The environment thread

[StrangeSox]

Wasn't the same thing said about the Prius at first?

but the Volt is considerably more expensive than the Prius was, IIRC.

 

And anyway, the competition is pouring out. See the previous post.

 

Oh I know, and it's the same for any new technology. I'm just not going to get too excited about a $40k sedan that's also pretty ugly.

[Texsox]

The tree hugger in me and the Texan in me are fighting it out. For some practicle reasons, I will be buying a pick up truck. I really want a F250 HD or equal, which appeals to my Texas manhood. The tree hugger is thinking the F150 will be sufficient to tow what I need to tow *and* will offer better mileage for my 40 mile daily commute. (round trip)

 

I wish I could afford two vehicles.

[StrangeSox]

The tree hugger in me and the Texan in me are fighting it out. For some practicle reasons, I will be buying a pick up truck. I really want a F250 HD or equal, which appeals to my Texas manhood. The tree hugger is thinking the F150 will be sufficient to tow what I need to tow *and* will offer better mileage for my 40 mile daily commute. (round trip)

 

I wish I could afford two vehicles.

http://www.porsche.com/usa/aboutporsche/po...ronment/hybrid/

[BigSqwert]

http://www.porsche.com/usa/aboutporsche/po...ronment/hybrid/

His neighbors will scoff at him. I rented a Volvo for a work trip in Texas once and I was almost laughed out of the facility.

[southsider2k5]

His neighbors will scoff at him. I rented a Volvo for a work trip in Texas once and I was almost laughed out of the facility.

 

No joke. Your choices are pretty much truck or Cadillac.

[Balta1701]

No joke. Your choices are pretty much truck or Cadillac.

Vague memory of hanging out with a former NW Indiana cadillac dealer and hearing about how much of his business was cash purchases...

[BigSqwert]

Philadelphia Eagles Taking NFL Stadium Off-Grid

[Balta1701]

A 2006 Congressional "Report" on global climate change, requested by Rep. Joe Barton (R-BP), who is likely to re-take the chair of the energy committee in the next House, appears to have been largely plagiarized.

An influential 2006 congressional report that raised questions about the validity of global warming research was partly based on material copied from textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report, plagiarism experts say.

 

Review of the 91-page report by three experts contacted by USA TODAY found repeated instances of passages lifted word for word and what appear to be thinly disguised paraphrases.

Out of the 91 pages in the report, some 35 contained significant amounts of plagiarized material. Also, of the 80 papers listed as citations, some 40 never are actually cited anywhere in the report.

[NorthSideSox72]

A 2006 Congressional "Report" on global climate change, requested by Rep. Joe Barton (R-BP), who is likely to re-take the chair of the energy committee in the next House, appears to have been largely plagiarized.

Out of the 91 pages in the report, some 35 contained significant amounts of plagiarized material. Also, of the 80 papers listed as citations, some 40 never are actually cited anywhere in the report.

Republicans stretching to try to find any scientific material, at all, to stand on... and predictably failing. They'd be better off if they just stuck to the money argument, and not look like complete morons.

 

Also, LOL at the bolded.

 

[Balta1701]

Something I thought worth noting...about $7 billion in corn ethanol subsidies come due for renewal at the end of the year. If Congress does not actively renew them, they end.

 

Several Republican senators are making noise about letting them do just that. This of course puts them in the position of having to oppose powerful agricultural state interests.

[kapkomet]

I don't know which is better at this point, letting them lapse or sinking subsidies in something that absolutely won't work but at the same time keeps middle America kind of going.

 

One thing I do know... the 10% limit on ethanol is about to go to 15% at the gas pump. It is proven that once you go over this 10% mark that engines will start crapping out - which hmmm......... pushes us to "new technology". Amazing, coincidence, no?

 

 

[lostfan]

Corn ethanol really isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[kapkomet]

Corn ethanol really isn't all it's cracked up to be.

 

 

No, it's not. It's actually very inefficient and not a good source of energy at all.

[Balta1701]

This ethanol subsidy game is actually getting kinda interesting...legitimate bipartisan groups of 15 senators have sent letters opposing the renewal of the subsidies and supporting the renewal of the subsidies. The 15 opposed come from states like CA and the coasts, the 15 supporting come from Agricultural states. Moveon.org and Freedomwatch both support getting rid of them.

 

[kapkomet]

This ethanol subsidy game is actually getting kinda interesting...legitimate bipartisan groups of 15 senators have sent letters opposing the renewal of the subsidies and supporting the renewal of the subsidies. The 15 opposed come from states like CA and the coasts, the 15 supporting come from Agricultural states. Moveon.org and Freedomwatch both support getting rid of them.

 

 

I wonder who will win out?

[Balta1701]

I wonder who will win out?

I'm genuinely fascinated to know.

[Balta1701]

You know, I'm still annoyed at the fact that people in this thread ridiculed how we couldn't get an accurate, public estimate of the leak rate, while ignoring the fact that one side had something of a strong, multi-billion dollar motivation to making sure that there was no accurate estimate, and then said argued that I had no basis to believe that BP would fight tooth and nail to cut back the fines and payouts as soon as the press heat was off.

BP is mounting a new challenge to the U.S. government's estimates of how much oil flowed from the runaway well deep below the Gulf of Mexico, an argument that could reduce by billions of dollars the federal pollution fines it faces for the largest offshore oil spill in history.

 

BP's lawyers are arguing that the government overstated the spill by 20 to 50 percent, staffers working for the presidential oil spill commission said Friday. In a 10-page document obtained by The Associated Press, BP says the government's spill estimate of 206 million gallons is "overstated by a significant amount" and the company said any consensus around that number is premature and inaccurate.

 

The company submitted the document to the commission, the Justice Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

 

"They rely on incomplete or inaccurate information, rest in large part on assumptions that have not been validated, and are subject to far greater uncertainties than have been acknowledged," BP wrote. "BP fully intends to present its own estimate as soon as the information is available to get the science right."

 

In a statement Friday, the company said the government's estimates failed to account for equipment that could obstruct the flow of oil and gas, such as the blowout preventer, making its numbers "highly unreliable."

 

BP's request could save it as much as $10.5 billion or as little as $1.1 billion, depending on factors such as whether the government concludes that BP acted negligently. For context, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's entire federal budget for 2010 was $10.3 billion.

[Jenksismyhero]

You know, I'm still annoyed at the fact that people in this thread ridiculed how we couldn't get an accurate, public estimate of the leak rate, while ignoring the fact that one side had something of a strong, multi-billion dollar motivation to making sure that there was no accurate estimate, and then said argued that I had no basis to believe that BP would fight tooth and nail to cut back the fines and payouts as soon as the press heat was off.

 

Yes, how dare a company defend its rights. They should just take the government at its word. It's ALWAYS accurate.

[Balta1701]

Yes, how dare a company defend its rights. They should just take the government at its word. It's ALWAYS accurate.

But y'all told me that Bp was the good guys and they weren't going to fight anything. That's the whole point. BP was going to make everything better. Remember, just because Exxon defended itself for 20 years doesn't mean that BP is going to challenge things every step of the way.

 

Of course BP was going to defend its rights at every step of the way. Which is exactly what people scoffed at when I said they'd do that in May. And which is exactly why the government needed to be fighting them as hard as possible for access and money from day 1. Like when the evil Obama forced them at gunpoint to escrow all that money.

[Balta1701]

Why does the government need to be fighting them? I'm so tired of liberals demonizing the companies and people that actual produce things and make society work. The government taking an actively antagonistic stance toward a company is simply wrong and would just be driven by Obama's desire for good PR. BP's rights are just as valid as anyone else's and the government should not decide to favor one over another. Just another example of government increasing inefficiency and increasing costs that everyone will pay. I am so looking forward to 2012 when a competent government that understands the value of industry is finally restored.

Real simple; the government needs to be fighting them because the interest of the people; having BP pay for the cleanup, for all the losses, and a large enough fine so as to act as a deterrent to future spills, is diametrically opposed to BP's interest; paying as little as humanly possible for all of the above.

 

This company deserves to be demonized. Feel free to be sick of that. I'm sick of companies that deserve to be demonized.

[hitlesswonder]

Real simple; the government needs to be fighting them because the interest of the people; having BP pay for the cleanup, for all the losses, and a large enough fine so as to act as a deterrent to future spills, is diametrically opposed to BP's interest; paying as little as humanly possible for all of the above.

 

This company deserves to be demonized. Feel free to be sick of that. I'm sick of companies that deserve to be demonized.

 

OK, I deleted my post because I decided it was overly political. But I will say that BP is "the people" as well. The courts can settle the disputes between BP and plaintiffs. The executive branch of the government should not decide a priori that it needs to aid plaintiffs against BP. That's just anti-corporate bias in my opinion.

[StrangeSox]

I'm going to assume that now-deleted post was meant to be in green.

[Balta1701]

OK, I deleted my post because I decided it was overly political. But I will say that BP is "the people" as well. The courts can settle the disputes between BP and plaintiffs. The executive branch of the government should not decide a priori that it needs to aid plaintiffs against BP. That's just anti-corporate bias in my opinion.

When that happened, with the Exxon/Valdez, it took 20 years for a settlement to be reached and it wound up being only a couple thousand dollars per claim, after having started at a factor of 5-10 higher.

[StrangeSox]

OK, I deleted my post because I decided it was overly political. But I will say that BP is "the people" as well. The courts can settle the disputes between BP and plaintiffs. The executive branch of the government should not decide a priori that it needs to aid plaintiffs against BP. That's just anti-corporate bias in my opinion.

 

This is the political forum.

 

That said, BP is a large, multinational-but-foreign company who created a huge environmental and economic disaster. Why shouldn't they be demonized? Why should they be protected? I'm sick and tired of people excusing gross corporate negligence and a select few enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, such as the gulf coast community. I dread the day the people who want no accountability and no oversight over corporations take back over the government.

 

eta: there's a good reason for the anti-corporate bias here; it's pro-people, pro-environment bias. BP, a foreign company, caused significant harm to US resources and citizens. Do I need to provide links to dozens of similar reports of how badly this has impacted gulf coast communities, areas that aren't high on the economic food chain to begin with?

Edited December 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I dread the day the people who want no accountability and no oversight over corporations take back over the government.

They let it go?