Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Do you have the right to issue judgements.....?

What is your problem?

I complimented you over and over for your effusive apologies after you made an inaccurate post.

And now you are complaining I don't have the "right" to judge your post---even though my judgement of your post was entirely positive.

You know, Outcast_Searcher....the mistake you are apologizing for came about because you didn't fully understanding what was being talked about.

And now, once again, you don't seem to understand that I am complimenting you....

Please go back and re-read my post that has you so wee-wee'd up and see if you can figure out what it means.

I'll even give you a hint:

HINT: MY POST IS COMPLIMENTING YOU FOR YOUR GRACIOUS APOLOGY!


Cheers!

JuanP wrote:I will also add, just to confuse things even more, that in some other languages the definitions of billions and trillions are actually different, which makes this even harder for multilingual people. Un billón (which means one billion in Spanish) is 1.000.000.000.000. What English speaking people call a billion is called a thousand millions by most non English speakers of the world. And what English speakers call a trillion is called a billion by most non English speakers. We live in a truly f***ed up world!

The original definition of the word billion was one million squared or 1,000,000 * 1,000,000. The "bi" in billion stands for "to the second power" or "squared" in Latin. That is the same root word as the one used for binomial or binary, for example, in both cases the "bi" meaning 2, as in two terms and two numbers.

In the UK up until the the middle of the 20th century, one Billion was a million million, then with the strong US influence, the meaning changed to one thousand million.

* cough * back on topic.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/gas-eng ... 00137.html

Get used to articles like these. They will become more common as the trendlines become more apparent.

Biden's new infrastructure bill contains 176 billion dollars for EVs.

There is money to subsidize new factories, new batteries, new charging stations, new EV purchases by consumers and more....

bidens-infrastructure-plan-would-push-for-electric-vehicles

Biden still won't support a carbon tax or any kind of punitive tax on ICE cars..

The Biden plan seems to be to subsidize EVs and the EV industry until EVs become so cheap and so attractive that people will voluntarily shift from ICE cars to EVs.


Me WANT cheap subsidized EVs! Me WANT! Me WANT!

Cheers!

Plantagenet wrote:Biden's new infrastructure bill contains 176 billion dollars for EVs.

There is money to subsidize new factories, new batteries, new charging stations, new EV purchases by consumers and more....

bidens-infrastructure-plan-would-push-for-electric-vehicles

Biden still won't support a carbon tax or any kind of punitive tax on ICE cars..

The Biden plan seems to be to subsidize EVs and the EV industry until EVs become so cheap and so attractive that people will voluntarily shift from ICE cars to EVs.


Me WANT cheap subsidized EVs! Me WANT! Me WANT!

Cheers!

For the left, if they can get away with it, it's ideal. They don't risk losing elections by raising gas taxes, yet can claim they did the "right" thing. Lucky for them, as happens so often with capitalism and technology, the BEV companies are doing the heavy lifting over time, and dramatically lowering the cost of BEV's, letting the dem's cowardice work, over time.

Of course, the GOP wants cheap gas, and to pay NONE of the MAJOR expenses re pollution, the military, AGW, etc. caused by burning gas and diesel in ICE's. Because, of course, that secures lots of votes from the big SUV / pickup driving right who doesn't believe in science, re things they don't want to hear.

Find a US politician, find a BS angle aimed at getting re-elected, vs. actually believing in something or being willing to do the right thing regardless of potential political consequences.

aadbrd wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Do YOU ever apologize for such mistakes you make...

Save yourself the stress and just use the ignore filter. He feeds on drama.

Good point. I keep trying to give certain folks more chances because they occasionally make good posts on certain subjects. But overall, likely not worth it, given the signal to noise ratio. Thanks for the input.

"Pandemic stricken French aviation sector laments move to slash carbon emissions by banning domestic flights."
https://www.rt.com/business/520730-fran ... c-flights/

"A draft bill won the support of the National Assembly on Saturday night, which would impose a complete ban on domestic flights on routes that can be serviced by trains in less than two-and-a-half hours.

The move is aimed at lowering carbon emissions and is part of a broader national agenda adopted to cut carbon emissions by 40% in 2030 from levels recorded in the 1990s."

This makes a lot of sense and could be copied by other countries that have extensive electric high speed rail service helping to reduce carbon emissions and accelarating the transition from an oil based to an electric transportation system.

JuanP wrote:"Pandemic stricken French aviation sector laments move to slash carbon emissions by banning domestic flights."
https://www.rt.com/business/520730-fran ... c-flights/

"A draft bill won the support of the National Assembly on Saturday night, which would impose a complete ban on domestic flights on routes that can be serviced by trains in less than two-and-a-half hours.

The move is aimed at lowering carbon emissions and is part of a broader national agenda adopted to cut carbon emissions by 40% in 2030 from levels recorded in the 1990s."

This makes a lot of sense and could be copied by other countries that have extensive electric high speed rail service helping to reduce carbon emissions and accelarating the transition from an oil based to an electric transportation system.

Right. If there is an effective mass transit substitute, i.e. having the reliability and the capacity to handle it reasonably well, that makes sense.

Given security and the hassle of airports, anything under 2.5 hours or so might well be a net gain vs. a flight. And mass transit doesn't force an elderly or sickly person to drive a moderate distance.

Now, in the US or Russia or Canada, etc. -- any country of substantial size, they'd need to make this regional and/or have say, an effective and robust bullet train network to make it reasonable, given the in-country distances travel can often involve. Like in the US, business travel between the east and west coasts, for example.

I have trouble imagining the US committing to establish an effective relatively green ground mass transit network any time soon, but I can always hope I'm wrong. One issue, as always, will be paying for it, so I'd only want it as a taxpayer if the cost weren't prohibitive.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:

JuanP wrote:" French aviation sector laments move to slash carbon emissions by banning domestic flights."
https://www.rt.com/business/520730-fran ... c-flights/
The move is aimed at lowering carbon emissions and is part of a broader national agenda adopted to cut carbon emissions by 40% in 2030 from levels recorded in the 1990s."
This makes a lot of sense and could be copied by other countries that have extensive electric high speed rail service helping to reduce carbon emissions and accelarating the transition from an oil based to an electric transportation system.

Right. If there is an effective mass transit substitute, i.e. having the reliability and the capacity to handle it reasonably well, that makes sense. ....Now, in the US or Russia or Canada, etc. -- any country of substantial size, they'd need to make this regional and/or have say, an effective and robust bullet train network to make it reasonable, given the in-country distances travel can often involve. Like in the US, business travel between the east and west coasts, for example.

This is exactly why I've been calling for HSR in the US for years now. Rail is, by far, the most efficient form of transportation. That means less CO2 emissions.

If Biden was serious about cutting US CO2 emissions, he'd be putting a lot more money into building out HSR passenger service and electric freight train and tram networks in the US.

But Biden isn't serious about CO2 reduction.

Like other Ds he says nice things about climate change, but his policies just aren't going to do enough to CO2 emissions in the US and around the world.


Electric High Speed trains and local electric trams are EVs too......

Cheers!

"The battle for electric cars in China is the most heated in the world"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/th ... d=msedgntp

Provides various links to Western MSM articles on the subject.