How so? Are EV manufacturers going to stop making them if they are unable to get cobalt from outside of the RoC to fulfill the demand?
Reading is fundamental. I said we dont have a better system than capitalism so how would I have an alternative?
1 Like
Just one more item in the Jimmie Carter legacy that we have to thank him for. 
2 Likes
Fundamental attribution error.
USA
“I pushed this whole EV thing too hard too fast. It’s like shooting myself in the foot.”
Germany
“That’s not shooting yourself in the foot. I’ll show you how to shot yourself in the foot.”
I think some of the speakers are not exactly neutral.
However for me the truth with climate change lies somewhere in the middle. Yes we are impacting the planet in ways that are not good and without some major changes we are setting up our future grandchildren etc with some major headaches but its not some extinction level event for humans. Other species most definitely.
We need a tempered approach to new technologies so we dont end up with new environmental issues.
With 8 billion humans living today its pure stupidity for anyone to think we are not having a negative impact on the environment.
But no one listens to me so all i can do is do my best to minimize my impact though its impossible to live and not in some small tiny way contribute to he problems we face.
That’s how I feel.
The IPCC errors on the side of caution (less capitalism more eco-friendly) again and again, but I believe their underlying case.
Their underlying case seems to suggest globally warming is real and must be dealt with on a multi-decade scale.
Our current reaction is way over the top and it is basically
- ignore which economies are clean vs dirty
- smash the US economy as fast as possible and hurl insults at anyone who questions
- shift all production to the dirtiest economies.
That reaction has to change, for several reasons, including because climate change is real.
That’s not entirely true. The IPCC has included in their overall recommendations to curb activity that causes (they claim) climate change, that wealthy countries (who are blamed with causing most of the problem) pay poor countries to cope with the affects (allegedly) of climate change. They are in effect saying that capitalist countries should transfer wealth to poor often socialist countries. In order to that, they will need to retain and even increase their capitalist output.
The strategy/methods of Rio & Paris & Kyoto accords, and the accords themselves are, unfortunately, modus operandi for the world, including the US.
- They work exactly the opposite manner they should.
- They work like three wolves and a sheep democratically voting what to have for dinner
- They work exactly the way an agreement would work if
100 poor countries and 20 rich countries said “If we outlaw new factories etc. in the rich countries, then all the new factories in the world will be built in the 100 poor countries. Let’s vote on whether this is a good idea.”
They work this way:
-
In 1990 the US, a clean economy, emitted almost 0.5 tons of ghgs (CO2 equivalent) for each $1,000 worth of “stuff” produced.
-
In 1990 China, a dirty economy, emitted 1.2 tons of ghgs (CO2 equivalent) to produced the same $1,000 worth of “stuff.”
-
IOW China was 2.7 times “dirtier” than the US. For the same economic output, China produced 2.7 times as much GHG.
-
Common sense would say “To save the planet shift production away from the dirty economy to the clean economy.”
-
BUT in 1997, 192 countries signed the Kyoto Protocol did just the opposite. GHG output in the US and other clean countries would be capped.
-----The rich clean countries (eventually) cannot expand their economy without offsets. Want to build a new auto factory? First the US has to shut down other something else or in some other way reduce GHG output.
-----The poor dirty countries have no such cap. Any auto company that wants to expand can do so in dirty super-polluting China or India or Mexico for free. To do so in the US etc., then the US etc. must buy out and shut down something else in the US.
.
.
.
It should be absolutely no surprise to anyone that in 1997 China, India etc. had small economies and (although the future was clear by then) were not yet major economic players on the world stage.
1 Like
Agreed. (check your typo in the third bullet point.)
Yep. Why anyone in this country (especially politicians) supports these international treaties regarding environmental issues is beyond comprehension. Virtually nothing in those agreements address the perceived environmental problems, but rather are almost exclusively aimed at taking down the US and EU economies.
1 Like
There have been many agreements since Kyoto (Paris Accord, Rio Summit etc.) but they are all just revisions, in some cases more severe, of the same bass-ackwards approach.
They all put a severe cap on development in the clean economies.
They all put little or no cap on the dirty economies.
Thus they all favor the approach “If the world needs a new auto factory, or electric power plant and chip factory, this agreement will subtract expense if it is located in a dirty economy, but add expense of locating in a clean economy.”
If reducing GHGs is the goal these do exactly the opposite.
The only way these agreements make sense is if the real goal is secret backdoor foreign aid (from rich countries to poor countries.)
1 Like
And none of them are in any way covered by an enumerated power in the Constitution and therefore not lawful treaties, more like governing conventions (aka constitutions)…
1 Like
2 Likes
CalPers is the CalPERS: California Public Employees’ Retirement System
They do not support this bill. The CEO of CalPERS has spoken out against this bill publicly.
- It would do nothing to mitigate climate change.
- It would make it harder for CalPERS to achieve its investment goals.
- CalPERS would still be free to invest in dirty industries in dirty countries like China and India.
Short of a mile-wide meteor crashing into the Earth again (5,000 and 12,000 years ago), or a super volcano erupting again (70,000 years ago), the climate changing has never been, nor will it ever be, an emergency, except for the exceptionally ignorant among the masses.
A person has to be seriously mentally retarded at this point to keep believing in this CAGW hoax.
4 Likes
