• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gore meets with Trump and Ivanka

Threegoofs said:
That all takes less energy than converting CO2 into hydrocarbons.

Why else would you do it?
Click to expand...
It is not about energy, but money.
What is the cost of goods sold to provide a gallon of marketable fuel product to the customer?
As I have said before at about $90 a barrel, it will be more profitable for the refinery to make their own feedstock,
than to find, buy, transport and refine the fossil oil.
 
longview said:
It is not about energy, but money.
What is the cost of goods sold to provide a gallon of marketable fuel product to the customer?
As I have said before at about $90 a barrel, it will be more profitable for the refinery to make their own feedstock,
than to find, buy, transport and refine the fossil oil.
Click to expand...

Yet it was around or over $90 for years.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yet it was around or over $90 for years.
Click to expand...
Times and technologies change, that number just a few years ago was closer to $97 a barrel,
when the process was only 60% efficient.
Before 2011, the price was much higher because people only started considering hydrocarbons as a storage
medium about 2010.
Improvements will only bring the price point down.
 
longview said:
Times and technologies change, that number just a few years ago was closer to $97 a barrel,
when the process was only 60% efficient.
Before 2011, the price was much higher because people only started considering hydrocarbons as a storage
medium about 2010.
Improvements will only bring the price point down.
Click to expand...

And oil went to about $110/bbl.

But the only one talking about this was....you.
 
Threegoofs said:
And oil went to about $110/bbl.

But the only one talking about this was....you.
Click to expand...
It sure looks like oil was last above $100 a barrel in early 2014,
when this technology was less developed than currently.
It seems the Saudi Prince also understands something about accounting,
Saudi prince: $100-a-barrel oil 'never' again
He and others think oil will never be over $100 a barrel again,
perhaps they understand the economics will not allow it to be!
 
eohrnberger said:
Here's the post.



It's talking about the Dems in congress 'forcing 30 hours of procedure on each confirmation' and falling off the 'Trump nice list'.

Do date, I don't believe he's been vindictive, unless you have a counter example you'd like to offer?

Why does this make you think that he's likely to respond in a vindictive manner?
Click to expand...

Hawkeye seems to think he is.
 
Climate News
[h=1]Trump’s full EPA transition team named[/h]Dr. David Schnare writes via email: In addition to Myron Ebell and Amy Oliver , the following were just named as on the “landing team”, the group who will go to EPA to collect information needed for the transition. Here is my statement: The President-Elect’s Transition team named me and others to the EPA Transition…
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Trump is talking to everyone, letting them know that he is open for business, that those who make the best offer get the deal, no matter who you are. Some people who came to the rallies will be a little steamed sometimes at TRUMPS DEALS TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, but they will get over it.
Click to expand...

Great more pointless carbon taxes! YAY! What a solution, to the problem.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Great more pointless carbon taxes! YAY! What a solution, to the problem.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. If you think they're pointless, I think you don't grasp the actual, you know, point.

But that's nothing new. Arguing a position from ignorance seems to be a GOP specialty.
 
Threegoofs said:
Hmmm. If you think they're pointless, I think you don't grasp the actual, you know, point.

But that's nothing new. Arguing a position from ignorance seems to be a GOP specialty.
Click to expand...

Uh I really think there are much better things society as a whole can do than to tax the American people to death.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Uh I really think there are much better things society as a whole can do than to tax the American people to death.
Click to expand...

So you don't think it's pointless, than?

Why did you say it?

I'm pretty sure it's because you can't articulate the point and reflexively spew 'Taxes! Bad!' whenever you see the word.
 
Threegoofs said:
I'm pretty sure it's because you can't articulate the point and reflexively spew 'Taxes! Bad!' whenever you see the word.
Click to expand...

Is that because you think taxes are good?

More taxes are better?
 
Threegoofs said:
So you don't think it's pointless, than?

Why did you say it?

I'm pretty sure it's because you can't articulate the point and reflexively spew 'Taxes! Bad!' whenever you see the word.
Click to expand...

I would rather not be taxed when other countries aren't. Taxes are not going to help curb global warming. This has already been established yet people keep doing it anyway. Also Yes, I don't like taxes. How horrible of me.
 
ModerateGOP said:
I would rather not be taxed when other countries aren't. Taxes are not going to help curb global warming. This has already been established yet people keep doing it anyway. Also Yes, I don't like taxes. How horrible of me.
Click to expand...

Well, this tax very well could help curb global warming.

Thats kinda the entire point of it.

No wonder you called it pointless.

You dont understand it. Seems like simple concept to grasp.

If you dont like paying taxes (rather than just the theoretical concept of a tax) they've got a fix for that too - a revenue neutral carbon tax, which is implemented in a few areas right now, and doing exactly what it was meant to do (which you seem not to grasp!).
 
Threegoofs said:
Well, this tax very well could help curb global warming.

Thats kinda the entire point of it.

No wonder you called it pointless.

You dont understand it. Seems like simple concept to grasp.

If you dont like paying taxes (rather than just the theoretical concept of a tax) they've got a fix for that too - a revenue neutral carbon tax, which is implemented in a few areas right now, and doing exactly what it was meant to do (which you seem not to grasp!).
Click to expand...

If human waste and pollution are causing global warming, then a tax is not going to stop humans from wasting and polluting. A fine might make a person think twice, but you still see soda cans next to those signs with the fines on them. No matter where you go.

Innovation is simply the only way to go here. You can't curb global warming without it.
 
ModerateGOP said:
If human waste and pollution are causing global warming, then a tax is not going to stop humans from wasting and polluting. A fine might make a person think twice, but you still see soda cans next to those signs with the fines on them. No matter where you go.

Innovation is simply the only way to go here. You can't curb global warming without it.
Click to expand...

Thats a pretty simple way of looking at things.

You mention soda cans. Seems like the deposit on cans and bottles (which is, functionally, a tax on people who throw them away) is working spectacularly to ensure recycling.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_deposit_legislation_in_the_United_States


Container deposit legislation (CDL) requires a refundable deposit on certain types of recyclable beverage containers in order to ensure an increased recycling rate. Studies show that beverage container legislation has reduced total roadside litter by between 30% and 64% in the states with bottle bills.[2]

Studies also show that the recycling rate for beverage containers is vastly increased with a bottle bill. The United States' overall beverage container recycling rate is approximately 33%, while states with container deposit laws have a 70% average rate of beverage container recycling. Michigan's recycling rate of 97% from 1990 to 2008 was the highest in the nation, as is its $0.10 deposit.[3]
Click to expand...

Innovation IS the way to go here. And the spur for innovation is to do something that is more cost effective - and appropriately taxing carbon (after all, what we are doing now is passing on the environmental costs of carbon to our children) to capture the damage it is doing will make alternative energies and conservation that much more attractive, spurring innovation and working on economies of scale to get us off oil in a big way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom