California communities suing for polluters to pay for storm damage

[David M]

I disagree that CNN is anywhere near center after Trump's election. 90% of their coverage is Trump bashing, conservative bashing, middle America bashing and Republican bashing. I'm certain you would disagree with my statement.

You see, that is exactly the problem. Whether or not a news source is considereded neutral depends on ones political perspective.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by David M

Ultimately businesses do have the choice of moving out, taking their jobs with them. The government cannot stop that.

Unless Moonbeam gets the idea of building a wall around the state to keep them in...

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Unless Moonbeam gets the idea of building a wall around the state to keep them in...

That's what I tell people when they ask me why I'm moving to La Paz, MX now....I tell them I gotta get down before the Wall is built to keep Californians IN because at the current Tax Rates and what's coming for fund the FREE Stuff Promised...the producers will be leaving....they already are....

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Exactly....and again just like the Goal of $10/Gal gas....it only works if you punish people and force them into something. The California KW Rates are artificial and bogus made to push a social agenda, not market based supply and demand.

Actual, true costs only, no markup off DoD costs. Shouldn't be any punitive aspect of it.

Things cost what they cost and the significant price of gas security shouldn't be hidden in DoD cost. The DoD gas supply chain security fees you already pay today through federal taxes simply shifting, at actual cost, to per gallon at pump.

This way we ask don't non-gas users to subsidize the DoD gas security costs. I also use gas currently so I'd pay the more clear fee per gallon as well.

The more fairly actual costs are allocated the better the process.

Third Day, would you say 25% of DoD mission is petroleum / petro-shipping security? Would you go a little higher or a little lower of percentage?

Jury still out on the Cali kW costs -- we need a strong counter point on cost. Haven't seen that quite yet. What do you say number is and how do you defend that number?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by SecondBase

Third Day, would you say 25% of DoD mission is petroleum / petro-shipping security? Would you go a little higher or a little lower of percentage?

I think it's irrelevant what percentage is it...like saying food for the DoD is X% or Y%. But unless you plan to go without feeding the military or unless you want to have electric tanks, personal carriers or Trucks what's the point?

I don't fall for the lie that the USA spends too much on the Military and we would be better off spending that money on social programs. (the social programs I look around and see are all mostly failures) The Price of Freedom has always been high...has through out world history and will continue until the end of history. To not understand that, is to not understand the nature of man and the nature of Tyrants and Evil in this world.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.....of...well what is this anyway....

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by David M

I disagree that CNN is anywhere near center after Trump's election. 90% of their coverage is Trump bashing, conservative bashing, middle America bashing and Republican bashing. I'm certain you would disagree with my statement.

You see, that is exactly the problem. Whether or not a news source is considereded neutral depends on ones political perspective.

Actually no David. I DO agree with how you said it. You said it better and you're right. I should have said CNN is right err left where you said they are but I also that I had at least heard mumbles of their "striving" for neutrality -- but that was, to your point, well prior to last election.

CNN would need to move 1/2 of their anchor desk work to a conservative state to regain my trust as striving for balance.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I think it's irrelevant what percentage is it...

Third Day,

I'd go as low as 10% with you or as high as 33% for DoD gas security spend. Outside that range I'd leave it to experts at GAO to figure out the right %.

Definitely there is a spend. If we want to pretend that spend is free inside big government and wish it away, I guess keep petting that unicorn.

I'm definitely not asking for a defense budget reduction in this day and age. Just look at the Ariana Grande concert to get an idea of what we're up against. I'm asking for TCO on a gallon of gas, clear accounting and that people using a federal subsidy (including me) go ahead and pay for it -- not hide the $$ and put that on others while complaining that electric car economics don't work (due to DoD gas subsidy which I guess we aren't allowed to talk about).

Anyone else have an estimate of the % of DoD work that is petroleum security related?

a) 10%
b) 25%
c) 33%
d) Other

[a64pilot]

DOD spending on oil is way more complex than just oil.
That whole part of the world has been an "issue" for a long time, since the end of WWII at least.
Then, would you rather China be the Worlds police force?

I believe the cost of motor fuel ought to be a lot higher than it is, people will not conserve if it's not, and I believe it's in the Nations best interest security wise to be less dependent on foreign oil.

I attended an Officers call in Camp Doha Kuwait, about a year or two after the first Gulf War. The Commanding General at the time gave us a talk where he said we need to understand that we are not there to defend the American way of life etc. We were there cause the average US housewife doesn't want to pay $3 a gallon to fill you her Suburban.
Honest truth.

[SecondBase]

That is honest truth.

I can't solve the whole problem. The part I can fairly contribute to is "pay what it actually costs for a gallon of gas".

This one step is simple and in our national security interests. Over time this reduces the amount of wealth leaving the country.

Personally I'd rather pay the hard hats installing panels in Cali than overseas oil plus the DoD handling charge to get the gas back here. I can't force that choice on others. I can stand for honest economics and others can decide for themselves from there. Right now it is muddy accounting.

I don't want any penalty added in those costs. Just show and pay the true price for the gallon.

Betty housewife is going to have to pay what it costs so she doesn't need to keep sending her children and now grandchildren off on the mission. I spoke with her. Turns out the safety of her kids is a lot more important to her than paying half the gas cost at the pump and the other half of the gas cost in her biweekly payroll withholding. This only removes a small % of the mission, regional engagement continues on, but every bit helps.

With complete energy independence we take one legitimate casus belli right off the table. That's good for America and good for everybody else too.

So far no soldier has died directly defending solar arrays in the California desert.

[Don C L]

Well, one thing that is gratifying to me, and that gives me hope for humanity, is that this thread has not fallen off that cliff into insults and name-calling (too severely) in spite of strong opinions on both sides..... It seems there needs to be a lot of shouting AND a lot of listening before we all get closer to the "truth."

[buzzstar]

What a bunch of screwy ideas on both sides, some just more extreme than others. First, around 40 years ago (my memory, which may be incorrect as to the time) the expectation was cooling in the form of a new ice age. Whatever the evidence then, it seemed to go away, and the subject was quiet for a while. Then global warming appeared hot and heavy, and it was caused by man, and man alone, so it could be prevented by man, and man alone. I could add a bit about carbon credits and government grants, but I will not deal with them or the doctored data -that did exist, big time. At the present stage it appears that warming is occurring, although neither the rate, the duration, or the cause is agreed upon. One side (can I be allowed to call them the skeptics since I am one) think warming and cooling is a cyclic, natural, and inevitable, phenomenon; while others (the true believers as a convenience) tend to definitely feel that global (an important consideration) warming is occurring at an an alarming rate, and for the most part, if not entirely, is caused by man. They seem to be joined by many styled as "scientists." It is unclear (to me personally) as to the reasons that so much of the evidence cited by the scientists and true believers can be challenged by competing facts, or even fully explained by the same competing facts. Me, I accept we appear to be in a period of warming (seemingly, primarily in the northern hemisphere, where the human populace if the largest by far), and I admit that I am not entirely convinced that cooling is not yet off my plate.
This is one of those disputes that has more drivers (often money, but definitely not entirely) than solid, stand up alone facts, not to mention the combinations, permutations, and nuances that swirl like snow flakes or live steam. Have fun with it, but all in all, I'd much prefer to be sailing. Remember if the oceans rise there will more and new places to sail, and if there is more water locked in ice, you will be able to explore previously abandoned cities, and make a fortune digging canals for the landlocked Med.

[Exile]

Why are you guys still talking about US dependency on foreign oil? Due to the now decade-long domestic production boom, recent stats show imports down to 25%, and over 40% of that comes from Canada, a country that I think is still friendly towards the US.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=32&t=6; https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly...twipprint.html; https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier.../#7b3f6841264c

The US is now the 3rd-largest oil-producing nation and likely to move up. So US imports probably have more to do with oil being a worldwide commodity and less to do with the type of dependency that we saw in previous decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...oil_production

[Don C L]

I'm ok with anyone's position as long as they are getting the math and science right. Climate science involves a lot of statistics and probability. Not very sexy stuff, and not easy to understand. Sure not all scientists agree. We are all betting on the future, and for most of us old farts, this is all not very consequential for us. But for the kids, if the majority of scientists say something, then I choose to put my money on them... even if I don't like what they are saying. They could be wrong, then I too am wrong, but I am betting they PROBABLY aren't.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Don C L

I'm ok with anyone's position as long as they are getting the math and science right. Climate science involves a lot of statistics and probability. Not very sexy stuff, and not easy to understand. Sure not all scientists agree. We are all betting on the future, and for most of us old farts, this is all not very consequential for us. But for the kids, if the majority of scientists say something, then I choose to put my money on them... even if I don't like what they are saying. They could be wrong, then I too am wrong, but I am betting they PROBABLY aren't.

And don't forget there are many good reasons, other than so-called climate change, to gradually move away from fossil fuels as the world's primary energy source. It will eventually happen, of course, but only when the technology makes it economically and otherwise viable. This is how it's worked throughout human history, and it will happen this way again. In the meantime, there's no sense pissing off your friends, neighbors and sailing brethren over it.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Exile

Why are you guys still talking about US dependency on foreign oil? Due to the now decade-long domestic production boom, recent stats show imports down to 25%, and over 40% of that comes from Canada, a country that I think is still friendly towards the US.



https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=32&t=6; https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly...twipprint.html; https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier.../#7b3f6841264c



The US is now the 3rd-largest oil-producing nation and likely to move up. So US imports probably have more to do with oil being a worldwide commodity and less to do with the type of dependency that we saw in previous decades.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...oil_production

There has to be a limited amount of it, I have no idea if we have 10 years, or a million years at present consumption, but there has to be a finite amount. It doesn't seem to make sense to just burn what has to be a very important raw material, out of which a lot of our modern world is made from, and I don't just mean plastics.
Just seems conserving a finite resource is in our best interests.