Joe Biden has taken us down a rabbit hole

[Tiny]

With his Inflation Reduction Act and EPA emission requirements. Please note in particular the multiples by which we’re going to have to increase mining and production of minerals like copper and rare earth elements. And that’s not going to happen here in the USA because the same environmentalists who are pushing elimination of fossil fuels won’t allow permitting for new mines and processing plants.

https://www.city-journal.org/article...mpaign=cjdaily

I didn’t find this article by the way, another board member kindly passed it on to me.

[farmstud60]

This is common thinking for the " Progressive " which is basically Marxist/Communism thinking. The USSR used to export grain, but because of Central Planning they destroyed their Agriculture base, had empty shelves and had to import grain to keep their people from starving. This is just one example from history, but the " Progressives " don't read economic history and understand how Biden's policies are doing long term economic harm and reduction of the fundamental economic blocks.


This is what many have been saying on here, but the arrogant people that say we are stupid are really the ones that are clueless.


Biden's policies are really reducing a persons choices, and at the same time increasing inflation. The fed increasing Interest rates has been the only thing that has slowed inflation.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

...This is what many have been saying on here, but the arrogant people that say we are stupid are really the ones that are clueless...

It's called "projection". They ass-sume everyone else is just like them. Not sure why that is though. From what I can gather, we are in a continuing spiral of Cloward-Piven powered by lunacy.

Here's an interesting example: Cow farts are bad. One must ass-sume that cow poop and pee is bad also. Therefore, cows must go, mainly because they said so and nothing more. Yet these very same ass-sumers do the very things themselves everyday. Ipso facto -

[ICU 812]

I agree with the above posts.

But it gets wierder.. The term "Rabbit Hole" refers to the complete weirdness Alice experienced when she followed the White Rabbit down into Wonderland. In our case here in the USA in the mid 2020s, that rabbit hole goes deep indeed and branches.

The pseudo economics of the all-electric, "zero emission" society envisioned by the progressive left is eclipsed in shear weirdness by the social engineers pushing the LGBTQ+ agenda on everyone. Biden and whoever actually manages the levers of government for him, have just rewritten the real protections for women OUT of Title IX by insisting that biological men who think they are women can interact as though they actually ARE women. This eviscerates any and all benefits to women that the Title IX laws were intended to bring to our society.

This and the above posted remarks about the EPA and missions versus mining etc are as weird as anything Alice saw.

Biden and whoever is doling out his Prevergin pills are turning this Nation and the American character upside down and inside out.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

I believe that this sums things up succinctly:

...Many decent Americans look at what’s happening and think, “Why on earth would Democrats want to destroy America? Are they some kind of Dr. Evil character?”

Well, in a way, yes. The simplest answer to that question is that you can’t have a complete and total “reset” or transformation of a country when it’s healthy, strong, and prosperous. To fully transform a nation, especially one as big and powerful as the United States, you first have to bring it to its knees. Only then, after it’s been thoroughly beaten down, can you rebuild it into your envisioned new image. And that’s where the Cloward-Piven Strategy really kicks in. Their game plan? Stir up political, financial, and social chaos—think movements like Marxism, Black Lives Matter, transgenderism, and climate change—and throw in rampant inflation, the destruction of the middle class, soaring crime, and the relentless smearing of politicians and leaders. Their goal is nothing short of a full-blown revolution to completely transform the US government. How do they plan to achieve this? By mobilizing a network of violent, bloodthirsty activist groups, who are dutifully backed by their allies in the media, to fervently push their policies and, of course, wealth redistribution. This probably sounds all too familiar because it’s exactly what we’ve been witnessing at breakneck speed for over a decade now. This coordinated turmoil is designed not just to challenge but to dismantle established norms and traditions and to rebuild society from scratch....

Expect even more chaos this year. One can try to answer the two simple questions: Whom was President a decade ago? Is it the same one pulling the strings of the current President?

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

I believe that this sums things up succinctly: Expect even more chaos this year. One can try to answer the two simple questions: Whom was President a decade ago? Is it the same one pulling the strings of the current President?

Even if Obama isn't officially pulling the strings the same like minded people are controlling Biden.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

Even if Obama isn't officially pulling the strings the same like minded people are controlling Biden.

They all have to serve somebody that's the true "Rabbit Hole".

[royamcr]

Comparing Zero emissions to LGBTQ issues is really dumb and a severe logical fallacy. Stating that LGBTQ is being pushed on everyone is false. I have never had anyone say "hey come be gay with us"... And I am 100% sure the OP has never had that happen either.

I will concede though that biological men should not be able to compete in women's sports. This issue though is blown way out of proportion to reality. At the local level let them play, but at the national/world level where money is involved, that should be controlled.

Zero emissions goals are very important, not tomorrow, not next year, not end of decade even. But we can't wait until 20, 30, or 40 years from now to get started on that path. The earth isn't making any new fossil fuels, we have what we have and they will run out in the next generation or two. It is hard for old folks to grasp that fact cause it doesn't affect them.

One of the Republican traits and weaknesses is fearing change. This is very evident in the energy sector.

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Comparing Zero emissions to LGBTQ issues is really dumb and a severe logical fallacy. Stating that LGBTQ is being pushed on everyone is false. I have never had anyone say "hey come be gay with us"... And I am 100% sure the OP has never had that happen either.

I will concede though that biological men should not be able to compete in women's sports. This issue though is blown way out of proportion to reality. At the local level let them play, but at the national/world level where money is involved, that should be controlled.

Zero emissions goals are very important, not tomorrow, not next year, not end of decade even. But we can't wait until 20, 30, or 40 years from now to get started on that path. The earth isn't making any new fossil fuels, we have what we have and they will run out in the next generation or two. It is hard for old folks to grasp that fact cause it doesn't affect them.

One of the Republican traits and weaknesses is fearing change. This is very evident in the energy sector.

The end of the world is always 10, 20, 30 years away unless you listen to the idiots. They've been saying the same thing for the last 60 years. They are always wrong.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Comparing Zero emissions to LGBTQ issues is really dumb and a severe logical fallacy. Stating that LGBTQ is being pushed on everyone is false. I have never had anyone say "hey come be gay with us"... And I am 100% sure the OP has never had that happen either.

I will concede though that biological men should not be able to compete in women's sports. This issue though is blown way out of proportion to reality. At the local level let them play, but at the national/world level where money is involved, that should be controlled.

Zero emissions goals are very important, not tomorrow, not next year, not end of decade even. But we can't wait until 20, 30, or 40 years from now to get started on that path. The earth isn't making any new fossil fuels, we have what we have and they will run out in the next generation or two. It is hard for old folks to grasp that fact cause it doesn't affect them.

One of the Republican traits and weaknesses is fearing change. This is very evident in the energy sector.

Zero emissions will never be achieved not unless all modern technology is discontinued.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

This is common thinking for the " Progressive " which is basically Marxist/Communism thinking. The USSR used to export grain, but because of Central Planning they destroyed their Agriculture base, had empty shelves and had to import grain to keep their people from starving. This is just one example from history, but the " Progressives " don't read economic history and understand how Biden's policies are doing long term economic harm and reduction of the fundamental economic blocks....
Biden's policies are really reducing a persons choices, and at the same time increasing inflation. The fed increasing Interest rates has been the only thing that has slowed inflation.

We're headed that way in energy. I rented a car in Houston recently. Hertz compact sedans with internal combustion engines were going for $70 a day while Teslas were around $50. And correct, with no change in current emissions policies, most of us are going to have to buy EV's (electric vehicles) some day if we want to buy new cars.

I read an analysis the other day that estimated we'd see a 0.18% worldwide reduction in CO2 emissions if all the passenger cars in the USA were EV's. That's just huge, isn't it.

From the the Mark Mills piece in City Journal link, "Since all the Inflation Reduction Act, and related, spending has yet to flow through the economy, it bears asking why economists aren’t alarmed about reigniting inflation. Perhaps, behind closed doors, the Federal Reserve is worried." I agree. Mills notes that a Wood McKenzie analysis shows the price tag of the carbon-related measures in the Inflation Reduction Act will be closer to $3 trillion than the advertised $369 billion figure. Wood McKenzie btw is the most respected consulting firm in energy economics in the world.

Add to the Inflation Reduction Act all the other corporate welfare passed during 2021 and 2022 and you have some big numbers. YoY CPI inflation in the USA is running 3.5%, compared to 2.4% in the European Union and 0.1% in China. I bet part of the reason inflation is sticky in the USA is because of excessive fiscal stimulus. As you say, the Fed's doing its part to control inflation.

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Zero emissions will never be achieved not unless all modern technology is discontinued.

I wouldn't have phrased it exactly that way, but yeah. Do we get rid of airplanes? All the materials like plastics derived from oil and gas? Steel, if no suitable substitute can be found for coking coal?

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Here's an interesting example: Cow farts are bad. One must ass-sume that cow poop and pee is bad also. Therefore, cows must go, mainly because they said so and nothing more. Yet these very same ass-sumers do the very things themselves everyday. Ipso facto -

That's an AOC original! Thankfully there are enough sane Democratic politicians who want to win elections so that we'll never get to that point.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Zero emissions goals are very important, not tomorrow, not next year, not end of decade even. But we can't wait until 20, 30, or 40 years from now to get started on that path. The earth isn't making any new fossil fuels, we have what we have and they will run out in the next generation or two. It is hard for old folks to grasp that fact cause it doesn't affect them.

One of the Republican traits and weaknesses is fearing change. This is very evident in the energy sector.

You're wrong. Read some of of Bjorn Lomborg's work on this. Take a look at the link above. We're looking at potentially spending many tens of trillions of dollars for benefits that will be worth much less. And there's not a lot the USA can do anyway. We currently account for about 13.5% of world CO2 emissions, down from 55% in 1945 and 23% in 1999. U.S. CO2 emissions have and will continue to fall, in large part because of migration of electric power generation from coal to natural gas. Increasing use of renewables will help, but I'm skeptical we'll be able to produce the storage capacity (batteries) so that solar and wind can provide base load supply. Especially after reading about the International Energy Agency's estimates in the Mills article linked above. Are we really going to increase worldwide mining by 4 to 40 times? And rare earth supply by 50 to 300 fold? And what will be the effect on the environment of doing that? Will countries issue the necessary permits? Well, in the USA, there's about a snow ball's chance in hell of that, so we'll just become more dependent on places like China.

Incremental emissions will come from places like India, Indonesia and Africa. And we don't control them. What are we going to do, tell Indians living in apartment blocks in Mumbai they have to swelter in 110 degree heat because they can't build coal fired power plants and have A/C?

Temperature records were set last year. Global warming from CO2 and methane and the like was just one reason. A strong El Nino event was another. A third was that fuel requirements for shipping have been tightened, to make their emissions cleaner. The result is less particulate matter in the atmosphere, and higher temperatures. And maybe that points towards a solution if the shit actually does hit the fan - geoengineering - measures like spraying sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere.

Biden has picked one of the worst possible way to try to reduce emissions -- pump lots of money into inefficient corporate welfare. Why? Well thankfully, he can't pursue some of the supply side measures favored by his advisors who came over from Elizabeth Warren's camp, like knee-capping the domestic oil and gas industry and banning wells on federal leases, because of legal and political considerations. When the price of gasoline goes up and when people start losing oil field jobs in Pennsylvania he loses votes.

That leaves a carbon tax or possibly carbon credits as perhaps the "best" (or least worst) option. I don't like carbon credits, but a reasonable carbon tax, designed so it doesn't hurt our exports, might be OK. You've got to tax something, and if the politicians would take the money from a carbon tax and use it to reduce the income tax or the national debt, I'd probably be for it. The risk is that they take the money and channel it into something like more corporate welfare for renewables. So maybe that's not a good idea.

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Zero emissions will never be achieved not unless all modern technology is discontinued.

Or replaced.... And of course right now creating renewables creates emissions. However the emissions from creating a renewable energy product is paid off in the first year or two of use.

Reality is we have about 50 years of proven oil left at current consumption rates. The good news is our consumption rate has leveled off and is actually falling due to transportation converting to electric. We have about double the years left with coal, maybe around 100 so that buys us time with powering electric plants that use it.

Seems like a long ways off, but will be here in a blink of an eye looking back. It has been almost 25 years since the turn of the century, and it feels like yesterday.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Or replaced.... And of course right now creating renewables creates emissions. However the emissions from creating a renewable energy product is paid off in the first year or two of use.

Reality is we have about 50 years of proven oil left at current consumption rates. The good news is our consumption rate has leveled off and is actually falling due to transportation converting to electric. We have about double the years left with coal, maybe around 100 so that buys us time with powering electric plants that use it.

Seems like a long ways off, but will be here in a blink of an eye looking back. It has been almost 25 years since the turn of the century, and it feels like yesterday.

I don't believe they pay off in terms of emissions in anywhere close to a year or two. When you count in the emissions for mining, processing, manufacturing, transportation, electricity generation, etc., no way. For Volvo EV's, it's around 6 or 7 years.

And how long have we had around 50 years or less of proved oil reserves left? Maybe 100 years or more? Proved reserves have been identified and determined to be economically producible at current or recent oil prices. More oil will be discovered and technology will improve. If the price of oil goes up, then reserves go up.

The amount of coal resources, which is a broader measure than reserves, is off the charts high. We could keep going for hundreds of years, although I don't think we will.

[royamcr]

I'm not going to get into Biden did wrong or right, history will tell that. Biden doesn't operate alone. Congress is responsible for most of the work there and that is split about 50/50.

You should see the huge battery plant being built close to KC. Think it is like 53 football fields in size.

As far as raw materials. Work is being done to extract lithium from sea water. There is about 230 billion tons of lithium in seawater which is 5000 times of that known in land. Problem is extracting it cause it is very dilute. But it is there and we have lots of land based lithium to mine before having to go down that path.

Lithium is also renewable, there is industry to reclaim it from spent batteries and make new batteries.

Originally Posted by Tiny

You're wrong. Read some of of Bjorn Lomborg's work on this. Take a look at the link above. We're looking at potentially spending many tens of trillions of dollars for benefits that will be worth much less. And there's not a lot the USA can do anyway. We currently account for about 13.5% of world CO2 emissions, down from 55% in 1945 and 23% in 1999. U.S. CO2 emissions have and will continue to fall, in large part because of migration of electric power generation from coal to natural gas. Increasing use of renewables will help, but I'm skeptical we'll be able to produce the storage capacity (batteries) so that solar and wind can provide base load supply. Especially after reading about the International Energy Agency's estimates in the Mills article linked above. Are we really going to increase worldwide mining by 4 to 40 times? And rare earth supply by 50 to 300 fold? And what will be the effect on the environment of doing that? Will countries issue the necessary permits? Well, in the USA, there's about a snow ball's chance in hell of that, so we'll just become more dependent on places like China.

Incremental emissions will come from places like India, Indonesia and Africa. And we don't control them. What are we going to do, tell Indians living in apartment blocks in Mumbai they have to swelter in 110 degree heat because they can't build coal fired power plants and have A/C?

Temperature records were set last year. Global warming from CO2 and methane and the like was just one reason. A strong El Nino event was another. A third was that fuel requirements for shipping have been tightened, to make their emissions cleaner. The result is less particulate matter in the atmosphere, and higher temperatures. And maybe that points towards a solution if the shit actually does hit the fan - geoengineering - measures like spraying sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere.

Biden has picked the worst possible way to try to reduce emissions -- pump lots of money into inefficient corporate welfare. Why? Well thankfully, he can't pursue some of the supply side measures favored by his advisors who came over from Elizabeth Warren's camp, like knee-capping the domestic oil and gas industry and banning wells on federal leases, because of legal and political considerations. When the price of gasoline goes up and when people start losing oil field jobs in Pennsylvania he loses votes.

That leaves a carbon tax or possibly carbon credits as perhaps the "best" (or least worst) option. I don't like carbon credits, but a reasonable carbon tax, designed so it doesn't hurt our exports, might be OK. You've got to tax something, and if the politicians would take the money from a carbon tax and use it to reduce the income tax or the national debt, I'd probably be for it. The risk is that they take the money and channel it into something like more corporate welfare for renewables. So maybe that's not a good idea.