Waiting for Superbatteries They are still a long way from matching the energy density of liquid fue

Fine by me. Keeps me from having to explain how your oft cited urban health statistics- despite never, ever having "pollution" be an actual diagnosis or cause of death- is just the result of too many economists employed by the Federal government to make regulations they want to impose look like they'll actually save people money. Which is a requirement of the rule making process.

No, not going to go there.

 

But they were not subsidized and mandated, and no one tried outlaw cathode TV’s. And due to over regulation in the USA, Asia made the money building the big TV’s, not America.

 

Don’t worry, the Chinese will be drilling in America, and your descendants will be their slave labor.

 

Nah, yours. Mine will be on Mars with Elon

 

Are you really going to claim that environmental factors are irrelevant to human health???

 

I'm sure they can be. Along with an infinite array of other factors. Which makes it impossible to assign "costs" to any of them.

Those silly irrational figures you keep trotting out are merely slide show points made to justify any regulation government feels like making. They have no actual correlation to anything.

And after all, trying to run our lives for us is their entire reason for being.

 

You'll have to explain your "over regulation" point. I've not heard of that one.

Apple says they manufacture in Asia, because there simply isn't enough labor available in the USA.

Besides, do you really think there was a reason that our government should have subsidized TV manufacturing?

Should the government have been subsidizing the manufacturing of cell phones, lap top computers, microwave cooking equipment, etc., etc.? Do you think we would be manufacturing these various devices in America if only the government had subsidized their manufacture?

In other words, what are the factors that should make government subsidize manufacturing?

I think the existence of an American auto industry is a bigger deal than who makes TVs.

 

No, the only cites I've made on healthcare costs of pollution have been serious studies by highly reputable sources of science.

The problem I have with your last sentence is that we live in close proximity and thus our actions affect others.

Of course, the degree and type of affect can have something to do with where you live.

If you live in Cody, Wyoming, I'm fine with guns there, as the prey is elk, etc.

In our cities, the prey is all to often human. And, then I become not so fine with guns. And, that's especially true when all our major cities are Democratic, yet Republicans demand that our cities can't have rational control of these weapons.

The same could be true for ICEs. I'm less worried about some long haul trucker driving across Kansas.

But, things change when people are burning a major percent of our total US oil consumption right on our city streets.

 

Over regulation in California is not easily explainable. It affects everything. The result is you start with plans and a budget on year 1, then by it year ten, you might get permission to start building. Maybe. But by then the project has tripled in cost. (God help you if you find a Indian grave, or any grave. Now you are an architectural dig site).
Google it when you have a couple weeks to kill!

 

You can't support that as a reason for electronics being built in Asia.

CA isn't the only state in the union, and CA has a LOT of manufacturing.

In fact, CA is the leading state in manufacturing!

More importantly, Apple, a California company, states that the reason they manufacture in Asia is the availability of labor in Asia.

 

That's more accurate.

 

That's not what Apple's CEO said.

But, I agree that corporations like Apple and Ford have the goal of maximizing profit for their share holders, thus they manufacture all or some of their products in other countries where labor is cheaper or more plentiful, where raw materials are more easily available, where labor works in conditions we wouldn't allow, etc.

It doesn't stop there. We import 2.1 BILLION pounds of beef and approximately the same weight in live cattle.

But, that wasn't the issue.

The question is how our government should choose what to subsidize.

BTW, why did you choose to blatantly misquote me?

 

I didn't misquote you. The bracket [ . . . ] is universally recognized as the marker for text that was not part of the original quote.

 

You sliced up my post and added text - instead of just stating your [incredibly weak] point.

 

No. I excerpted the portion that interested me, and properly quoted it.

 

Switzerland to act against EV's?


Business
MoneyWise
Winter is coming: The 'best country in the world' is planning to ban electric cars amid the energy crisis. Is it time to revisit oil stocks? Here are 3 big plays

Wake up and smell the diesel.

 

The problem with your "cites" is I've written that kind of crap. Well, not really written, but I was the COTR for one back when I worked for NHTSA so it's more appropriate to say I oversaw the writing of one that got my name top line in the credits. Since the Federal government has been what they call "Pay/Go" for a couple decades meaning that only regulations that can be demonstrated to pay for themselves can move forward to implementation and we were proposing raising fuel economy requirements by a couple mpg we had to prove our regulations would save money.

So we spent $1.7 million on having a Beltway Bandit (the top pay for the experts per the contract they proposed was $400/hr. Really nice work if you can get it). Anyways, they went back to their cubicles and in a couple weeks we had exactly the kind of "serious study" you're so proud of. Plenty of cites of "experts" with multiple PhDs and all the other trimmings.

So I read through it. Had all the really goofy references to saving 0.15 trips to the gas station per week multiplied by the number of drivers in the country earning an average of $18/hr. that you wouldn't have to waste pumping gas. Think of all the money we'll save! But the real kicker was (this was 2010) a decrease of 300 deaths in 2030 for a savings of $7 billion per year. Savings for who was never stated, it was just presented as fact.

In a country that averages 2.85 million deaths annually they were actually purporting to save 300 of those 20 years on. That's just the definition of picking fly shiite from the pepper. And saved $7 billion that nobody can explain whose actual pocket any of those dollars might be located in now or in 2030? Seriously?

And again, find me one single cite of anyone anywhere that's been definitively died from or been diagnosed as sick from NOx poisoning. Anybody. After all, you and your "experts" are claiming we all spend billions of dollars on it every year.

So I'm real familiar with "highly reputable studies" crap. And all I have to say is call me when you've actually proved anything in reality.

And if you're freaked out about how much it sucks to live in the city you live in, the solution is for you to move, not burden everyone else with doing something about your imagined problem.

 

You're making excuses without references.

Diagnosis of cause of death rarely identifies one single transportation pollutant as the reason that an individual died. (Suicides by car in the garage may be exceptions.) Medicine just does not assign cause of death like that.

More importantly, death isn't what is expensive in terms of dollars.

What is expensive is health issues that can be marginally cared for over significant periods of time, but not solved.

The result is the direct cost of that continuing medical support, plus the issues of lost productivity due to medical issues, including when it gets serious enough that the individual is on the various support systems for those with low income, in this case due to illness.

 

The US transferred the technology to Asia brcause tgey could build cheaper. By doing that American workers were denied a high tech industry. Earlier, we gave VHS to Asia, so we missed out on that.
Thankfully, freight prohibited Winnebago from having its coaches made in Asia, or we would have lost that too.
After all people are crying about our lack of high tech assembly. No bleep, Sherlock.

 

They will likely never be gone. And they are still being "created" even today.

 

Which is exactly the flaw in the claim he was pointing out. However, the point still stands. Carbon Monoxide is not a heavy metal, and repeated exposures do not lead to death. It is not any kind of gas that results ultimately in death due to long term buildup, as it is a gas and does not "build up" in the body.

This is basic science here, which shows the claim is bogus. Yet you are trying to run with it and claim it is a cause but just not written on death paperwork.

 

What I have thought was hilarious for decades is that there is yet another "victim" group that would lose a lot of their steam if they had to share their deaths.

And that is the anti-smoking industry.

The main cause of deaths in air pollution is well known. Cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. And the anti-smoking industry has far more power, so they are claiming all of the deaths with those symptoms are caused by them. If somebody tried to push it was really pollution and not smoking, I can see one of two things happening.

Either a fight between the two, where each tries to claim the majority of deaths as opposed to the other.

Or where each ignores the other, and then you have two different groups both claiming to be the real cause of death.

But in most of these, it is never the "cause of death". Just as nobody has ever died of HIV or AIDS. That may be a major factor, but they actually die of a runaway infection, or an opportunistic illness that overwhelmed their compromised immune system.

 

Which quite literally means almost nothing. The amount of beef imported is just a fraction of the beef consumed. In total, somewhere around 9% of beef consumed in the US.



And want to know how insignificant that really is? The US still exports more beef than it imports. In 2021, the US imported 3.35 billion pounds of beef. And exported 3.45 billion pounds of beef. Yes, we exported more than we imported.

So to begin with, your numbers are really-really old. In fact, I question if they are even made up, as I looked through over two decades of beef import numbers, and unless you for some strange reason picked 2011 as your figure, there is no other year in two decades even close to 2.1 billion pounds. The import amounts have not been below 3 billion pounds since 2011.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/194702/us-total-beef-and-veal-imports-and-exports-since-2001/

You see, those are known as "sources". Which proves I am actually giving correct figures, and not simply making things up. Which it appears what you have done, as the number you quoted is nowhere even close to the reality, and has not for over a decade.

Please, stop trying to make up your "facts", because it is so annoying to have to prove you are simply making them up and essentially lying. It is not hard to actually take the time to do a little research, then give a link to actually prove your claims.

 

No, they take literally millions of years to form, far, far, FAR longer than we can wait.

And, yes, we have found some more of them since just a few years ago, but they will run out. One method of finding more oil , fracking, is just a way of getting the last few "drops" from wells thought depleted

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/fossil-fuels

 

What I'd like to see is a dollar for dollar cut in our taxes upfront for every dollar the people that these people tell us we'll theoretically be saving on the back end.

That should put a stop to this garbage real quick.