Politics

[Riverite]

You're not serious, are you? LOL

I voted for Bernie. That should tell you something.

I also RARELY post about politics in here, but when I do it's pretty plain as day that the only things I harp on are: 1. Personal responsibility and the lack thereof in today's world.. and 2. The clear hypocrisy in today's world.




You must not have a Twitter account.

And for the record, the amount of hatred that I had spewed my way after voting for Bernie instead of Hillary and instead of Biden was and is far worse than anything I have ever had thrown my way from Republicans. I'll likely never vote democrat again after what happened during this year's primary. Not to mention 2016's. No thank you. I'm tired of career politicians playing games and devaluing my vote.

So who did you vote for in the general?

Sanders. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and vote for someone phony that I don't believe in or care for (Biden.. same with Clinton). I'm always willing to stand on principal. Just a shame that more people aren't willing to stick to what they believe. Plays right into the establishments hands. Nothing will ever change if people keep doing that.

So you wrote him in? Out of curiousity why do you feel like it would make you a hypocrite to vote for someone he endorsed, and if you aren’t voting democrat who will you be voting for now?

[normalthings]

Trudeau coming out strong for building Keystone XL.

Canada is pressing people at the highest levels of U.S. President-elect Joe Biden's incoming administration to reconsider canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Tuesday.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/cana ... 24738.html

[grovester]

Biden signed an EO revoking the permit.

[FangKC]

Isn't one of the reasons the Canadians are so gung-ho about this pipeline through the USA to the Gulf Coast is because without it they will have to build a long pipeline to one of their own ports, across their thousands of miles of their own land?

It seems I read this awhile back. Highlander, do you know?

[DColeKC]

Can someone explain to me why this pipeline is so bad? I understand the biggest negative impact is when and if a leak occurs. What I’m confused by is the alternative ways to get oil from Canada to Texas seem far worse than a pipeline?

[shinatoo]

Can someone explain to me why this pipeline is so bad? I understand the biggest negative impact is when and if a leak occurs. What I’m confused by is the alternative ways to get oil from Canada to Texas seem far worse than a pipeline?

Warren Buffet is a big Democratic donor.

[DColeKC]

Can someone explain to me why this pipeline is so bad? I understand the biggest negative impact is when and if a leak occurs. What I’m confused by is the alternative ways to get oil from Canada to Texas seem far worse than a pipeline?

Warren Buffet is a big Democratic donor.

He’s on record saying pipelines are the best way to transport oil even though his company owns BNSF. Says he supports the pipeline. What am I missing?

[Highlander]

Isn't one of the reasons the Canadians are so gung-ho about this pipeline through the USA to the Gulf Coast is because without it they will have to build a long pipeline to one of their own ports, across their thousands of miles of their own land?

It seems I read this awhile back. Highlander, do you know?

It's by far the most efficient and most cost effective way to transport Canadian oil sand. The oil is heavy and similar to a lot of the crude from Venezuela so it has to be transported somewhere where it can be mixed with lighter crude to have any value (like the US Gulf Coast). It's currently moved by railway. Not very cost efficient. The area that the Keystone pipeline will cross in the US is already crossed by numerous other pipelines so the environmental argument is pretty weak (although no pipeline does curtail further development of oil sands). But it has been a political hot button for a long time. I suspect most American companies that are not invested in Canadian heavy oil don't mind that Biden revoked the permit, they are happy not to have the competition in an era where crude oil prices are volatile and mostly weak.

[normalthings]

Can someone explain to me why this pipeline is so bad? I understand the biggest negative impact is when and if a leak occurs. What I’m confused by is the alternative ways to get oil from Canada to Texas seem far worse than a pipeline?

Warren Buffet is a big Democratic donor.

He’s on record saying pipelines are the best way to transport oil even though his company owns BNSF. Says he supports the pipeline. What am I missing?

XL crosses a bunch of waterways and reservations that said they don't want it. I think many also claim that no pipeline = fewer emissions and less oil usage.

[FangKC]

I seem to have read in the past that scientists have said that it's better to keep as much oil in the ground as possible to slow down climate change, and instead incentivize the switch to other forms of energy. Continuing to make it easier to extract oil defeats that approach. Oil will still be needed, but mostly for use in plastics, etc.

[Highlander]

I seem to have read in the past that scientists have said that it's better to keep as much oil in the ground as possible to slow down climate change, and instead incentivize the switch to other forms of energy. Continuing to make it easier to extract oil defeats that approach. Oil will still be needed, but mostly for use in plastics, etc.

The Keystone pipeline will have no impact on this at all. There may or may not be reasons to oppose the pipeline but this should not be one of them. If oil prices go up, which tends to happen when supply is limited, it becomes very cost effective to deliver west Canadian oil via rail it's own environmental risk. If we want to keep oil in the ground, we should work on ways to limit demand; not try to stop the supply because the latter could end up with some very bad unintended consequences.

[TheLastGentleman]

The Keystone pipeline will have no impact on this at all. There may or may not be reasons to oppose the pipeline but this should not be one of them. If oil prices go up, which tends to happen when supply is limited, it becomes very cost effective to deliver west Canadian oil via rail it's own environmental risk. If we want to keep oil in the ground, we should work on ways to limit demand; not try to stop the supply because the latter could end up with some very bad unintended consequences.

Seems like building permanent infrastructure is a good way of inducing demand.

[flyingember]

The Keystone pipeline will have no impact on this at all. There may or may not be reasons to oppose the pipeline but this should not be one of them. If oil prices go up, which tends to happen when supply is limited, it becomes very cost effective to deliver west Canadian oil via rail it's own environmental risk. If we want to keep oil in the ground, we should work on ways to limit demand; not try to stop the supply because the latter could end up with some very bad unintended consequences.

Seems like building permanent infrastructure is a good way of inducing demand.

Sort of.

It's replacing/supplementing an existing pipeline with a shorter, bigger one + connecting to the SD oil fields

This pipeline is the fourth and final phase. Both phase 1 and phase 4 cover Canada to Kansas

[Riverite]

If oil prices go up people will be more likely to switch away from combustion vehicles, especially now that there is a doable charging network for many cities and electric vehicles to choose from. Let’s focus on infrastructure for the coming century.

[earthling]

Gas pump prices should be much higher but of course subsidies keep it low, should apparently be $6-$15/gallon depending on source. Even extreme green DEM purists (in office) would probably avoid completely removing subsidies as it would be disastrous to way of life (and dependency on transportation industry) but a slow paced reduction in subsidies might be a good idea to transition EV adoption a bit faster. Maybe when the EV infrastructure reaches critical mass and used (more affordable) EV cars become more common. It's pretty good now but not well enough to replace gas stations.

Even Koch is apparently investing more in green energy now. But from traditional energy industry perspective, they are more likely planning for when fossil resources run out, not to entirely replace before tapped out. With govt bodies constantly shifting every decade, doesn't seem likely untapped coal/oil will just sit there forever (though it should when we're ready).

[alejandro46]

Fossil fuels will not run out for a hundred or more years. Thanks to fracking, there is so much oil we didn't know about under the sea. The problem is that it is expensive to get it out. Re-frame it more when the cheap oil production will begin to slow.

Missouri & the Feds need to increase the gas tax and tie it to inflation. F Missouri and their $40 "Fuel Decal" fee.

I drive an EV and I love it. I am happy to pay my fair share, but this flat tax isn't tied to how much I drive and is so annoying. I already pay taxes on the electricity I buy .


Anyways, yes, the non-Tesla charging network leaves some to be desired.
Lots of different payment methods and apps can be annoying, but slowly Electrify America at least is getting better. In Europe, they have Ionity which is really good high speed charging and hopefully EA will get to that point some day.

My wife wont give her gas car up. We drive the EV around town most of the time and on road trips, but if we need to go to the country somewhere it's helpful to have an ICE car.

[FangKC]

India and several European countries will ban sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2030 -- in nine years. Japan and China by 2035. South Korea likely to ban by 2035. Brazil is attempting to set a goal of 2035. California and Massachusetts will ban sales by 2035. That will drive conversion quickly since Europe, Brazil, India, China, Japan, and South Korea are big vehicle manufacturers; and Europe, China, India, and California are big car markets so they drive trends. As Brazil goes will go South America, since it's the largest car market in Central and South America. The United States as a whole has not set a determined ban date on new gas-powered cars yet, but bills have been introduced to do so by 2035.

[DColeKC]

India and several European countries will ban sales of new gasoline-powered cars by 2030 -- in nine years. Japan and China by 2035. South Korea likely to ban by 2035. Brazil is attempting to set a goal of 2035. California and Massachusetts will ban sales by 2035. That will drive conversion quickly since Europe, Brazil, India, China, Japan, and South Korea are big vehicle manufacturers; and Europe, China, India, and California are big car markets so they drive trends. As Brazil goes will go South America, since it's the largest car market in Central and South America. The United States as a whole has not set a determined ban date on new gas-powered cars yet, but bills have been introduced to do so by 2035.

What happens to all the existing gas vehicles? Will the government add taxes that force people’s hand? What about classic cars? Will gas stations disappear and how much will fuel be with such low demand? I wonder if I’ll be able to even have a few classic vehicles when I retire in 30 years.

[Riverite]

My guess is the tax will come to include the negative externality of pollution. So it won’t go away but will be more expensive.

[Chris Stritzel]

I think GM, Chrysler, Ford are going to slowly move their cars to all-electric platforms. By 2030, I expect most of their lineups will include stuff like that. Hybrid versions of the cars will also become much more widespread. However, for everyone to switch to all electric cars, the batteries need to be able to go further distances, the charging times need to become faster, charging stations need to become much more widespread, and the biggest of all: Electric Cars need to become more affordable for people.

Right now, the price points for these just seems high for the average American to want to go and buy. I mean seriously.
- Starting price of $31,260 for a 150-226 mile range Nissan Leaf?
- Starting price of $36,630 for a 259 mile range or so Chevy Bolt EV?
- Starting price of $37,990 for a 263-353 mile range Tesla Model 3?
I get that these appeal to different people but for a majority of Americans, these price points just won't work. I appreciate that car companies are working on bringing costs down. I also understand that the savings come in the form of not spending money on gas or oil, but still. Dishing out that much for a car that doesn't go too far and takes a while to charge up doesn't make sense to me.

We all know that Americans like their cars. It's how a huge majority of us get around the country because our rail system sucks and plane tickets are too high. If a 4 or 5 hour drive now turns into 6+ hours as a result of charging up along the way, I feel like inter-state travel via car will be reduced significantly. So a balance has to be struck, and that's where the faster charging, cheaper car prices, and longer range batteries come into play.

Maybe in the future it will all work out, and I imagine it will, but for now, car companies have a lot of work to do to convince people to buy all electric cars.

All of this said, I think 2040 would be a year to look at for phasing out gas powered car sales. 19 years of innovation can get us very far and convince Americans to switch over. I doubt gas will fully go away.