'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

[Monahorns]

US Clears First Small Nuke Plant Design To Power Carbon-Free Future | ZeroHedge

Listen to Robert Bryce he follows developments along the whole electrical industry. There are plans for a few plants of new designs in the US. But there is still way too much regulation, and obsolete regulation, that needs to be eliminated before nuclear power in the US can really be significant.

 

[Garmel]

LOLOLOL!!!!

 

[Horn6721]

Thank god for the world wide crisis of supply of eggs.
Think of the lives saved

 

[mchammer]

 

[Monahorns]

The above issue is an artefact of there being limited measurement stations. They don't cover much of the earth, the environment around them is changing, and many are becoming defective.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Facing Addiction]

Which side of the mouth are we talking out of today????

Biden admin issues 20-year mining ban as it turns to foreign supply chain amid green energy push (msn.com)

 

[Mr. Deez]

A huge part of this is very rich people bullying the lower and working classes for their own benefit or convenience. One thing you all don't see as much in the US but we see in the UK is special charges to drive into big cities. For example, London has a "congestion charge" of £15 (about $17) per day to drive into the city. They also have so-called low emission and ultra-low emission zones (LEZ and ULEZ) which tend to hit larger and older vehicles with another £12.50 per day.

Of course, if you raise this concern and how it affects the lower classes, the response is always that people should take public transit, and I get that. London in an old city, and it's not built for heavy vehicular traffic - nowhere near enough road space or parking. I'd never recommend driving in London, and I've literally not done it a single time. However, what if you're a tradesman who truly needs a large vehicle to haul equipment? You can't very well carry a ladder and paint buckets around on subways and buses. You're just going to get clobbered with thousands of pounds per year for an expense that does nothing for your business or your customers. It's a drain and nothing else, and that's just brutal.

So where do the wealthy Londoners fit into this? For starters, the wealthy in London are like the wealthy in New York City or Los Angeles. They're not just "comfortable." They're friggin' loaded (guys who make professional athlete money and more), so forking out a few grand per year to drive around in their Bentley's and Bugattis while they bounce between the office, Harrod's, and the Rolex shop isn't a big deal to them. It's chump change, and in exchange for it, they get improved traffic and less competition for the limited parking, because the "little people" can't afford to drive on the roads. Furthermore, they get to put it under a facade of righteousness (like cutting emissions), so they even get to virtue signal about it. It's a win-win for them.

 

[mchammer]

A huge part of this is very rich people bullying the lower and working classes for their own benefit or convenience. One thing you all don't see as much in the US but we see in the UK is special charges to drive into big cities. For example, London has a "congestion charge" of £15 (about $17) per day to drive into the city. They also have so-called low emission and ultra-low emission zones (LEZ and ULEZ) which tend to hit larger and older vehicles with another £12.50 per day.

Of course, if you raise this concern and how it affects the lower classes, the response is always that people should take public transit, and I get that. London in an old city, and it's not built for heavy vehicular traffic - nowhere near enough road space or parking. I'd never recommend driving in London, and I've literally not done it a single time. However, what if you're a tradesman who truly needs a large vehicle to haul equipment? You can't very well carry a ladder and paint buckets around on subways and buses. You're just going to get clobbered with thousands of pounds per year for an expense that does nothing for your business or your customers. It's a drain and nothing else, and that's just brutal.

So where do the wealthy Londoners fit into this? For starters, the wealthy in London are like the wealthy in New York City or Los Angeles. They're not just "comfortable." They're friggin' loaded (guys who make professional athlete money and more), so forking out a few grand per year to drive around in their Bentley's and Bugattis while they bounce between the office, Harrod's, and the Rolex shop isn't a big deal to them. It's chump change, and in exchange for it, they get improved traffic and less competition for the limited parking, because the "little people" can't afford to drive on the roads. Furthermore, they get to put it under a facade of righteousness (like cutting emissions), so they even get to virtue signal about it. It's a win-win for them.

It’s been noted that the rich don’t have sole access to luxury goods like in the past. Jet flights? No. Fancy goods? No. Expensive cars? No. Fancy residences? No (thanks to Airbnb). Fancy locations? No (governments have natural parks today for everyone to enjoy). Etc etc.

I see this as the rich trying to create exclusive luxury for themselves. Most of this behavior is not damaging to others, but the rich can cross the line (see Epstein).

 

[guy4321]

A huge part of this is very rich people bullying the lower and working classes for their own benefit or convenience. One thing you all don't see as much in the US but we see in the UK is special charges to drive into big cities. For example, London has a "congestion charge" of £15 (about $17) per day to drive into the city. They also have so-called low emission and ultra-low emission zones (LEZ and ULEZ) which tend to hit larger and older vehicles with another £12.50 per day.

Of course, if you raise this concern and how it affects the lower classes, the response is always that people should take public transit, and I get that. London in an old city, and it's not built for heavy vehicular traffic - nowhere near enough road space or parking. I'd never recommend driving in London, and I've literally not done it a single time. However, what if you're a tradesman who truly needs a large vehicle to haul equipment? You can't very well carry a ladder and paint buckets around on subways and buses. You're just going to get clobbered with thousands of pounds per year for an expense that does nothing for your business or your customers. It's a drain and nothing else, and that's just brutal.

Austin is getting there. Mopac has a toll lane. Highway 183 north of Mopac is getting one. Must be a pain in the *** for plumbers to pay that all day as they drive from site to site (or sit in more traffic) while us wealthy dudes pay it once into town and once out per day or work from home.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It’s been noted that the rich don’t have sole access to luxury goods like in the past. Jet flights? No. Fancy goods? No. Expensive cars? No. Fancy residences? No (thanks to Airbnb). Fancy locations? No (governments have natural parks today for everyone to enjoy). Etc etc.

I see this as the rich trying to create exclusive luxury for themselves. Most of this behavior is not damaging to others, but the rich can cross the line (see Epstein).

If you're a small business having to fork out £5K per year for billionaires to virtue signal, I'd say it's damaging to you.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

If you're a small business having to fork out £5K per year for billionaires to virtue signal, I'd say it's damaging to you.

I have a very different take on tolls/usage fees and even "congestion fees". I think they are right an appropriate but ONLY IF the money collected goes back into that same LOCAL system to improve it. I don't think they are right if you collect $500M for London congestion fees and then use it to build a windfarm in Scotland. So the London system seems like crap since they seem to be using it to just price people out and not improve London systems. but Mopac having a Toll lane that let's you CHOOSE to use it or not is a good idea in my opinion.

 

[mchammer]

If you're a small business having to fork out £5K per year for billionaires to virtue signal, I'd say it's damaging to you.

I think your economics are wrong. The business folks just pass the cost to the consumer or don’t provide the service. It’s the lower income neighbor to the billionaire that suffers.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm very surprised at you guys. These aren't tolls. They're government charges designed to manipulate people from using their highway system, whether there's a real need to or not.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think your economics are wrong. The business folks just pass the cost to the consumer or don’t provide the service. It’s the lower income neighbor to the billionaire that suffers.

We could say that about any tax increase on business.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Austin is getting there. Mopac has a toll lane. Highway 183 north of Mopac is getting one. Must be a pain in the *** for plumbers to pay that all day as they drive from site to site (or sit in more traffic) while us wealthy dudes pay it once into town and once out per day or work from home.

I don't have a problem with toll roads in principle. If you want to pay for a road through tolls, that's fine. In fact, it's ideal. The users pay for the service. That's how they built IH-30 between Dallas and Fort Worth. What I object to is building a toll road as a rent-seeking scam for a politically well-connected business to score a lot of very easy money, mostly as the expense of the poor, middle, and working classes. That's a load of ****.

 

[mchammer]

I don't have a problem with toll roads in principle. If you want to pay for a road through tolls, that's fine. In fact, it's ideal. The users pay for the service. That's how they built IH-30 between Dallas and Fort Worth. What I object to is building a toll road as a rent-seeking scam for a politically well-connected business to score a lot of very easy money, mostly as the expense of the poor, middle, and working classes. That's a load of ****.

Most new toll roads also allow HOV at no cost at most times of the day.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Most new toll roads also allow HOV at no cost at most times of the day.

Good for them. It's still a rent seeking scam. How about if we just build a toll road without corruption?

 

[mchammer]

Good for them. It's still a rent seeking scam. How about if we just build a toll road without corruption?

That’s a separate issue. The solution is not not to build them. Man you are illogical on this.

 

[mchammer]

Good for them. It's still a rent seeking scam. How about if we just build a toll road without corruption?

All projects have some % of corruption (some legal, some not). The goal is to keep it low enough so that it doesn’t hurt the general populace by canceling projects or doing shoddy projects or low return projects.

 

[Horn6721]

Texas Lege passed a law that if a toll road is to be built there must an equivalent number of free lanes in proximity. Of course the free lanes will be crowded and slow

 

[Mr. Deez]

That’s a separate issue. The solution is not not to build them. Man you are illogical on this.

I never said it was. I said they should be built without corruption, which means politicians like Rick Perry (and Mike Krusee) shouldn't be given power to implement their corrupt practices. But instead, we reelected that sleazy **** 2 more times.

And again, this discussion had nothing to do with toll roads.

All projects have some % of corruption (some legal, some not). The goal is to keep it low enough so that it doesn’t hurt the general populace by canceling projects or doing shoddy projects or low return projects

Yeah, this entire operation was corrupt. It wasn't just slightly corrupt or have the routine degree of corruption. It was filthy from the ground up. Unfortunately, it's s too late to fix it other than by paying off the crooks.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Texas Lege passed a law that if a toll road is to be built there must an equivalent number of free lanes in proximity. Of course the free lanes will be crowded and slow

First, that doesn't excuse the corruption. Second, that's somewhat deceiving. The "free lanes" don't even have to be highway. They can (and typically are) the access road - with cross traffic. Basically, it's a street.

 

[Horn6721]

Nothing excuses corruption.

 

[mchammer]

Yeah, this entire operation was corrupt. It wasn't just slightly corrupt or have the routine degree of corruption. It was filthy from the ground up. Unfortunately, it's s too late to fix it other than by paying off the crooks.

Bottom line the roads were built and I am glad they were. How can you say they would have been built in an alternate universe where graft/corruption/influence is zero?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Bottom line the roads were built and I am glad they were. How can you say they would have been built in an alternate universe where graft/corruption/influence is zero?

Not zero. Just not off-the-charts corrupt. Believe it or not, most toll projects historically weren't done this way. This was a new racket at least for Texas that started in the wake of legislation passed in 2003. We didn't have to to do it that way.

If you like the roads, that's fine. I like them too and use them when I'm in town, but that doesn't mean we aren't getting massively hosed. It also doesn't change the fact that our Legislature and our Governor allowed sleazy private interests to use us as their jizz rag, and we said "thank you" by reelecting them.

 

[mchammer]

Not zero. Just not off-the-charts corrupt. Believe it or not, most toll projects historically weren't done this way. This was a new racket at least for Texas that started in the wake of legislation passed in 2003. We didn't have to to do it that way.

If you like the roads, that's fine. I like them too and use them when I'm in town, but that doesn't mean we aren't getting massively hosed. It also doesn't change the fact that our Legislature and our Governor allowed sleazy private interests to use us as their jizz rag, and we said "thank you" by reelecting them.

If I recall correctly, some other racket or government regulation ******** was preventing roads being built. The corrupt folks wouldn’t have had the chance to pitch their plan if it wasn’t for the original **** up, though I don’t recall the details.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If I recall correctly, some other racket or government regulation ******** was preventing roads being built. The corrupt folks wouldn’t have had the chance to pitch their plan if it wasn’t for the original f**k up, though I don’t recall the details.

I've never heard that before. Obviously we built tollroads in Dallas and Houston before the 2003 legislation (such as the Dallas North Tollway, the D-FW Turnpike, and Beltway 8). However, even if some state regulation kept it from happening, the answer was to reconsider the regulation, not to put in place what they did. The sleaziness was never warranted.

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

From Wiki:

Economic impacts of climate change - Wikipedia

“One study found a 3.5% reduction in global GDP by the end of the century if warming is limited to 3 °C.”

Big deal. Would there be a GDP reduction at all if warming was 1 C per century as evidenced by satellite data?

Again from wiki:

“For instance, total damages are estimated to be 90% less if global warming is limited to 1.5 °C compared to 3.66 °C, a warming level chosen to represent no mitigation.”

Ergo no mitigation is needed for global warming.