brandonbull
Diamond Member
- May 3, 2005
- 6,338
- 1,215
- 126
It is hilarious. Libtards got trolled hard. All we need is an Al Gore GoFundMe to keep polar vortexes away.
For the life of me I was trying to figure out why Rush was battling on the wrong side of Climate Change science, I always thought they were a fairly intelligent, conscientious band. Then I understood.I have a BiL that has listened to Rush for years. Every (and I mean every) time we have a cold spell in the winter Rush repeats one of favorite routines "what about that global warming blah blah blah. . ." A routine/supposed joke that is invariably repeated by Rush followers-so often they take it as gospel.
The Donald is just repeating something he has heard from Rush countless times and trying to claim credit for it.
Do either Rush or Trump actually believe this horseshit? I doubt it but I also doubt they ever spent any serious effort to research the subject either.
France is now the US?
So the riots over fuel taxes in France just a couple weeks ago didn’t happen?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-46437904
Well, kinda. Right now many are not having to pay for the costs of what they are doing because those costs are not captured in the price of the products/services. We are trying to include those costs, and once we do, the price must go up.
We may very well innovate beyond and get to a point where those costs are not relevant, but, that is a long way off.
Tesla is very much getting hit with the costs of the environment. They would be able to do things much cheaper if not for environmental regulations.
For the life of me I was trying to figure out why Rush was battling on the wrong side of Climate Change science, I always thought they were a fairly intelligent, conscientious band. Then I understood.
If the price must go up, as you say, and the innovation necessary to make the supposed increased costs irrelevant to price are a long ways off, then how is Tesla able to innovate to absorb those costs and deliver a cost-effective product right now?
There really is a Global Warming hoax going on, and that hoax is that the innovation and new technologies that will developed to address the issue means that consumers will have to pay more and live a lower standard of living, when the exact opposite is the truth.
And what's most annoying about that hoax is that the proof that it is a lie is right of front of us, and yet people keep believing it.
The Telsa Model 3 costs about the same as a comparable 3-series BMW, but it is faster, more reliable, less expensive to own and maintain, and has a smaller carbon footprint than the BMW. We're already combatting global warming, without paying more, and without reducing our standard of living, right now. And this is just the beginning.
Yaknow, I really look forward to the day when the same MAGA's, who today believe that global warming and electric cars are some kind of Chinese hoax to make America poor, are clambering all over each other to buy electric pickups because they are cheaper and more powerful than their current ICE-powered pickups. It's not that far off.LOL feel free to try it in the U.S. The poll I quoted seems to show it will be very successful [/s].
So we need to build a wall to keep out the Bad Hombre cold?
Maybe a wall made out of the most beautiful fire? The bigliest fire wall ever?
Political riots happen all the time in France, they don’t in the US. Trying to compare the two is silliness.
that's some deep stuff right thereTo be fair. there's really no such thing as "cold", there's only lack of heat. Cold is the absence of heat... so how are you going to keep out something that doesn't even exist?!?!
Yaknow, I really look forward to the day when the same MAGA's, who today believe that global warming and electric cars are some kind of Chinese hoax to make America poor, are clambering all over each other to buy electric pickups because they are cheaper and more powerful than their current ICE-powered pickups. It's not that far off.
Meanwhile, you just keep on repeating that same tired argument that increases in technology and efficiency must mean higher costs and a lower standard of living because those treehugging hippies want it.
Political riots happen all the time in France, they don’t in the US. Trying to compare the two is silliness.
Tesla is targeting higher margin segments to offset the higher cost. This is why you do not see a low end model as of today.
It is not a hoax that most of the solutions would cost consumers more. Again, its simple economics that if the price of a good/service does not capture all costs, then its price will be artificially low. The cost of fossil fuel is artificially because the effects on climate are not being captured in the price.
Now, it may very well be that innovations come that move us away from those goods/services that impact the environment, but, not as of yet. Electric cars also have a big impact as the materials to make them have an impact. Humans existing has an impact.
All new technology is initially targeted at higher margin segments. That's nothing new. Cars were only for the rich at first. Computers were at first so expensive that only governments, major corporations and large universities could afford them.
And with every new technology, the costs eventually goes down.
A couple years ago, electric cars were competitive in the 7-series range. Now they're competitive in the 3-series range. A few more years from now, they will be competitive with Honda Civics.
The artificially low cost of fossil fuel doesn't affect this. The driving factor is efficiency, which brings costs down and living standards up. The conservative anti-global warming crowd are fighting against increased efficiency on the basis that it will cost more and bring lower standards of living, when that is obviously not the case.
You're doing it too, as though costs and prices are the same, and any increase in costs require a corresponding increase in price, and other zero sum all-else-being-equal pseudoeconomics that is simply BS. Sorry, but it is.
Yes, and I would also point out that with respect to the recent gas tax rioting, France has some of the highest gas prices in the world. They already pay twice as much for their gasoline as we do. Context matters.
Also, we recently passed a higher gas tax here in CA in order to fund infrastructure. No rioting here.
Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose we have 2 companies, we'll call them A and B, that manufacture the same widgets for about the same cost and sell them for about the same price. Now let's suppose A figures out a way to make them cheaper and of higher quality, but the cost to retool in order to so is prohibitive. And B knows this and is content to keep making them the old way.I don’t care what vehicles run on, could be pixie fairy dust for all I care. Most pickup truck drivers are the same way; gas electric or plutonium they don’t care so long as it has the needed towing capacity passenger capacity range and other factors. For many applications the ICE Is the preferred option because it meets one or more use case or criteria the user has and the “alternative fuel” option does not. That’s exactly why I have said throughout this entire thread that when non-fossil fuel products fully meet customers needs they will be adopted without coercion or subsidy. It wouldn’t matter if you gave many people an electric car for free If it doesn’t have the range that you need or somewhere to plug it in.
Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose we have 2 companies, we'll call them A and B, that manufacture the same widgets for about the same cost and sell them for about the same price. Now let's suppose A figures out a way to make them cheaper and of higher quality, but the cost to retool in order to so is prohibitive. And B knows this and is content to keep making them the old way.
So Company A could make a better product and sell it cheaper, but the cost of the transition would force them into bankruptcy. Company B doesn't care because either things stay as they are, or they can buy A and its improved tooling at liquidation prices.
How would you fix this in the consumer's favor?
Whatever, carbon taxes are like trumps wall the thing that’s never going to happen and there’s just put out there for the gullible base voters.
What does their cost of fuel matter if the belief was that it was still too low?
Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose we have 2 companies, we'll call them A and B, that manufacture the same widgets for about the same cost and sell them for about the same price. Now let's suppose A figures out a way to make them cheaper and of higher quality, but the cost to retool in order to so is prohibitive. And B knows this and is content to keep making them the old way.
So Company A could make a better product and sell it cheaper, but the cost of the transition would force them into bankruptcy. Company B doesn't care because either things stay as they are, or they can buy A and its improved tooling at liquidation prices.
How would you fix this in the consumer's favor?
It explains why raising the gas tax might cause a riot in France where it wouldn't here. Because their prices were already among the highest in the world before Macron imposed the new tax.
It explains why raising the gas tax might cause a riot in France where it wouldn't here. Because their prices were already among the highest in the world before Macron imposed the new tax.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying that climate change solutions aren't going to cost anything. What I'm saying is that after the initial transition costs, we will only gain from them.Saying innovation is the solution to climate change is so nebulous that it can and should be dismissed. If your position is that climate change solutions are not going to cost anything because "innovation" then leave this thread knowing you are dumb and are saying nothing.
What I said is that most of the solutions out there, things we have a real understanding of are going to increase costs. A big reason for that increase in costs is from capturing the cost to the environment that were not being captured that 3rd parties were having to pay.
Yes, Tesla is innovating and creating expanding while revolutionizing a segment that should reduce the net effect on the climate. None of that has anything to do with what was said.
It explains why raising the gas tax might cause a riot in France where it wouldn't here. Because their prices were already among the highest in the world before Macron imposed the new tax.
