The picture was of a child crying as her parents are interrogated by the border patrol. It's not fake. It may possibly have been miscaptioned in places, but it's entirely appropriate for a story about ICE's abusive behavior towards immigrants and asylum seekers and their children.
In the last week I've seen little kids crying in - The mall - Starbucks - Brio - Sketchers shoes - The train - The airport - An amusement park
Tired kids cry. Often they are over tired and frustrated because their parents have pushed them beyond their limits.
In my opinion that 2 year old was abused by her mother. Against the father's wishes that mother dragged that child on a month-long journey 1500 miles long, smuggled to the US border by coyotes. She had good reason to be crying. She was kidnapped from her father and she's very lucky she's still alive.
Did you read the ruling? It's very interesting. This is from the dissent:
This is a long-standing American tradition that goes back to the Founding Fathers: Use the flowery language of Liberty, but when it comes right down to it, support Tyranny. That's what the dissenters did today.
Translation: you didn't read it and you don't care what the legal rationale is.
Except that PAST business records did not track your position 24/7, did they? So how exactly do those previous ruling apply? And how can they claim that I consented to provide my location when I have no choice but to provide my location and I am required to have a cell phone for my job. So what choice do I have in the matter? Find a fast food job where no one cares if I have a cell phone?
I didn't express support for either the majority or dissent. I think both positions have merit. What happens in these discussions is people are so attached to an outcome that they can't rationally discuss the issues or the appropriate way of achieving the outcome. They just want what they want when they want it.
Translation: you didn't read it and you don't care what the legal rationale is.
At the end of the day, it's just rationale. He voted to allow the government to access your location without a warrant. Full stop. Lip service is lip service.
He dissented from the majority ruling because he felt it was inconsistent with the law and with prior court rulings regarding government access to business records. If the laws are out of step with the times it is the elected congress that is tasked with changing them, not the appointed justices. The alternative means your rights can change at any time based on the makeup and whims of the current court.
If you ever get around to reading it you will note that under certain circumstances they can still get these "business records" without a warrant.
Did you read the ruling? It's very interesting. This is from the dissent:
This is a long-standing American tradition that goes back to the Founding Fathers: Use the flowery language of Liberty, but when it comes right down to it, support Tyranny. That's what the dissenters did today.
Translation: you didn't read it and you don't care what the legal rationale is.
The 5-4 opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the four most liberal justices. It is a loss for the Justice Department, which had argued that an individual has diminished privacy rights when it comes to information that has been voluntarily shared with someone else.
So, the liberals on the court voted in favor of your right to privacy and the "conservatives", including Trump's boy Gorsuch, voted that fuck your privacy rights, the police need to track you without a warrant. Also, the Trump Administration argued that your freedom isn't as important as the right of the government to track you.
Remember that the next time some Republican or Trumpist tells you that they're all about the rights of the individual and smaller government. Republicans will always be the party of authoritarianism and the elite.
Did you read the ruling? It's very interesting. This is from the dissent:
"The Court has twice held that individuals have no Fourth Amendment interests in business records which are possessed, owned, and controlled by a third party. United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979). This is true even when the records contain personal and sensitive information. So when the Government uses a subpoena to obtain, for example, bank records, telephone records, and credit card statements from the businesses that create and keep these records, the Government does not engage in a search of the business’s customers within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
In this case petitioner challenges the Government’s right to use compulsory process to obtain a now-common kind of business record: cell-site records held by cell phone service providers. The Government acquired the records through an investigative process enacted by Congress. Upon approval by a neutral magistrate, and based on the Government’s duty to show reasonable necessity, it authorizes the disclosure of records and information that are under the control and ownership of the cell phone service provider, not its customer. Petitioner acknowledges that the Government may obtain a wide variety of business records using compulsory process, and he does not ask the Court to revisit its precedents. Yet he argues that, under those same precedents, the Government searched his records when it used court-approved compulsory process to obtain the cell-site information at issue here.
Cell-site records, however, are no different from the many other kinds of business records the Government has a lawful right to obtain by compulsory process. Customers like petitioner do not own, possess, control, or use the records, and for that reason have no reasonable expectation that they cannot be disclosed pursuant to lawful compulsory process.
The Court today disagrees. It holds for the first time that by using compulsory process to obtain records of a business entity, the Government has not just engaged in an impermissible action, but has conducted a search of the business’s customer. The Court further concludes that the search in this case was unreasonable and the Government needed to get a warrant to obtain more than six days of cell-site records. "
Amazon is loving this. They want as many of the independent online retailers to shut their independent stores and move to an Amazon store. Amazon skims the top 8-15% of the invoice total as it's share for having a store on Amazon. This comes right out of the sellers profit margin. Now if selling on Amazon gets the volume up for the 3rd party seller this can work out. Amazon also plays other games and has other charges. Their product management interface sucks. But it is, what it is. They are calling all the shots ATM.
I found it amusing that some comments posted were about how Amazon could avoid this tax by playing phone order games. Makes no sense at all.
I didn't read the ruling. It would be good if the ruling included a requirement that the various tax jurisdictions that wanted to receive this tax revenue had to define their tax policy in some standard federal service that was freely available to merchants. A merchant could call something like calculateTaxes(zipCode, Collection, transactionId) and get back the taxes to collect, if any. Service would have to keep an audit trail of requests and responses in case the merchant was audited. Service could be financed by a cut of the revenues collected. No doubt this is an extreme simplification but I'm sure it's doable.
By that standard every flat tax is "progressive" since the rich always pay more of every tax, but this Amazon tax will mainly be paid by the lower classes. Collections at Soetheby's will not increase
Not sure why a cellular provider can't offer their own content for a lower charge to their subscribers. If I'm on Verizon and I'm a FIOS subscriber why can't they allow me to watch FIOS remotely without incurring a data charge?
The separation of minor children from their parents automatically at the border, particularly for those claiming asylum was started with an order by Jeff Sessions during the Trump administration.
If this had been going on forever like you claim there would be a million kids in detention, not the 10,000 that were captured in the last few months under the Trump Administration since Sessions issued his order. You aren't entitled to your own facts on this and neither is fox news, this is a policy of this administration. Trump doesn't get to blame anyone but himself for this. He could choose to handle asylum seekers like in the past where they were allowed into the country until their cases were adjudicated, like any other civilized nation. Instead he CHOOSES to treat them like animals and put them in dog cages with no human contact.
The policy is absurd and Trump's being rightly criticized for it.
Stick to the point, which was that the legal system separates children from incarcerated parents. What has changed is the number of incarcerations due to border violations. The previous administration did the same when it incarcerated parents. What else could they do? You can't incarcerate the kids too.
As for "dog cages with no human contact", that's nonsense. You know it's nonsense, but you like to spout it anyway.
You don't seem to appreciate the difference between a common criminal and someone who attempts to give his children a better life by going to the USofA.
Either way, it is not the fault of the child. I'm sure the child of a common criminal is just as upset as the child of an illegal alien. In both their situation was an avoidable result of their parent's actions.
This program has been going on for years. The homeland secretary explained the circumstances under which separation can happen and for how long. The only reason this is a big story now is because Trump.
Yo...it would be a shame if your internet connections was to break unexpectedlty for weeks at a time or run at 300bps but for a fee we can "protect" those for you.
While I agree Netflix can afford a few payoffs (in addition to those they have ALREADY PAID) it's going to show up on your bill. Unless you directly work for the cable/telecom industry I cannot see how you would be in favor of this. Netflix (and everyone else) already pays for internet bandwith.
I don't know why people can't stick to the topic. The post declares that 'Netflix and Alphabet Will Need To Become ISPs, Fast'. I contend that's nonsense and those two giants will be fine. They will handle any cost increases like they do others. They are not indemnified against higher energy costs, taxes, connectivity costs, content costs, legal, whatever. If their energy costs went up 5% would anyone start predicting the apocalypse? Of course not.
Net neutrality isnt about Netflix and Alphabet. Bandwidth throttling and companies having to pay for a "premium channel" to their customers doesn't hurt them, they will pay and carry on: this extra fee is an annoyance, but it actually helps protect them from competing startups without deep pockets. Good luck launching your music or video streaming service if the connection to your customers is going to be shit by design.
The thread you are commenting on is called "Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast". It sounds like you agree this is nonsense. They are major players with deep pockets.
As for becoming ISP's, Google has already gone down that road and found out it's not so cheap or easy https://gizmodo.com/what-happe...
"Part of the problem is simply that expanding fiber broadband was always going to be a massive undertaking, and was always going to face some big hurdles. Laying miles and miles of cables takes time and money—and as one Alphabet employee told the Wall Street Journal last year, “Everyone who has done fiber to the home has given up because it costs way too much money and takes way too much time.”
Um...they were totally NOT fine guy who apparently shills for the cable industry. How do you imagine this neutrality bill got passed to begin with? Multiple carriers were fined for throttling and Netflix paid an "undisclosed amount" to Comcast and their internet magically wasn't crippled anymore. Please go die in a lake of fire.
Google 2017 net income: $12+ billion Netflix 2017 net income: $500 million
but somebody made a good point about this switch to solar & renewables: it's going to crash the economy.
Let me explain. We've got massive amounts of investment wealth tied up in fossil fuels. People's retirements are heavily vested in them. At the rate we're going their value, while not worthless, is going to be massively diminished. And it's happening fast. Plus there's no massive natural resource to replace it.
We're going to wipe out trillions in value and replace it with, well, nothing really. Now, from a practical standpoint we've still got power. But human beings aren't very practical. When that wealth shift happens it's going to make a mess of things. The people who lose their shirts in oil futures are likely to be abandoned. And that's before we start talking about what's going to happen to the middle east.
Renewables are great and their use will continue to increase but nations and industries rely on diversity of supply. That's why the Trump admin is keeping coal plants open for now. They have their shortcomings but they are reliable, run on a fuel we have a huge supply of, and are required to keep a 90 day supply of that fuel to prevent outages due to supply interruptions.
Oil (and gas) companies are among the largest corporations worldwide. Among the top ten companies worldwide based on revenue, six are in the oil industry. In 2016, Anglo-Dutch giant Royal Dutch Shell reported almost 234 billion U.S. dollars of revenue. Thus, Shell was the third-largest company worldwide based on revenue in 2015. ExxonMobil from Irving, Texas generated a revenue reporting some 219 billion U.S. dollars in 2016. However, ExxonMobil claims the highest market value within this industry, as well as having the second-highest market value of all companies worldwide in 2015.
So, no, the fossil fuel industry is probably larger than the entire US budget, making your statement 100% false.
Your statistics did not address the expenditures for climate change research in any way. They are a meaningless comparison between the gross revenue of oil companies and the total US federal budget.
Try reading the income statement for Exxon Mobile and learn the difference between gross revenue and net income. https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/...
In 2015 Exxon Mobile gave about 8 million dollars to public policy and policy research groups of all kinds http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/me...
"Crucially, the lowest-cost design, optimized to produce and sell alternative fuels made from the captured carbon dioxide, could already be profitable with existing public policies in certain markets (see “The carbon-capture era may finally be starting”). "
So they are extracting it, converting it to fuel, and reselling it. Wont that put it right back where it came from?
Where do you think "it" (carbon dioxide) "came from"? The published plan for Carbon Engineering is to actually capture CO2 from the air. When combined with hydrogen produced from electricity you get a dense storable fuel that is carbon-neutral. Using it releases no CO2. They are either removing it directly from the atmosphere, or are capturing it from a stationary source which would otherwise release it to the atmosphere.
Capturing CO2 from a stationary source which would otherwise release it to the atmosphere accomplishes the same thing (until we are able to rid ourselves of such sources almost entirely) and is likely much easier and would be a good initial step to establish the industry.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how "Using it releases no CO2". What will this new hydrocarbon produce when it is consumed?
Yes! But it would be carbon neutral, and perhaps easier to store than CO2 if you wanted to sequester instead.
This "low cost" solution is low cost because they are selling the fuel. If they sequester instead it goes back to being high cost. I don't know if it's carbon-neutral either. I suppose it's possible if there was no carbon emitted in the extraction and alternative fuel production process.
I suspect it's more complicated than that though. As the article says
“It’d be such a great solution—if it were real,” MIT Energy Initiative senior researcher Howard Herzog, who coauthored the study that found costs could top $1,000 a ton, said at the time.
In an interview this week, Herzog complimented the detailed analysis in the new study, but said he remains skeptical of some of its financial assumptions. He expects that Carbon Engineering will face higher costs and challenges than it anticipates as the company moves to build larger plants.
“Until you really can confirm the costs and performance at scale, you’ve always got to take those costs with a grain of salt,” he says. “I still think a final number could be several times as much.”
And tiny compared to the EU, where petrol prices are much higher than Texas. It's not the size of the US which is the problem, it's how poorly its used. When people have no choice but to commute for hundreds of miles a day, this is what you get. When cities are built upon the presumption that there will always be cars and that said cars will always cost a similar amount of money to run, this is what you get.
Play shitty games, win shitty prizes.
That could all be true but it is still the fact of our lives.
I've had daily driving commutes of over 200 miles round trip, sometimes within the same state, sometimes in a different one. I've also had situations where my main office is reachable by mass transit but a client I have been placed at is not. Either way, got to get to work. Fortunately my current role has a 15 mile commute.
Now that we know how much it should cost to remove CO2 from the sky, we should begin taxing corporations and products that release CO2 in the atmosphere. The money would then be used to pay other corporations to capture CO2 from the atmosphere.
There has been a long history of using environmental capital without consequence and that needs to come to an end if we're going to save this planet.
Their plan is to convert it to alternative fuel. The alternative fuel will release the CO2 back to the atmosphere. They will have to be taxed for the cost of the extraction.
"Crucially, the lowest-cost design, optimized to produce and sell alternative fuels made from the captured carbon dioxide, could already be profitable with existing public policies in certain markets (see “The carbon-capture era may finally be starting”). "
So they are extracting it, converting it to fuel, and reselling it. Wont that put it right back where it came from?
Slashdot Mirror
I use it every day with no issues. I don't like the design of some things but overall the OS has been very stable.
The picture was of a child crying as her parents are interrogated by the border patrol. It's not fake. It may possibly have been miscaptioned in places, but it's entirely appropriate for a story about ICE's abusive behavior towards immigrants and asylum seekers and their children.
In the last week I've seen little kids crying in
- The mall
- Starbucks
- Brio
- Sketchers shoes
- The train
- The airport
- An amusement park
Tired kids cry. Often they are over tired and frustrated because their parents have pushed them beyond their limits.
In my opinion that 2 year old was abused by her mother. Against the father's wishes that mother dragged that child on a month-long journey 1500 miles long, smuggled to the US border by coyotes. She had good reason to be crying. She was kidnapped from her father and she's very lucky she's still alive.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...
That you think the media has "been muted and more critical of Trump's critics than of Trump itself" is just delusional.
This is a long-standing American tradition that goes back to the Founding Fathers: Use the flowery language of Liberty, but when it comes right down to it, support Tyranny. That's what the dissenters did today.
Translation: you didn't read it and you don't care what the legal rationale is.
Except that PAST business records did not track your position 24/7, did they? So how exactly do those previous ruling apply? And how can they claim that I consented to provide my location when I have no choice but to provide my location and I am required to have a cell phone for my job. So what choice do I have in the matter? Find a fast food job where no one cares if I have a cell phone?
I didn't express support for either the majority or dissent. I think both positions have merit. What happens in these discussions is people are so attached to an outcome that they can't rationally discuss the issues or the appropriate way of achieving the outcome. They just want what they want when they want it.
At the end of the day, it's just rationale. He voted to allow the government to access your location without a warrant. Full stop. Lip service is lip service.
He dissented from the majority ruling because he felt it was inconsistent with the law and with prior court rulings regarding government access to business records.
If the laws are out of step with the times it is the elected congress that is tasked with changing them, not the appointed justices. The alternative means your rights can change at any time based on the makeup and whims of the current court.
If you ever get around to reading it you will note that under certain circumstances they can still get these "business records" without a warrant.
This is a long-standing American tradition that goes back to the Founding Fathers: Use the flowery language of Liberty, but when it comes right down to it, support Tyranny. That's what the dissenters did today.
Translation: you didn't read it and you don't care what the legal rationale is.
So, the liberals on the court voted in favor of your right to privacy and the "conservatives", including Trump's boy Gorsuch, voted that fuck your privacy rights, the police need to track you without a warrant. Also, the Trump Administration argued that your freedom isn't as important as the right of the government to track you.
Remember that the next time some Republican or Trumpist tells you that they're all about the rights of the individual and smaller government. Republicans will always be the party of authoritarianism and the elite.
Did you read the ruling? It's very interesting. This is from the dissent:
"The Court has twice held that individuals have no
Fourth Amendment interests in business records which
are possessed, owned, and controlled by a third party.
United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976); Smith v.
Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979). This is true even when
the records contain personal and sensitive information. So
when the Government uses a subpoena to obtain, for
example, bank records, telephone records, and credit card
statements from the businesses that create and keep these
records, the Government does not engage in a search of
the business’s customers within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment.
In this case petitioner challenges the Government’s
right to use compulsory process to obtain a now-common
kind of business record: cell-site records held by cell phone
service providers. The Government acquired the records
through an investigative process enacted by Congress.
Upon approval by a neutral magistrate, and based on the
Government’s duty to show reasonable necessity, it authorizes
the disclosure of records and information that are
under the control and ownership of the cell phone service
provider, not its customer. Petitioner acknowledges that
the Government may obtain a wide variety of business
records using compulsory process, and he does not ask the
Court to revisit its precedents. Yet he argues that, under
those same precedents, the Government searched his
records when it used court-approved compulsory process to
obtain the cell-site information at issue here.
Cell-site records, however, are no different from the
many other kinds of business records the Government has
a lawful right to obtain by compulsory process. Customers
like petitioner do not own, possess, control, or use the
records, and for that reason have no reasonable expectation
that they cannot be disclosed pursuant to lawful
compulsory process.
The Court today disagrees. It holds for the first time
that by using compulsory process to obtain records of a
business entity, the Government has not just engaged in
an impermissible action, but has conducted a search of the
business’s customer. The Court further concludes that the
search in this case was unreasonable and the Government
needed to get a warrant to obtain more than six days of
cell-site records. "
Amazon is loving this. They want as many of the independent online retailers to shut their independent stores and move to an Amazon store. Amazon skims the top 8-15% of the invoice total as it's share for having a store on Amazon. This comes right out of the sellers profit margin. Now if selling on Amazon gets the volume up for the 3rd party seller this can work out.
Amazon also plays other games and has other charges. Their product management interface sucks. But it is, what it is. They are calling all the shots ATM.
I found it amusing that some comments posted were about how Amazon could avoid this tax by playing phone order games.
Makes no sense at all.
I didn't read the ruling. It would be good if the ruling included a requirement that the various tax jurisdictions that wanted to receive this tax revenue had to define their tax policy in some standard federal service that was freely available to merchants. A merchant could call something like calculateTaxes(zipCode, Collection, transactionId) and get back the taxes to collect, if any. Service would have to keep an audit trail of requests and responses in case the merchant was audited. Service could be financed by a cut of the revenues collected. No doubt this is an extreme simplification but I'm sure it's doable.
They have been collecting sales taxes in every state for over a year.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/2...
Amazon already offers sales tax calculation services to marketplace sellers
https://sellercentral.amazon.c...
Bet they offer it to external ones too soon
By that standard every flat tax is "progressive" since the rich always pay more of every tax, but this Amazon tax will mainly be paid by the lower classes. Collections at Soetheby's will not increase
Amazon has been collecting sales taxes in all states for over a year
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/2...
Not sure why a cellular provider can't offer their own content for a lower charge to their subscribers.
If I'm on Verizon and I'm a FIOS subscriber why can't they allow me to watch FIOS remotely without incurring a data charge?
The separation of minor children from their parents automatically at the border, particularly for those claiming asylum was started with an order by Jeff Sessions during the Trump administration.
If this had been going on forever like you claim there would be a million kids in detention, not the 10,000 that were captured in the last few months under the Trump Administration since Sessions issued his order. You aren't entitled to your own facts on this and neither is fox news, this is a policy of this administration. Trump doesn't get to blame anyone but himself for this. He could choose to handle asylum seekers like in the past where they were allowed into the country until their cases were adjudicated, like any other civilized nation. Instead he CHOOSES to treat them like animals and put them in dog cages with no human contact.
The policy is absurd and Trump's being rightly criticized for it.
Stick to the point, which was that the legal system separates children from incarcerated parents. What has changed is the number of incarcerations due to border violations. The previous administration did the same when it incarcerated parents. What else could they do? You can't incarcerate the kids too.
As for "dog cages with no human contact", that's nonsense. You know it's nonsense, but you like to spout it anyway.
You don't seem to appreciate the difference between a common criminal and someone who attempts to give his children a better life by going to the USofA.
Either way, it is not the fault of the child. I'm sure the child of a common criminal is just as upset as the child of an illegal alien. In both their situation was an avoidable result of their parent's actions.
This program has been going on for years. The homeland secretary explained the circumstances under which separation can happen and for how long. The only reason this is a big story now is because Trump.
>> CTO Megan Smith revealed ... that she gave President Obama a computing history lesson on the same day he learned to code..
So he learnt to program in maybe half a day? Wow. Here I am, 35 years in, and still pretty sure I don't know everything...
I'm guessing it was along the lines of
while 1; do
echo "It's all about me"
done
So you're 100% okay with legalized mob activity?
Yo...it would be a shame if your internet connections was to break unexpectedlty for weeks at a time or run at 300bps but for a fee we can "protect" those for you.
While I agree Netflix can afford a few payoffs (in addition to those they have ALREADY PAID) it's going to show up on your bill. Unless you directly work for the cable/telecom industry I cannot see how you would be in favor of this. Netflix (and everyone else) already pays for internet bandwith.
I don't know why people can't stick to the topic. The post declares that 'Netflix and Alphabet Will Need To Become ISPs, Fast'.
I contend that's nonsense and those two giants will be fine. They will handle any cost increases like they do others. They are not indemnified against higher energy costs, taxes, connectivity costs, content costs, legal, whatever. If their energy costs went up 5% would anyone start predicting the apocalypse? Of course not.
I gave you net income numbers.
By definition a positive net income is a profit, and these two companies are reporting large profits.
Net neutrality isnt about Netflix and Alphabet. Bandwidth throttling and companies having to pay for a "premium channel" to their customers doesn't hurt them, they will pay and carry on: this extra fee is an annoyance, but it actually helps protect them from competing startups without deep pockets. Good luck launching your music or video streaming service if the connection to your customers is going to be shit by design.
The thread you are commenting on is called "Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast".
It sounds like you agree this is nonsense. They are major players with deep pockets.
As for becoming ISP's, Google has already gone down that road and found out it's not so cheap or easy
https://gizmodo.com/what-happe...
"Part of the problem is simply that expanding fiber broadband was always going to be a massive undertaking, and was always going to face some big hurdles. Laying miles and miles of cables takes time and money—and as one Alphabet employee told the Wall Street Journal last year, “Everyone who has done fiber to the home has given up because it costs way too much money and takes way too much time.”
Um...they were totally NOT fine guy who apparently shills for the cable industry. How do you imagine this neutrality bill got passed to begin with? Multiple carriers were fined for throttling and Netflix paid an "undisclosed amount" to Comcast and their internet magically wasn't crippled anymore. Please go die in a lake of fire.
Google 2017 net income: $12+ billion
Netflix 2017 net income: $500 million
I'm pretty sure they will manage
They were fine before the FCC neutrality regs a few years ago, and they will continue to be fine now under FTC control
but somebody made a good point about this switch to solar & renewables: it's going to crash the economy.
Let me explain. We've got massive amounts of investment wealth tied up in fossil fuels. People's retirements are heavily vested in them. At the rate we're going their value, while not worthless, is going to be massively diminished. And it's happening fast. Plus there's no massive natural resource to replace it.
We're going to wipe out trillions in value and replace it with, well, nothing really. Now, from a practical standpoint we've still got power. But human beings aren't very practical. When that wealth shift happens it's going to make a mess of things. The people who lose their shirts in oil futures are likely to be abandoned. And that's before we start talking about what's going to happen to the middle east.
We did this story last week. It's still wrong
See the "International Energy Outlook" report: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/i...
Renewables are great and their use will continue to increase but nations and industries rely on diversity of supply. That's why the Trump admin is keeping coal plants open for now. They have their shortcomings but they are reliable, run on a fuel we have a huge supply of, and are required to keep a 90 day supply of that fuel to prevent outages due to supply interruptions.
The government outspends any company hundreds to one in this area
That's 100% false.
https://www.statista.com/topic...:
Oil (and gas) companies are among the largest corporations worldwide. Among the top ten companies worldwide based on revenue, six are in the oil industry. In 2016, Anglo-Dutch giant Royal Dutch Shell reported almost 234 billion U.S. dollars of revenue. Thus, Shell was the third-largest company worldwide based on revenue in 2015. ExxonMobil from Irving, Texas generated a revenue reporting some 219 billion U.S. dollars in 2016. However, ExxonMobil claims the highest market value within this industry, as well as having the second-highest market value of all companies worldwide in 2015.
https://www.nationalpriorities...:
In fiscal year 2015, the federal budget is $3.8 trillion.
So, no, the fossil fuel industry is probably larger than the entire US budget, making your statement 100% false.
Your statistics did not address the expenditures for climate change research in any way. They are a meaningless comparison between the gross revenue of oil companies and the total US federal budget.
Try reading the income statement for Exxon Mobile and learn the difference between gross revenue and net income. https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/...
In 2015 Exxon Mobile gave about 8 million dollars to public policy and policy research groups of all kinds
http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/me...
The US government 2014 budget for climate change expenditures was over $21B
https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...
This seems like a bad joke. According to TFA:
"Crucially, the lowest-cost design, optimized to produce and sell alternative fuels made from the captured carbon dioxide, could already be profitable with existing public policies in certain markets (see “The carbon-capture era may finally be starting”). "
So they are extracting it, converting it to fuel, and reselling it. Wont that put it right back where it came from?
Where do you think "it" (carbon dioxide) "came from"? The published plan for Carbon Engineering is to actually capture CO2 from the air. When combined with hydrogen produced from electricity you get a dense storable fuel that is carbon-neutral. Using it releases no CO2. They are either removing it directly from the atmosphere, or are capturing it from a stationary source which would otherwise release it to the atmosphere.
Capturing CO2 from a stationary source which would otherwise release it to the atmosphere accomplishes the same thing (until we are able to rid ourselves of such sources almost entirely) and is likely much easier and would be a good initial step to establish the industry.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how "Using it releases no CO2". What will this new hydrocarbon produce when it is consumed?
Yes! But it would be carbon neutral, and perhaps easier to store than CO2 if you wanted to sequester instead.
This "low cost" solution is low cost because they are selling the fuel. If they sequester instead it goes back to being high cost.
I don't know if it's carbon-neutral either. I suppose it's possible if there was no carbon emitted in the extraction and alternative fuel production process.
I suspect it's more complicated than that though. As the article says
“It’d be such a great solution—if it were real,” MIT Energy Initiative senior researcher Howard Herzog, who coauthored the study that found costs could top $1,000 a ton, said at the time.
In an interview this week, Herzog complimented the detailed analysis in the new study, but said he remains skeptical of some of its financial assumptions. He expects that Carbon Engineering will face higher costs and challenges than it anticipates as the company moves to build larger plants.
“Until you really can confirm the costs and performance at scale, you’ve always got to take those costs with a grain of salt,” he says. “I still think a final number could be several times as much.”
And tiny compared to the EU, where petrol prices are much higher than Texas. It's not the size of the US which is the problem, it's how poorly its used. When people have no choice but to commute for hundreds of miles a day, this is what you get. When cities are built upon the presumption that there will always be cars and that said cars will always cost a similar amount of money to run, this is what you get.
Play shitty games, win shitty prizes.
That could all be true but it is still the fact of our lives.
I've had daily driving commutes of over 200 miles round trip, sometimes within the same state, sometimes in a different one. I've also had situations where my main office is reachable by mass transit but a client I have been placed at is not.
Either way, got to get to work. Fortunately my current role has a 15 mile commute.
Now that we know how much it should cost to remove CO2 from the sky, we should begin taxing corporations and products that release CO2 in the atmosphere. The money would then be used to pay other corporations to capture CO2 from the atmosphere.
There has been a long history of using environmental capital without consequence and that needs to come to an end if we're going to save this planet.
Their plan is to convert it to alternative fuel. The alternative fuel will release the CO2 back to the atmosphere.
They will have to be taxed for the cost of the extraction.
How does this business model work?
This seems like a bad joke. According to TFA:
"Crucially, the lowest-cost design, optimized to produce and sell alternative fuels made from the captured carbon dioxide, could already be profitable with existing public policies in certain markets (see “The carbon-capture era may finally be starting”). "
So they are extracting it, converting it to fuel, and reselling it. Wont that put it right back where it came from?