Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
52 minutes ago, Strike said:

You're missing the point.  CA used to extract, refine and sell gasoline ALL within it's own borders.  Over the last couple of decades, and accelerating within the last 5-10 years especially on the refining side, CA has had to import more and more of it's gasoline due to it creating a hostile environment for fossil fuel companies.  The ENTIRE point of this thread is for the libs to explain to me HOW that stance is HELPING combat climate change.  So far they haven't been able to do so.

A decline in refining capacity has been happening in many states, this is not unique to California. Texas is an outlier in this regards as our refining capacity is up, probably to pick up the slack. 
 

All down:

North Dakota: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_SND_a.htm

Wyoming: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_SWY_a.htm

Louisiana: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_SLA_a.htm

 

In addition many states import gasoline, for example Florida does not have a single refinery. There are certainly pro/con's when it comes to refineries, they are ugly, they pollute, and while the jobs are high paying, they come with risks. My kids have come to associate seeing the refineries as the signal that the drive to the beach is almost over. They will get happy when they see the refineries because they know they are almost there. Kind of sad if you put thought into it. Pristine beaches would be nice. 

Closing refineries in California will certainly hurt this countries fuel supply. The two refineries that either recently shutdown or are do to shutdown this year in California provide 2% of the US refining capacity. 

There is a reason we only do a tiny amount of rare earth processing in the US, it is a pollution heavy industry. I understand why Florida has never built any refineries. It would be kind of nice not living around this stuff. 

Posted
2 hours ago, FrancieFootball said:

You climate-change deniers could be presented with irrefutable proof of mankind's CO2 impact on the environment and still stretch the fabric of reality, facts and common sense to desperately cling to misinformation. 

Around 97 percent of climate scientists conclude that mankind has caused climate change, but you point at that 3 percent and say, "Weeeeeeeeee, climate change isn't real!"

One need to look no further that Arctic core samples to see a history of CO2 in the environment.

Plain and simple, CO2 and pollution is NOT GOOD. 

Why not phase out the not-good thing that's hurting our planet and will run out anyway with clean energy that doesn't hurt the planet and doesn't run out?

Why is this so hard to understand?

Several issues with this.

One, "97% of climate scientists" is a questionable metric.  I would think that most people enter the field because of their pre-existing belief regarding anthroparmorphic causes.  So it seems biased, even if you have a source.

Two, what exactly does "has caused" climate change mean?  Is it a contributing factor?  Sure, I think most people would agree it has some impact.  Or is it THE sole factor?  The latter seems kinda dumb, since we know many other causes of warming.

Three, CO2 enables photosynthesis, so for plants, it is indeed a good thing.  Photosynthesis is part of one of the most wonderful closed-loop feedback systems nature has.

Not related to your post:  I believe the issue is not so much the absolute temperature, but the speed of change.  The earth has certainly been warmer than it is now, but if things get warmer too quickly, organisms and their environments may not be able to adapt. And yet the experts continue to hit us with "if we gain 1.5 degrees AARRRGGGHHHH$#@!" 

  • Sad 1
Posted

China is destroying the U.S. when it comes to solar and electric cars. The USA could have easily beat them on this a decade or two ago.

So now they will end up with true energy independence and lower costs. And the US will have to invade countries to get their oil.

Having driven an EV for a decade, just have to say everybody without one is really missing out.

Posted
7 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Having driven an EV for a decade, just have to say everybody without one is really missing out.

How's that depreciation treating you? 

The wife had a Plaid, lost $20,000 in less than a year of depreciation. 

I'd go plug in hybrid long before full EV next time. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

How's that depreciation treating you? 

The wife had a Plaid, lost $20,000 in less than a year of depreciation. 

I'd go plug in hybrid long before full EV next time. 

Not only was the Plaid overpriced to begin with, but then Tesla ran into money troubles and lowered the price for new ones substantially. Not your wife’s fault, how could she have known that would happen? But it is a bit of an outlier compared to EV depreciation overall.

Posted
6 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Not only was the Plaid overpriced to begin with, but then Tesla ran into money troubles and lowered the price for new ones substantially. Not your wife’s fault, how could she have known that would happen? But it is a bit of an outlier compared to EV depreciation overall.

Truth. 

It was also a piece of shittt. We had problems from day1. 

But I'd go plug in Hybrid for sure. I don't blame anyone for going full EV though. It makes sense for some, not all. 

  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, FrancieFootball said:

Baloney.

Your "science" must be right there with anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers, slavery deniers and those who think the Earth is flat, like your head.

Stupidity!

Your scientists also say that men can become women. Jokes on you.

Posted

OK, get ready to have your minds blown...

300,000,000 years ago all of today's continents existed as one land mass, that is referred to as Pangea. What was to become South Africa was much closer to the South Pole and under an ice cap. By 265 million years ago the Earth was warming up. The ice that covered the Karoo had melted forming inland sea. Over the next few million years the Karoo Sea filled with sediments. It nourished lush vegetation that grew in the new wetlands. source: NOVA S53 Ep4.

 

  • Haha 1
Posted

you people need hobbies. how do you possibly give that much of a sh1t about arguing with people online, you’re NEVER changing anyone’s mind

Posted
1 hour ago, Gepetto said:

OK, get ready to have your minds blown...

300,000,000 years ago all of today's continents existed as one land mass, that is referred to as Pangea. What was to become South Africa was much closer to the South Pole and under an ice cap. By 265 million years ago the Earth was warming up. The ice that covered the Karoo had melted forming inland sea. Over the next few million years the Karoo Sea filled with sediments. It nourished lush vegetation that grew in the new wetlands. source: NOVA S53 Ep4.

 

And humans didn’t exist.

We won’t be able to destroy this planet. But we could conceivably make it uninhabitable for our species.

Posted
3 minutes ago, dogcows said:

And humans didn’t exist.

We won’t be able to destroy this planet. But we could conceivably make it uninhabitable for our species.

Have at it. You will fail. 

Posted
42 minutes ago, edjr said:

you people need hobbies. how do you possibly give that much of a sh1t about arguing with people online, you’re NEVER changing anyone’s mind

I was a Democrat when I got here. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Have at it. You will fail. 

I’m doing the opposite. The oil companies, on the other hand…

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I was a Democrat when I got here. 

it was FFT that converted you?

Posted
1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Ever hear how they found farms under the ice sheet in Greenland? The ice caps are melting !  Melting! 

What do you think would happen to our way of life if the icecaps on Greenland melted?

Posted
1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

What do you think would happen to our way of life if the icecaps on Greenland melted?

Before or after we take over? 

Posted
Just now, thegeneral said:

We know fatso can’t swim so you’d lose your Orange King to the great flood.

He played first base at the military academy he attended and hits the shitt out of the golf ball. You came in third in your eight man league once. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He played first base at the military academy he attended and hits the shitt out of the golf ball. You came in third in your eight man league once. 

It’s like if someone makes fun of your Dad 😂

That fatfock has to tread water for more than 2 minutes he’s going down like the Titanic.

 

Posted
40 minutes ago, dogcows said:

I’m doing the opposite. The oil companies, on the other hand…

On the other hand, won't cause any harm. 

Why do you continue this? Because you are losing at every other thing you complaine about? 

Posted
18 hours ago, dogcows said:

China is destroying the U.S. when it comes to solar and electric cars. The USA could have easily beat them on this a decade or two ago.

So now they will end up with true energy independence and lower costs. And the US will have to invade countries to get their oil.

Having driven an EV for a decade, just have to say everybody without one is really missing out.

Because we don’t make our vehicles here and too much red tape to either build or expand current auto plants. Too much regulation. 
China has virtually no regulations and hoops to jump through; also communist so they also just “do what they want and fock the people.” 
Which is *I think* what liberals want to happen here; they don’t want “the other guy” to be a King, but put their guy in there and 👍👍. 🙄
 

They are also the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal; which kind of negates anything else they are doing. Sure, they’ve said they will lower emissions by 2030, but the continue to mine and build coal plants. 
 

  • Thanks 1
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota judge has said he will order Greenpeace to pay damages expected to total $345 million in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline from nearly a decade ago, a figure the environmental group contends it cannot pay.

In court papers filed Tuesday, Judge James Gion said he would sign an order requiring several Greenpeace entities to pay the judgment to pipeline company Energy Transfer. He set that amount at $345 million

Posted
Just now, Maximum Overkill said:

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota judge has said he will order Greenpeace to pay damages expected to total $345 million in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline from nearly a decade ago, a figure the environmental group contends it cannot pay.

In court papers filed Tuesday, Judge James Gion said he would sign an order requiring several Greenpeace entities to pay the judgment to pipeline company Energy Transfer. He set that amount at $345 million

Great news. :thumbsup:

  • Sad 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...