Alberta Politics Thread v2

[zamler]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Yeah, no s###, Elon. Thanks for the update. Oil is non-renewable. In the meantime, your cars are expensive and limited in quantity, and they require oil to manufacture. And most electricity comes from fossil fuels as well. So take your bags of money and invent something that can actually wean us off oil, instead of tweeting Leonardo Di Caprio type crap.

Musk gets on my nerves but at the same time I respect him for putting money where his mouth his. How many other auto companies are actually trying to become 100% clean? The Gigafactory is going to be completely solar powered the battery packs are designed to be in a recyclable loop. As for the cost of a BEV why are people surprised by this new tech is always expensive out of the gate.

What irks me about Musk is he gives the impression that we can easily transition away from oil that's not happening it will take decades.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by zamler

Musk gets on my nerves but at the same time I respect him for putting money where his mouth his. How many other auto companies are actually trying to become 100% clean? The Gigafactory is going to be completely solar powered the battery packs are designed to be in a recyclable loop. As for the cost of a BEV why are people surprised by this new tech is always expensive out of the gate.

What irks me about Musk is he gives the impression that we can easily transition away from oil that's not happening it will take decades.

He does half the battle. He’s trying to solve the combustion engine problem and that’s great.

But obviously, 2 things persist and are problematic for him:

1) he cares a great deal about being rich more than he does climate change and
2) I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest his carbon footprint is gigantic and multiple multiples beyond the every day Joe he’s trying to convince to change their lifestyle.

How can someone who consumes so much energy, criticize others?

This is like a 700lb man telling others at the party to eat less.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd be curious more about his entire environmental footprint though.

I mean its great that he's going to solar and stuff like that.

But I'm more curious about things like the rare metals that go into those cars, and the other emissions that come from building those cars.

Wired published an article a while back on the manufacturing of Tesla cars and contended that the environmental footprint was larger then manufacturing a regular car.

opps found it

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas...t-green-think/

Are we so into the idea of carbon and climate change that we are now just shifting what is acceptable pollution?

[zamler]

How can someone who consumes so much energy, criticize others?

You think the Al Gore types care? They become become extremely wealthy telling us how horrible we are for killing the planet while they consumes 100x or more energy than the average person.

On the carbon footprint of producing an electric car it is no doubt bigger than say a Toyota Corolla. The cradle to grave footprint is highly debated but here's the thing, the BEV will continue to improve in this respect a fuel burner hardly at all. A petrol car will never be green once it leaves the factory.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by zamler

You think the Al Gore types care? They become become extremely wealthy telling us how horrible we are for killing the planet while they consumes 100x or more energy than the average person.

No, obviously I don’t and obviously that’s the point I’m making. Tough to take these people seriously with all of their stuff when they don’t even have the guts to lead a life they believe is sustainable. So, do they even believe the stuff they spew?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

No, obviously I don’t and obviously that’s the point I’m making. Tough to take these people seriously with all of their stuff when they don’t even have the guts to lead a life they believe is sustainable. So, do they even believe the stuff they spew?

I suspect they likely offer their Carbon footprints. In a Carbon based economy the wealthy get to emit more. The same way they get to spend more. I don’t think that is any more hypocritical than asking people to help the poor when they don’t give all their money.

My issue with them is they don’t advocate the correct solution. A price on Carbon is the only way to solve this. It’s also very simple. It doesn’t take any moralizing. Put in a Carbon tax and increase year by year. Then the market will slowly transition itself off of GHGs. Anyone not advocating this approach is wrong. Stopping pipelines and moralizing the debate gets us no where.

The G20 just needs to implement a Carbon tax on all goods imported or not at the same rate and the problem is solved. Anything short of carbon taxes on all imports is useless.

[zamler]

No, obviously I don’t and obviously that’s the point I’m making. Tough to take these people seriously with all of their stuff when they don’t even have the guts to lead a life they believe is sustainable. So, do they even believe the stuff they spew?

Hard to say, I would tend to think Al Gore knows that fundamentally he's full of it but like I said doesn't care. What I don't get is why do people take him seriously everything he has predicted has been horribly wrong. Didn't he make a 2nd Inconvenient Truth? Here is an actual quote from imdb

Al Gore claims that he predicted in An Inconvenient Truth that sea level rise combined with storm surge would flood the 9/11 memorial construction. He didn't. What he did say was that if all the ice melted off of Greenland, it would flood areas with high population, as well as the 9/11 memorial, making no mention of storm surges. As it was Hurricane Sandy that caused the memorial to flood, Gore now rewrites his original claim so that it matches up with the fact.

Think about that for a bit.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Curious to know what those in the oil industry think of the oil pellets that CN has come up with. Reads like a very cool solution to a long-standing problem, but I don't know enough about the logistics to really understand the barriers to it.

The advantage isn’t the non-spill traits. That’s just political marketing and spin. We don’t have a technological issue with tanker spills and pipeline spills.

The big advantage is you get rid of diluent in the process. So you reduce volumes by 30% which makes rail a lot closer to pipelines in terms of cost.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GGG

I suspect they likely offer their Carbon footprints. In a Carbon based economy the wealthy get to emit more. The same way they get to spend more. I don’t think that is any more hypocritical than asking people to help the poor when they don’t give all their money.

My issue with them is they don’t advocate the correct solution. A price on Carbon is the only way to solve this. It’s also very simple. It doesn’t take any moralizing. Put in a Carbon tax and increase year by year. Then the market will slowly transition itself off of GHGs. Anyone not advocating this approach is wrong. Stopping pipelines and moralizing the debate gets us no where.

The G20 just needs to implement a Carbon tax on all goods imported or not at the same rate and the problem is solved. Anything short of carbon taxes on all imports is useless.

I’m not asking them to give money to poor people. I have been very clear in my position. They are proposing a new way of living they themselves clearly don’t believe in. If they did, they would do what they are suggesting you and I do.

I find you rarely take a position and it’s tough to know your true opinion on any issue ever. Anyway agree with you on Carbon taxes since basic economics don’t suggest we alter our way of life anytime soon.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I’m not asking them to give money to poor people. I have been very clear in my position. They are proposing a new way of living they themselves clearly don’t believe in. If they did, they would do what they are suggesting you and I do.

I find you rarely take a position and it’s tough to know your true opinion on any issue ever. Anyway agree with you on Carbon taxes since basic economics don’t suggest we alter our way of life anytime soon.

While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think it's as simple as "proposing a new way of living they themselves clearly don't believe in."

It's convenient for us to say that because it makes us feel better. "You don't get to tell me what to do because you're not doing it!" It makes us feel like we can disregard the message because the sender doesn't meet the standard. But, if you look at the message, it's a good one, and one that is worth listening to.

It costs money, and it takes considerable carbon, to enact change in our footprint. From the development of new technologies or flying around to speaking engagements to hopefully create a movement of change in energy consumption, do these things have a bad footprint? Absolutely. But they also aren't a long-term solution. It's a "the ends justify the means" scenario, and whether you agree that they do or not is probably another whole conversation.

I agree that we need fossil fuels right now, but let's not shut out the message that we cant stay on them forever, because it's true. Instead of getting upset about the Musk's and Gore's of the world not living a lifestyle that's impossible to live while preaching the rest of us do so, look at what they're doing to make that lifestyle possible.

We're just being ignorant otherwise. It's ok to use fossil fuels while having a grip on the reality of our climate situation and what's necessary for the future. There's no shame in using them now to get us to a place where we don't have to. What's not ok is using them while remaining ignorant over the state of the world, or cutting them off without having done anything to replace them.

What would you rather? Musk making a big carbon footprint to develop the technology to help us long term? Or Trudeau trying to cut the carbon footprint with no solution of how to make that change sustainable?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by zamler

Musk gets on my nerves but at the same time I respect him for putting money where his mouth his. How many other auto companies are actually trying to become 100% clean? The Gigafactory is going to be completely solar powered the battery packs are designed to be in a recyclable loop. As for the cost of a BEV why are people surprised by this new tech is always expensive out of the gate.

What irks me about Musk is he gives the impression that we can easily transition away from oil that's not happening it will take decades.

I'm with you on Musk being so full of #### his eyes are brown, but again, hes putting other people's money where his mouth is.

People think Teslas are outrageously expensive now? They only get made because of massive Government grants, funding and tax breaks.

Musk gets to live High on the Green Hog because of his massive spin machine.

If Tesla was playing on anything even remotely resembling a level playing field nobody would be able to afford them and it wouldnt matter because even he wouldnt be able to afford to make them.

Once again, 'Green Energy' is all well and good but its still preposterously expensive and insufficient and even still the Tesla model only works by completely ignoring the downstream requirements of everything else.

They still use batteries, paint and require tires. They arent magic.

Its a step in the right direction, but its a far more minor step than people tend to believe.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Whether you like Elon or not...he has delivered multiple technological products that have set the bar in many ways. It’s astounding he is accomplishing this in parallel.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Whether you like Elon or not...he has delivered multiple technological products that have set the bar in many ways. It’s astounding he is accomplishing this in parallel.

And thats all well and good, but again, lets not pretend that hes created something magical.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Whether you like Elon or not...he has delivered multiple technological products that have set the bar in many ways. It’s astounding he is accomplishing this in parallel.

Hahaha. And if you say something totally factual that he doesn’t agree with he will call you a pedophile.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Are we so into the idea of carbon and climate change that we are now just shifting what is acceptable pollution?

It's pretty much economic law that taxing one negative externality without taxing others will create a substitution effect.

Carbon tax is probably better than nothing, but the full benefits aren't being realized without a comprehensive externality pricing scheme.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm with you on Musk being so full of #### his eyes are brown, but again, hes putting other people's money where his mouth is.

People think Teslas are outrageously expensive now? They only get made because of massive Government grants, funding and tax breaks.

Musk gets to live High on the Green Hog because of his massive spin machine.

If Tesla was playing on anything even remotely resembling a level playing field nobody would be able to afford them and it wouldnt matter because even he wouldnt be able to afford to make them.

Once again, 'Green Energy' is all well and good but its still preposterously expensive and insufficient and even still the Tesla model only works by completely ignoring the downstream requirements of everything else.

They still use batteries, paint and require tires. They arent magic.

Its a step in the right direction, but its a far more minor step than people tend to believe.

You can't really argue 100% clean because of the earth metals that are being mined, or the manufacturing process itself.


A lot of the products that are incorporated in cars come from high polllution and his carbon manufacturing. If we're going to look at down stream effects, the argument is that you have to look at up stream manufacturing and materials as well.


There will never be any such thing as 100% clean.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's pretty much economic law that taxing one negative externality without taxing others will create a substitution effect.

Carbon tax is probably better than nothing, but the full benefits aren't being realized without a comprehensive externality pricing scheme.

i.e. is it about the environment or is it about climate change?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm with you on Musk being so full of #### his eyes are brown, but again, hes putting other people's money where his mouth is.

People think Teslas are outrageously expensive now? They only get made because of massive Government grants, funding and tax breaks.

Musk gets to live High on the Green Hog because of his massive spin machine.

If Tesla was playing on anything even remotely resembling a level playing field nobody would be able to afford them and it wouldnt matter because even he wouldnt be able to afford to make them.

Once again, 'Green Energy' is all well and good but its still preposterously expensive and insufficient and even still the Tesla model only works by completely ignoring the downstream requirements of everything else.

They still use batteries, paint and require tires. They arent magic.

Its a step in the right direction, but its a far more minor step than people tend to believe.

What are some handouts that Tesla has received that other auto makers have not?

[CaptainCrunch]

Interesting article on the subsidies that amount to about $5 billion dollars


https://www.latimes.com/business/la-...531-story.html


Article on how the wind down on Federal Tax Credits will effect Tesla


https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp.../#733959294459

[monkeyman]

Anyone else find it funny that Musk's car company is named after a notoriously impatient nut job who's claims never quite lived up to his own self proclamations, who defrauded investors, didn't pay his bills, and ultimately died broke?