GM laying off 15% of workers and shutting down 5 plants due to trump tariffs

Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
it's just counterproductive imho..i'd like it to be people that work together no labels..
Click to expand...
and they work together better when the conservatives are not there..

Its interesting that it seems its a world wide problem. Liberals come up with plans for the future and try different ideas and the Conservative govt gets in and just throws it all away. Must be the mindset of stupid people no matter which country they are born in.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
the rock said:
bought a Subaru Acsent,built in Indiana USA,thanks Prez
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you be better off thanking Subaru?
My wifes Nissan was built in England..(from imported and domestic parts)
My Honda lawnmower was built in the USA..(from imported and domestic parts)
You guys (Americans) have fairly cheap hrly rates. Not sure how they can afford to build Nissans in England. Must be some gov incentives.
No one builds cars in Australia anymore. Our wages are decent.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
I didn’t bring up for your benefit, I brought it up because I’m fucking concerned. When did I put down anything other than solar hot water and didn’t really put it down, just not great for saving money which yes matters to me.when it’s possible to do both. Please state where I’ve knocked down anything? And yes I doubt the the forecasts ..... I think their being too conservative, I think we have pretty much past the point of no return but don’t take that as giving up. I still try to upgrade my house by doing things every year even if I’m only one person, it all helps. Well I think so anyways.
Click to expand...
When I read this post and go back to your post where I took your meaning to be dismissive of attempts transition away from burning fossil fuels, I see contradiction.
Budley Doright said:
Maybe when looking at the big picture re saving the world but that’s sadly too expensive for most home buyers, first time buyers are stretched now . If the government subsidized the installation then that would be great. They have (provincial) pretty much removed all green rebates and the carbon tax that was used to pay for it here......sad. But Ford had the balls to ask for a camper van and keep it off the books.... fucking crook, trump 2.0.
Click to expand...
You were replying to my post where I said that perhaps we should include the cost of not doing anything into the cost-benefit analysis. I don't understand how anybody who agrees with the overwhelming consensus on the harmful effects of human caused global warming would just toss in the towel because "too expensive".

I'm wondering how you can resolve the apparent (to me) contradiction.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
When I read this post and go back to your post where I took your meaning to be dismissive of attempts transition away from burning fossil fuels, I see contradiction.


You were replying to my post where I said that perhaps we should include the cost of not doing anything into the cost-benefit analysis. I don't understand how anybody who agrees with the overwhelming consensus on the harmful effects of human caused global warming would just toss in the towel because "too expensive".

I'm wondering how you can resolve the apparent (to me) contradiction.
Click to expand...
It is you that have constructed this contradiction by cherry picking what I have said, you seem to do that a lot here. The cost of not doing anything is the end of the planet as we know it. You did see where I said GOVERMENT subsides would be great and do work right? You said they don’t, I believe. Where did I say or even elude to throwing sin the towel? You are the one that actually eluded to throwing in the towel by saying “I could be completely carbon neutral in my lifestyle and wouldn't change what is happening one wit”. Gee if everyone thought that it would be pretty dismal. I do believe making things affordable will make a huge difference but only one of many things we can do. Please point out my contradictions, please point out my fossil fuel mindset. Please point out my strawman tactics, go back and review if needed but I’m pretty sure that applies to you not me. I’m really not sure why or what your agenda here is? You attacked me for having a fossil fuel agenda, you accused me of putting down any solutions (you actually did that not I). I offered up many solutions while you get angry at goverment inaction, ya me too. The “I don’t like to talk about myself on these forums” yet here you are, sounds like you really have done fuck all personally to help. Why is that? Oh right it wouldn’t change anything, ok I get it now, carry on. Please feel free to offer a response but I’m done, I’m happy with what I contribute to the cause. If you ask about that I have no issues discussing that and could possibly even help you decide what’s best for your personal situation re home energy savings, that’s kind of my thing ;).
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
and they work together better when the conservatives are not there..

Its interesting that it seems its a world wide problem. Liberals come up with plans for the future and try different ideas and the Conservative govt gets in and just throws it all away. Must be the mindset of stupid people no matter which country they are born in.
Click to expand...
and by composite, who makes up the gop?- it's the white male..they're giving the rest of us a bad name..i was called 'european' on monday by some girl.

black people really need to unplug from the FB and Twatter- they're letting the russians destroy their minds.

has anyone caught American Horror Story S7: Cult? it centers around the Trump win. Chilling.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
It is you that have constructed this contradiction by cherry picking what I have said, you seem to do that a lot here. The cost of not doing anything is the end of the planet as we know it. You did see where I said GOVERMENT subsides would be great and do work right? You said they don’t, I believe. Where did I say or even elude to throwing sin the towel? You are the one that actually eluded to throwing in the towel by saying “I could be completely carbon neutral in my lifestyle and wouldn't change what is happening one wit”. Gee if everyone thought that it would be pretty dismal. I do believe making things affordable will make a huge difference but only one of many things we can do. Please point out my contradictions, please point out my fossil fuel mindset. Please point out my strawman tactics, go back and review if needed but I’m pretty sure that applies to you not me. I’m really not sure why or what your agenda here is? You attacked me for having a fossil fuel agenda, you accused me of putting down any solutions (you actually did that not I). I offered up many solutions while you get angry at goverment inaction, ya me too. The “I don’t like to talk about myself on these forums” yet here you are, sounds like you really have done fuck all personally to help. Why is that? Oh right it wouldn’t change anything, ok I get it now, carry on. Please feel free to offer a response but I’m done, I’m happy with what I contribute to the cause. If you ask about that I have no issues discussing that and could possibly even help you decide what’s best for your personal situation re home energy savings, that’s kind of my thing ;).
Click to expand...
ok so now that you've got that off your chest, I hope you feel better.

I still think the things you propose are jumping to a solution without addressing the real problem. The real roadblocks are political, not technical or financial. Willy-nilly rebates and other subsidies will just waste money and perhaps reduce emissions a little bit without getting to the hard stuff.

I get it. You liked the rebates. Did they have a measurable affect on global carbon emissions? Were they worth it? It sounds like a boondoggle to me.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
ok so now that you've got that off your chest, I hope you feel better.

I still think the things you propose are jumping to a solution without addressing the real problem. The real roadblocks are political, not technical or financial. Willy-nilly rebates and other subsidies will just waste money and perhaps reduce emissions a little bit without getting to the hard stuff.

I get it. You liked the rebates. Did they have a measurable affect on global carbon emissions? Were they worth it? It sounds like a boondoggle to me.
Click to expand...
I get it, your waiting for others to solve the problem, not worth your personal effort. I like rebates as one tool, and nope not a boondoggle till they were canceled, you should look into what Ontario was doing, it may enlighten you.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
I get it, your waiting for others to solve the problem, not worth your personal effort. I like rebates as one tool, and nope not a boondoggle till they were canceled, you should look into what Ontario was doing, it may enlighten you.
Click to expand...
so, how many tons of carbon emissions were reduced by rebates?

I'm not against rebates, I'm just saying that they smell like a boondoggle and am asking what good they ever did? Because you are a proponent of them, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what the payback was. After all, you were challenging solar water heating for exactly the same reason.

I admit that I have little room for argument because my government is stuck in the climate science denial dark ages. Nobody is asking me what I think we need to do but I'll say it anyway. I want a top flight panel of experts to study the shit out of the problem as a system and not piecemeal gimmees that make people feel good without really putting a dent on global emissions. I want that panel to provide substantial recommendations to goverment leadership. I want them to enter into a public debate on how to implement them with confidence that we are working the the right solutions. I want any lobbyist that gets near the people who are working on this to be shot on sight. (figuratively speaking)
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
so, how many tons of carbon emissions were reduced by rebates?

I'm not against rebates, I'm just saying that they smell like a boondoggle and am asking what good they ever did? Because you are a proponent of them, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what the payback was. After all, you were challenging solar water heating for exactly the same reason.

I admit that I have little room for argument because my government is stuck in the climate science denial dark ages. Nobody is asking me what I think we need to do but I'll say it anyway. I want a top flight panel of experts to study the shit out of the problem as a system and not piecemeal gimmees that make people feel good without really putting a dent on global emissions. I want that panel to provide substantial recommendations to goverment leadership. I want them to enter into a public debate on how to implement them with confidence that we are working the the right solutions. I want any lobbyist that gets near the people who are working on this to be shot on sight. (figuratively speaking)
Click to expand...
Governments of petroleum-producing countries are also getting proactive about prolonging the reign of the ICE. The Persian Gulf state of Qatar, which has the world’s third-largest reserves of oil and natural gas, acquired 17 percent of Volkswagen’s voting rights in 2009, becoming the third-biggest investor in VW. “We are really committed to VW,” said VW supervisory board member Hessa Al Jaber. “They are taking steps to mitigate any future risks on emissions.”
https://insideevs.com/big-oil-fights-against-electric-cars/

Who Killed The Electric Car?
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Email I received yesterday from a customer who actually does carbon audits. His rebate was $3000 on a $12000 system, which was funded through the carbon tax. Rebates now canceled by the conservatives.

“One month in and the heat pump is great and the first hydro bill for the time on auxiliary is only $100.00 more than usual, so it looks like a very inexpensive heating season.
Bonus the carbon emissions for the hydro are approximately .02 tonne as opposed to what oil would have been of about .273 tonnes co2e for the same $100.”
Keep in mind his oil usage bill would have been double the $100. So twice the the .273 tonnes
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Budley Doright said:
Email I received yesterday from a customer who actually does carbon audits. His rebate was $3000 on a $12000 system, which was funded through the carbon tax. Rebates now canceled by the conservatives.

“One month in and the heat pump is great and the first hydro bill for the time on auxiliary is only $100.00 more than usual, so it looks like a very inexpensive heating season.
Bonus the carbon emissions for the hydro are approximately .02 tonne as opposed to what oil would have been of about .273 tonnes co2e for the same $100.”
Keep in mind his oil usage bill would have been double the $100. So twice the the .273 tonnes
Click to expand...
Heat pumps use electricity which mostly comes from burning coal. So, great, he's dumping less CO2 -- 273 TONNES -- into the atmosphere but still dumping 273 tonnes. How much would it cost to make that heat pump zero carbon emissions? Would the price be all that attractive if he had to pay for mitigating all his emissions?

I installed a super de duper high efficiency gas furnace about 20 years ago and keep my house temperature at about 60 F during the winter. It still burns natural gas. Is the answer to switch to another appliance that burns less but still dumps tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over time? If that's the case then we should be looking at the majority of people who can't afford those appliances and come up with a way to get them a better system too. But is that really the answer?

Doesn't it just slow down the rate of climate change? Not only that, but are these appliances really solving the problem or just making ignorant people like me think I'm doing something that I really am not. If that's the case then I'm being used as a tool to enrich somebody else. Fuck that.

My point is, these rebates look to be marketing gimmicks that sell more appliances and people like the rebates because they make a good product cheaper. Without a comprehensive systematic plan with the goal of zero CO2 or at least non-harmful rate of carbon emissions, I'm dubious of these gimmicks. Also, I don't blame you, I'm no saint and I see what I'm doing better now than I did 20 years ago when I went with that furnace. So, what's the objective to address human caused climate change, how do we achieve it, how much will it cost and how do we pay for it? I don't know and that's what I'm asking.
 
Last edited:
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Heat pumps use electricity which mostly comes from burning coal. So, great, he's dumping less CO2 -- 273 TONNES -- into the atmosphere but still dumping 273 tonnes. How much would it cost to make that heat pump zero carbon emissions? Would the price be all that attractive if he had to pay for mitigating all his emissions?

I installed a super de duper high efficiency gas furnace about 20 years ago and keep my house temperature at about 60 F during the winter. It still burns natural gas. Is the answer to switch to another appliance that burns less but still dumps tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over time? If that's the case then we should be looking at the majority of people who can't afford those appliances and come up with a way to get them a better system too. But is that really the answer?

Doesn't it just slow down the rate of climate change? Not only that, but are these appliances really solving the problem or just making ignorant people like me think I'm doing something that I really am not. If that's the case then I'm being used as a tool to enrich somebody else. Fuck that.

My point is, these rebates look to be marketing gimmicks that sell more appliances and people like the rebates because they make a good product cheaper. Without a comprehensive systematic plan with the goal of zero CO2 or at least non-harmful rate of carbon emissions, I'm dubious of these gimmicks. Also, I don't blame you, I'm no saint and I see what I'm doing better now than I did 20 years ago when I went with that furnace. So, what's the objective to address human caused climate change, how do we achieve it, how much will it cost and how do we pay for it? I don't know and that's what I'm asking.
Click to expand...
I think I mentioned one a few pages back.
Our state is 90 odd % hydro. We could be 100% hydro except we sell power to the mainland. But the Govt here introduced a interest free loan of up to $10k for solar, double glazing, insulation- that sort of thing. Its not a rebate its just an interest free loan. Its a simple thing that doesn't cost that helps people that helps the planet.

JJ mentioned new hosing with Solar. That will become the norm id wager.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
I think I mentioned one a few pages back.
Our state is 90 odd % hydro. We could be 100% hydro except we sell power to the mainland. But the Govt here introduced a interest free loan of up to $10k for solar, double glazing, insulation- that sort of thing. Its not a rebate its just an interest free loan. Its a simple thing that doesn't cost that helps people that helps the planet.
Click to expand...
Yes, hydro is good. So why, then is the world burning so much coal?

In my neck of the woods, dams are driving salmon to extinction. Personally, I'd rather we look at alternatives.

I'm not saying any of this is bad, I'm just saying we keep punching at the problem without knowing how to beat it. It's a system-level solution, which make any one effort ineffective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top