPEC's price-setting ability is pretty subdued in the US.
Energy is a global market and the prices are global. Different regions have different prices because the oil is different.
https://www.investopedia.com/a...
OPEC's power is way down because they no longer control so much of the supply. The low cost of fracking has wrecked their market.
The US is now a major oil and gas producer, is still sitting on hundreds of years of coal, and has a growing renewable sector.
It's a huge diversity of supply. Maybe not complete energy independence yet, but getting there.
That's what I've been saying all along, but then the people in the midwest tend to react violently to the realization that would make gasoline prices skyrocket to over $8 per gallon. Curiously, they don't seem to react to the hypocrisy at all.
Where did you get this $8/gallon number from?
I agree we should not have had these subsidies in the first place. But now that they have been promised by the government, this promise should not be broken. These subsidies already have a defined lifespan (for example GM who apparently triggered Trump's desire to end the subsidies, is already almost at the end of it's subsidy).
Breaking these promises damages faith in the government and leads to economic inefficiencies as car manufacturers and customers need to change their long term plans to account for the whims of an impulsive, irrational, selfish, childish, and vindictive president.
Tax policy changes all the time. Deal with it.
EV's are not luxury vehicles for the wealthy, and haven't been for some time.
For example, the Nissan Leaf starts at $30K -- in a country where the average price for a new car is $33K.And no one that's driven a Leaf could confuse it with a Luxury car.
The posting says the subsidies would end in 2020 or 2021. Given the cap on sales already in place the subsidy on the Leaf will probably end before that anyway. I would suggest though that tax credits should only apply to cars manufactured in America. The Leaf is made in America, Japan, and the UK.
Your standard du jour is the Paris Accords
Your standard is the inability to understand English.
The CO2 emissions of the signatories to the Paris Accord have gone up.
Some yes, some no, but since a large portion of the Paris Accord signatories are still developing nations, and nearly all of them have lower emissions per capita than the USA you're still talking from that same position of privilege.
Should your thoughts clear sufficiently someday you may comprehend the difference between talking about change and effecting it.
Before doing anything you need to talk about doing something. You're good at selectively looking into the past, now try looking into the future. USA: The only G20 country to not agree to resolutions against he Paris Accord last week. Incidentally it's also the developed nation with one of the poorest investments into green technology. Compare that to China which is investing several times more than the USA despite having orders of magnitude lower emissions per capita and still have a long way to go to develop much of their population.
But hey that's what privilege allows. No talk, no plan, no action, just a lot of circle jerking and blaming others.
You've made my point better than I ever could.
You need someone to make your point because you can't get past the "USA BAD" meme. You wallow endlessly in the smugness of your self-righteous indignation.
We're not blaming anyone for anything, you are. It's telling that thinking about the Paris Accords reminded you of a circle-jerk. Lots of nations committing to not commit to maybe do something that they all know is ineffective anyway, then stroking each other and themselves for their "accomplishment". A perfect example of a circle-jerk.
We left the circle-jerk which you guys are addicted to because we're too busy accomplishing something to waste time jerking you off. You'll have to take those matters into your own smug hands, so to speak. My advice is to find a new hobby because apparently all that jerking is releasing a lot of CO2 "emissions". And you might even go blind.
You just can't get past that mindset about "privileged Americans" and lotteries and border lines and whatever you are outraged about today.
Well of course not. How can I get "passed this" is this is exactly the bullshit I'm calling you out on.
Sell your crazy someplace else, "bro". We're not interested.
Not being interested in solving the world problems you are causing is par for the course. Keep blaming everything on everyone else.
Oh look America was the only one of the G20 who again declined to work on parts of the Paris accords this week. American Privilege is not "my" mindset. It's yours.
Another day, another standard. Your standard du jour is the Paris Accords, which actually takes us full circle.
Sadly that one is still a loser for you and your outrage.
The CO2 emissions of the signatories to the Paris Accord have gone up. The US emissions have gone down.
https://www.scientificamerican...
Should your thoughts clear sufficiently someday you may comprehend the difference between talking about change and effecting it.
First you insist that per capita is important. I go along with you so you change metrics when it no longer suits your argument.
Then you should learn to read. Per Capita is most definitely still important. But while we look at that per capita line maybe you should not conveniently draw a line across a tiny population of the world to exclude yourself.
The new one is just as bad, who knows what "let's focus on the top 10% of the population" is supposed to mean.
Exactly what I said. Rather than your bullshit of blaming the world's problems on 160000 people who live in Curacao let's stick with the per capita arguement but include a meaningful amount of the population of the world. Sorry kiddo that includes *you* good old number 11 on that list.
It's clear you don't really care what the truth is.
I care. That's why I am debating and calling out your abuse of stats which could only be defined as political in its dishonesty. Have you considered running for president?
*you" specifically you, and all the people who think like you are pathetic.
Your lack of education and ability to think shows. But then it did from the very beginning. Keep pretending that you aren't part of the problem while you're rolling coal down the highway bro.
You just can't get past that mindset about "privileged Americans" and lotteries and border lines and whatever you are outraged about today.
Sell your crazy someplace else, "bro". We're not interested.
Go focus your righteous indignation on the top ten.
You forgot to finish your sentence. I'll finish it for you: Let's focus on the top 10% of the population. It's a great start.
But why am I not surprised a privileged American who won the lottery of where an artificial line is drawn proposes a solution that involves again drawing some artificial line conveniently in a way that only just excludes them.
*you* specifically you, and all the people who think like you are the problem.
First you insist that per capita is important. I go along with you so you change metrics when it no longer suits your argument.
The new one is just as bad, who knows what "let's focus on the top 10% of the population" is supposed to mean.
It's clear you don't really care what the truth is. You just want to rant about "privilege" and borders or something.
Your inferiority complex rules your life and gives you something to blame your failures on.
*you" specifically you, and all the people who think like you are pathetic.
Now explain what that nonsense means in the context of national percentage of CO2 annual emissions reduction.
Easy. Look at pollution per-capita and do your part for the world without shitting on others who are less fortunate than you.
And yes I am judgmental, a lot of people are. We are judging the USA for your cavalier attitude constantly. Worried about your quality of life going down? Don't. Just look across the Atlantic to see how your quality of life actually could still improve while your emissions could plummet.
Stop blaming China and India, two countries which per-capita are a small fraction of the problem, and yet together are investing almost an order of magnitude more into solving the problem than the pathetic contribution the USA is making.
OK, have it your way. Per-capita CO2 emissions are what's important!
According to this World Bank data the US comes in 11th on a per capita basis
https://data.worldbank.org/ind...
Go focus your righteous indignation on the top ten.