a client of mine really, really needs to update their security tapes to DVR… they had incident that they can’t get useful tapes from because the constant reuse of tapes has degraded their quality. (I know previously we’ve had that chat about… ‘yes it’s expensive but the modern systems are much better’. fortunately they’re now deciding its time to fork over for an overhaul.)(If you were curious, a delivery guy rear ended the owner’s BMW. funny how that works)
edit: wait… this is in politics?! I thought this was nostupidquestions.
Remember kids, EVs are still personal vehicles and they are an unreasonable solution in urban settings. I really wish President ILOVETRAINS would show trains and subways some fucking love.
I just wish I had some sidewalks man. My street only has handicap ramps at the intersections and then the sidewalk just ends in grass. Like who the fuck does that help?
I wish. My town is an older town, which is great in many ways but sidewalks are not one of them. I think the town relies on developers to put in sidewalks and it may not even be required, which leaves it piecemeal, and no progress in front of older buildings
I’m seriously hoping for a stong blue wave for this reason alone (well, not alone, but you know). I just want my damn government to get their shit together and fix my damn metro
Also of note: it’s almost always worse for the environment to replace a working gas car with an EV. When it comes time to purchase a new car because yours is dead or too costly to maintain, that’s a good time to look at EVs.
Even then: ICE cars with synthetic, co2 neutral fuel are even better, than new EVs. And then there’s the argument, that a hunk of aluminium with pistons is “cheaper” (in terms of ecological impact) than lithium. Because the EV also needs aluminium, the production of aluminium is going to go down the route of co2 neutral anyway. So a mix of both things and especially EVs with smaller batteries makes a lot more sense…(which has also been proven with various studies, but who gives two flying things about that these days)
ICE cars with synthetic, co2 neutral fuel are even better,
Is that real yet? I’ve never heard of that in mass production.
I think the biggest downside of ICE is you’re only getting a small fraction of the power out of the fuel, even if it’s carbon neutral. There’s a ton of waste in burning that fuel.
It is in Sweden, Finland, California, Italy and now Germany. (Although in a different form, called HVO, which is Diesel from garbage (even plastic) and needs roughly 1,5 kWh per Liter)
The “waste” is irrelevant, if it’s made from power that could not have been used anyway, because it was made in a remote part of the world. We’re still a long, long way away from a global power grid. That power would have to be converted anyway - and we do have all the infrastructure ready to go for that liquid stuff.
No, various synthetic fuels have been used at points through automotive history, including ethanol in a lot of todays gasoline in the US, so technically correct. However they’re much more expensive and haven’t been able to scale or be carbon neutral. That ethanol example is the biggest rollout, but several studies claim it’s worse for the climate than burning gasoline would have been, while others have claimed there’s no way to scale it to completely replace gasoline
You could even argue against the validity of the basic idea of carbon neutral fuel. The idea is you’re emitting carbon already in todays carbon cycle, instead of emitting carbon that was sequestered for hundreds of millions of years. However does hot air with excess carbon and other pollutants from burning, really do no more damage than the plant it was made from?
And then there’s the argument, that a hunk of aluminium with pistons is “cheaper” (in terms of ecological impact) than lithium.
If you’re going to include the environmental impacts of the one-time lithium extraction (which are usually exaggerated anyway), you must also include the decades of environmental impact of petroleum exploration and extraction. You don’t get to count just the cost of burning the fuel either. You must include the of searching for new deposits, setting up extraction infrastructure, infrastructure for logistics for shipping all the raw then refined goods, and possibly even the costs and geopolitical impacts of war for securing petroleum interests globally.
In fairness, I would also include the cost for electricity generation as a cost for BEVs for an apples-to-apples comparison. Electricity generation (transmission and distribution) will vary widely but we have these metrics for the USA at least. In extreme cases, there are BEVs charged with rooftop solar, which would SERIOUSLY undermine your argument about ICE vehicles being a better ecological choice.
If you’re going to include the environmental impacts of the one-time lithium extraction (which are usually exaggerated anyway), you must also include the decades of environmental impact of petroleum exploration and extraction.
And that’s where your argument falls flat, because we are not talking about the past, we’re talking about the future and making it a better one. EVs are a part of that future, but not “the only” thing in that future.
You don’t get to count just the cost of burning the fuel either. You must include the of searching for new deposits, setting up extraction infrastructure, infrastructure for logistics for shipping all the raw then refined goods, and possibly even the costs and geopolitical impacts of war for securing petroleum interests globally.
You missed the point completely.
In fairness, I would also include the cost for electricity generation as a cost for BEVs for an apples-to-apples comparison. Electricity generation (transmission and distribution) will vary widely but we have these metrics for the USA at least. In extreme cases, there are BEVs charged with rooftop solar, which would SERIOUSLY undermine your argument about ICE vehicles being a better ecological choice.
No - they wouldn’t, for the simple fact, that zero co2 stays zero co2. They can be on par with a small battery, but everything above 60 kWh needs more than 15 tonnes of co2 to be even produced, making the rucksack impossible to get rid off. A current Golf needs around 9t of Co2 to be produced, a current ID.3 needs 14t
So if both cars are “fueld” with energy that has zero co2 emissions, the ID.3 keeps it’s 5 tonnes deficit.
If you’re going to include the environmental impacts of the one-time lithium extraction (which are usually exaggerated anyway), you must also include the decades of environmental impact of petroleum exploration and extraction.
And that’s where your argument falls flat, because we are not talking about the past, we’re talking about the future and making it a better one. EVs are a part of that future, but not “the only” thing in that future.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Your prior post seemed to make a comparison to the CO2 created with ICE vs with BEV. That’s what I was responding to. What “the future” thing has to do with that comparison? ICE and BEV vehicles are made today and the inputs are known. There is nothing ambiguous about today’s vehicles. You seem to suggest ICE are lower CO2 impact than BEV. I think you’re leaving out massive amounts of CO2 with ICE.
You don’t get to count just the cost of burning the fuel either. You must include the of searching for new deposits, setting up extraction infrastructure, infrastructure for logistics for shipping all the raw then refined goods, and possibly even the costs and geopolitical impacts of war for securing petroleum interests globally.
You missed the point completely.
Feel free to restate it in a single clear statement. Your point is not clear from your prior post or this one.
In fairness, I would also include the cost for electricity generation as a cost for BEVs for an apples-to-apples comparison. Electricity generation (transmission and distribution) will vary widely but we have these metrics for the USA at least. In extreme cases, there are BEVs charged with rooftop solar, which would SERIOUSLY undermine your argument about ICE vehicles being a better ecological choice.
No - they wouldn’t, for the simple fact, that zero co2 stays zero co2. They can be on par with a small battery, but everything above 60 kWh needs more than 15 tonnes of co2 to be even produced, making the rucksack impossible to get rid off. A current Golf needs around 9t of Co2 to be produced, a current ID.3 needs 14t
You’re calling out numbers for production of EV without including the equivalent ICE CO2 creation (and not just manufacturing). “rucksack”?
So if both cars are “fueld” with energy that has zero co2 emissions, the ID.3 keeps it’s 5 tonnes deficit.
Where are you getting efficiently created, consumable. and widely available ICE fuel with zero CO2 impacts?
Also of note: it’s almost always worse for the environment to replace a working gas car with an EV.
I see this sentiment repeated a lot, and it strikes me as … incomplete.
If measured at just the individual level this is absolutely true. If you own a current ICE car, 100% of the resources and energy used to create that car have already been expended. Essentially its already been “paid for” in CO2 for the creation of the vehicle (but not the operation of it, for forget that for now). Disposing of a perfectly working CO2 “paid for” ICE car to buy a new BEV that takes on the “bill” of “paying for its CO2” is environmentally negative.
However, this ignores that these actions don’t happen in isolation. You don’t DISPOSE of your old well running ICE car. It goes to a new owner, not the trash heap. Running used cars have to come from someplace, and people replacing their old dead ICE (or very poorly running) cars may not be able to buy a BEV today because they are still relatively high compared to well running used cars.
I wonder if there isn’t actually a net benefit to the environment for folks that want a BEV parting with a well running ICE car. The oldest cars on the road today usually have the worst emissions. Those owners may be hanging onto those old ones because better running, better emissions used ICE vehicles are more expensive and out of reach. So trading in a well running ICE would push down prices on better used cars allowing buyers in that segment to truly scrap the worst polluting cars on the road.
I’d like some real evidence before I throw my full weight behind this opinion and I haven’t found enough through my quick google searches. One article supporting this position (which one isn’t enough) is here. Its talking about Western nations exporting used vehicles and these are usually the oldest, which are the worst polluters.
If anyone has reputable evidence or articles for or against this. I’m interested in seeing them.
Problem is that a big chunk of new vehicle buyers never run their old cars into the ground like that; they treat ‘new car every few years’ as a status symbol. And a big chunk of vehicle buyers can only ever afford used cars. So it’s important that new vehicles all be electric, and not just some random subset.
Big win on making sense by counting plug in hybrids. They’re a far better option than full evs in the US right now and for several more years at least. The batteries are cheaper to replace and it makes the ice and transmissions last a very long time before wearing out. Not to mention being able to use your vehicle in times of any large scale disasters that take out power for a while.
There are already EVs that are (almost) in my price range. The problem is that I don’t like them. I don’t really like any of them that are outside of my price range either.
Seems like a stupid move by automakers to delay things 6 years, and EPA for letting it happen ……
BYD is worlds largest EV manufacturer
BYD makes affordable EVs now
BYD announced a plant in Mexico
no tariffs on cars made in Mexico
Anyone else remember the small car invasion of the 1970s, outsourcing computer chips to Taiwan, outsourcing solar panels (and everything else) to China, throwing away innovations for high speed rail, etc?
Anyone else think the race for immediate quarterly profits is about to lay some doom on American car manufacturers?
The very fact that Trump isn’t at 10% in the polls means maybe we need articles like this.
But on the other hand: if you were somehow better off in March 2020, does that make voting in fascism any more sane? Is there anyone who was doing well enough in March 2020 that they are ethically absolved from destroying the country in 2024? Even writing this as a thought exercise suggests it’s worth asking, but it just isn’t.
Maybe, just maybe, the media needs do stop with this horse-race business-as-usual reporting. His entire game is borrowing legitimacy. As “successful businessman,” “celebrity,” “presidential candidate,” “president,” he’s just gutting any meaning from each title and wearing its decaying death mask to keep up the con, the legitimacy ponzi scheme. Stop playing that game.
Yup. FCC abandoning the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan is what brought us sensationalism in broadcast news. Instead, it should have been expanded to cover anything using the term like “news” and “current events”, similar to other protected terminology like “professional engineer”. Cable news never being covered by FD was also ridiculous.
And Obama boosted pandemic preparedness after those (and Ebola) were fortunately contained, but Trump killed it. Nothing flashy or political about it, just good forward-looking governance, killed it anyway.
It’s a thinly veiled loyalty test. Thankfully they picked an octogenarian as their dictator and it’s a cult of personality that it seems nobody else has been able to replicate. I expect there is going to be a generational shit show in the party once he (finally) dies.
Lmao, you think this current loyalty test - and the future party filled exclusively with Trump loyalists - will simply pack up and go home after Trump dies? Or anyone living will be able to wear Trump’s mantle next?
You do realize Christian Nationalism follows the (misinterpreted and cherry picked) words of someone who died 2000 years ago as their North Star right?
Trump dieing would simply make him the new Jesus. Shit, he’s already being accepted as such while he is alive.
Absolutely nothing will stop the current trajectory of the GOP until the people who make it up find something else more entertaining or fulfilling to do with their time.
Unless by “Generational shit show” you mean a contest to see who can preform fellatio on Trump’s ghost the best.
Trump is the new Ronald Reagan of the GOP. The good news about that is the GOP has largely forgotten Reagan at this point. The bad news is they worshiped Reagan for decades after his death. I suspect Trump will largely be treated the same.
You realized Christian Nationalism follows the (misinterpreted and cherry picked) words of someone who died 2000 years ago as their North Star right?
I’ll push back on this as I think it’s a mistake to view Christian nationalism as a religious thing. It really should be called “White nationalism” because that’s more what it means. They’ll prop up the bible but they really don’t give a fuck about what’s in it. Rather, it’s just a tool to justify hating Muslims, Jews, and other “brown people” religions. The christian part of christian nationalism is really a tool to sell to grandma “See, we just want a Christian (white) nation. That makes it good because anything christian is automatically good”.
Hillary lost the election because she’s a supremely unlikable person that ran a campaign of “Who else are you going to vote for, Trump?”. She ran on a center right political platform (if you can call it that) nearly as derelict as Trump’s 2020 platform. She further was pretty insultingly dismissive of the progressive wing of the party. She alienated strong base support when she should have been courting the bernie supporters.
She also did not JUST lose Florida. Further, Biden did not win Florida so that sect of ultra conservative Cubans weren’t the deciding factor.
Her lose is also why I fear for 2024. Biden isn’t running as bad a campaign as she did, but he is still heavily banking on the “What, you aren’t going to let Trump win, right?”
She ran on a center right political platform (if you can call it that) nearly as derelict as Trump’s 2020 platform.
This is flatly untrue. She obviously wasn’t as left as Sanders, but she ran on a policy platform more progressive than Obama and was arguably the most liberal nominee on a relative basis since McGovern.
He’s saying they’re being lead by Christian/white nationalism. They’ll still take the votes of religious people, but that’s not who they are anymore. They are not actually religious, they are nationalistic.
I saw a leaked video of one of these new “Christian” churches. They basically replaced the 10 Commandments with 10 nationalistic/fascist statements.
As someone raised in a white evangelical household, an ex-evangelical myself, and someone who lived in a number of very conservative communities and as someone who regularly works with police and military, I feel I have a very solid understanding of (and have been thoroughly traumatized by) the conservative/evangelical/christian nationalist mindset - and I think the Christianity part is way more central that you are giving it credit.
Similarly, while there is most certainly racism present, I have encountered few overtly, stereotypically racist people in those communities. They will enthusiastically accept any minority that shares their beliefs. I think it’s far more about ideology than race. Where the racism comes in is they automatically distrust people of other races unless they discover there is a shared ideology.
They hate white Democrats/liberals/progressives just as much, maybe even more, than those of other races, because those are people who have “rejected the word of God” rather than being those who have simply not heard it yet and potential converts.
I grew up in a similarly christian conservative community. I think it’s a mistake to conflate conservative Christians with christian nationalists (though there is overlap for certain). Several of my very conservative christian family members are disgusted by the christian nationalists.
That’s why I don’t think it’s the christianity driving the nationalism but rather the nationalism driving the christianity. Hence the reason nazis have felt pretty comfortable attending CPAC this year in nazi garb.
There are athiest christian nationalists who will talk about how it’s “the culture” that matters and makes a “christian nation” superior to other government forms.
In my home state of Idaho, I see a lot of christian nationists in public office, and they are much more occupied with rooting out “CRT” (re: anything mentioning civil rights and slavery) and LGBT literature than they are focused on “getting prayer back in school” or other overtly “christian” motives.
You’re definitely right, and I kindof lumped those together - it’s hard to write a complete response during a poop break at work.
I was not aware of ‘athiest christian nationalists’ being a thing. Fascinating.
I also didn’t adequately explain that I feel ‘modern’ Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ, much less the content of the Bible even as a whole. It seems it’s much more a justification of their targeted hatred.
I also didn’t adequately explain that I feel ‘modern’ Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Christ, much less the content of the Bible even as a whole. It seems it’s much more a justification of their targeted hatred.
Definitely agree there. I think the union of conservative politics and christianity has made both worse.
It’s that bigotry and hatred that is the core of christian nationalism and nationalism in general. Having a target to hate is just how these fascist operate. Religion helps to have outgroups to hate, and nationalism exploits that to try and radicalize.
By atheist Christian nationalist, do you mean people who aren’t religious but believe in Christian values? Or as I think they’re trying to reframe it: family values - to try to disguise their religion and appeal to more people.
People who have previously stated they are atheists but also are christian nationalists because they believe in the “cultural values” it grants. Generally just people with bigotries that line up with christian nationalism’s current targets.
“I’m an atheist, but I believe that being gay will destroy society and this CRT stuff will erode the moral values of this nation” that sort of shit. Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are two that fit right into this mold. Though there have been atheists that have explicitly said they are also christian nationalists, they are just more minor public right wing figures who’s names I’ve already forgotten.
The RNC is also going bankrupt. It’s not going to go away because of Trump’s death, but it will stop existing because he completely drains their coffers
This is the type of thing you do after you have obtained and locked in your power. Not when you’re about to lose the House and have already lost the Senate and are likely to lose the presidential election.
So please continue, GOP. Show the country what you’re made of (MAGA sycophants/pro-insurrectionists/traitors). Not only that but keep it up! Don’t ever change, even after Trump is broke and rotting away in prison.
Change is for liberals!
Maybe the Democrats will get a supermajority in the Senate and actual governing can take place.
Just vote. Don’t “believe” anything until it’s over with.
Trump is currently campaigning as hard as he can, while Biden is just doing normal Presidential things and taking a lot of flak for it. Trump has no money to spend on his campaign and few big donors. His supporters are not likely to grow.
The Democratic Party is building a GOTV apparatus in swing states to prevent a Hillary sized fuckup (this was the real problem, not conservative Cubans in FL). Trump is spending all the Republicans’ money on legal fees.
Just vote. I think Trump is going to bomb in November and everyone will say “of course! It was obvious! He had no money and was distracted by legal issues!”
wapo.st
Oldest