IPCC Report Reveals 'Bleak and Brutal Truth' About Climate Emergency

[longview]

CO2 levels wont go down unless it is captured or escapes. Carbon neutral does not reduce.

Why would you think that? All plants uptake CO2 as a building material.
Even the the most ardent AGW proponent NASA's GISS, says that CO2 will naturally decrease.
NASA The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide

Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years.

Besides it would be quite dangerous to actively attempt to drop the atmospheric CO2 level.
(There is no sign there is a warming tipping point, but there is most assuredly a cooling tipping point)
I am sure you have heard that each gallon of gasoline burned produces like 20 lbs of CO2, this is very true,
but the reverse is also true, each pound of bio mass created requires 3 lbs of CO2.

 

[bomberfox]

Why would you think that? All plants uptake CO2 as a building material.
Even the the most ardent AGW proponent NASA's GISS, says that CO2 will naturally decrease.
NASA The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide

Besides it would be quite dangerous to actively attempt to drop the atmospheric CO2 level.
(There is no sign there is a warming tipping point, but there is most assuredly a cooling tipping point)
I am sure you have heard that each gallon of gasoline burned produces like 20 lbs of CO2, this is very true,
but the reverse is also true, each pound of bio mass created requires 3 lbs of CO2.

This is like when you tried to say heat isnt being trapped by saying UV radiation was going out. Not i buy your shit anyway.

 

[longview]

Ok for the sealioning pedant.
Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of fuel consumption in emerging markets (where price gaps are generally larger) continues to climb. Just 8 percent of the 2020 subsidy reflects undercharging for supply costs (explicit subsidies) and 92 percent for undercharging for environmental costs and foregone consumption taxes (implicit subsidies).

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a high cost. Subsidies have sizable fiscal costs (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution...

www.imf.org

Reforming global fossil fuel subsidies: How the United States can restart international cooperation | Brookings

Johannes Urpelainen and Elisha George discuss fossil fuel subsidies, their effect on the climate crisis, and the United States' role in reforming these subsidies in the Biden era.

www.brookings.edu

Why fossil fuel subsidies are so hard to kill

Behind the struggle to stop governments propping up the coal, oil and gas industries.

www.nature.com

This isnt controversial at all lol!

And if you open the links, you see things like this,

Production subsidies increase the profitability of extracting and transporting fuels, usually by offering tax breaks, production credits, or accelerated depreciation for capital investment.

Wow, that is not a subsidy but a tax deduction against a business expense, the only thing special about it is that
most businesses do not drill wells in speculation, but it is a cost of doing that type of business.
As for Consumption subsidies, I am not sure many of those exists in the US, I gas prices go up when the price of oil increases.

 

[bomberfox]

And if you open the links, you see things like this,

Wow, that is not a subsidy but a tax deduction against a business expense, the only thing special about it is that
most businesses do not drill wells in speculation, but it is a cost of doing that type of business.
As for Consumption subsidies, I am not sure many of those exists in the US, I gas prices go up when the price of oil increases.

You skipped the explicit subsidies. I know why. I opened the ****ing links bub.

 

[longview]

This is like when you tried to say heat isnt being trapped by saying UV radiation was going out. Not i buy your shit anyway.

Since I never said anything about UV radiation, I suspect you are in error!
As for the idea that a pound of burned fuel produces 3 lbs of CO2
and that a pound of biomass takes 3 lbs of CO2, that is in the periodic table.

 

[longview]

You skipped the explicit subsidies. I know why. I opened the ****ing links bub.

That is because the word does not appear in your links.
There is only one reference that is close, and it is out of context.

These factors create multiple barriers to implementing and sustaining subsidy reform. The G20 countries, for example, have been announcing that they will remove inefficient subsidies every year since 2009, and subsidy reform is explicitly stated under Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 regarding responsible consumption and production.

What explicit subsidies are you speaking of that did not appear in your two cited articles?

 

[What if...?]

"Rebellion"
"Revolution"
"Civil disobedience"
"Injustice"
"Action"
"Crisis"
"Emergency"
"Compulsory"
"Total catastrophe"
"Criminal failure"
"Ecocide" (a term they made up)

....but not to ignore their real focus: the "Wealthy"

These aren't the measured words of scientists. They are the emotional conniption fits and ranting paroxysms of extremists and radicals convinced they know better than the world they see around them, but a world which they think isn't giving way to their apocalyptic demands. @PoS : You coined it perfectly, sir - "apocalyptic neo-luddites."

And this isn't the language of "science." It's the language of self-indulgent fear-mongering and authoritarianism.

This is, in fact not a science movement at all, but a social one, one approaching the logical extreme of its original charter - the assumptive control of society under the guise of a manufactured crisis which took them several decades to wordsmith themselves.

Except at least on oil company did modeling long ago that predicted where we are now and covered it up. Bad for business.

Exxon, I think. Interesting documentary I’m part way through.

Super rich companies do not allow their oxen to be gored. They buy politicians by the dozen and lie through their teeth.

Which they are required to do to serve their investors.

 

[What if...?]

And the leaks from the pipelines, the leakage from transport, the leaks from drilling….

And that’s just a drop in the bucket.

Diesel trucks, airplanes, ships, small engines all emit a ton of pollutants. Cars in the US have low emissions, but that’s because the government has forced them to. You know- over the objections of your compatriots who scream about CAFE standards for the last 30 years. The rest of the world doesn’t necessarily do the same.

And we live in a world of vehicles the oil companies and car manufacturers swore could not be built. Mileage for trucks is far higher than it was when I was growing up, for the same output.

The hybrid car makers said it was impossible to make plug in hybrids until private companies started modifying those cars to do just that. Then it suddenly became possible.

 

[Bear5131]

And we live in a world of vehicles the oil companies and car manufacturers swore could not be built. Mileage for trucks is far higher than it was when I was growing up, for the same output.

The hybrid car makers said it was impossible to make plug in hybrids until private companies started modifying those cars to do just that. Then it suddenly became possible.

It's far from being the highest-mileage Volvo in the world as you might remember a red 1966 P1800 with a whopping 3.25 million miles (5.23 million kilometers).
...

Million-Mile Volvo 740 Owner Gets New S60 For Free, But There's A Catch

As a reward for driving a 740 GLE for over 30 years and one million miles, West County Volvo and Volvo Cars USA rewarded the owner with an S60 for two years.

www.google.com

 

[What if...?]

It's far from being the highest-mileage Volvo in the world as you might remember a red 1966 P1800 with a whopping 3.25 million miles (5.23 million kilometers).
...

Million-Mile Volvo 740 Owner Gets New S60 For Free, But There's A Catch

As a reward for driving a 740 GLE for over 30 years and one million miles, West County Volvo and Volvo Cars USA rewarded the owner with an S60 for two years.

www.google.com

I do hope you are kidding.

 

[longview]

Except at least on oil company did modeling long ago that predicted where we are now and covered it up. Bad for business.

Exxon, I think. Interesting documentary I’m part way through.

Super rich companies do not allow their oxen to be gored. They buy politicians by the dozen and lie through their teeth.

Which they are required to do to serve their investors.

You do know that nothing was covered up, everyone knew that CO2 was a greenhouse gas,
with much the same uncertainty of climate sensitivity as it has today.
BTW, it is Exxon who in currently building a low CO2 emissions fuel unit in it's Baytown refinery.
In the future the same unit can produce 100% carbon neutral fuels.

 

[PoS]

The fact that you choose to troll people online instead of "disproving" AGW in peer-reviewed journals says everything: that you know every last one of you Anonymous Internet Deniers are lying for political reasons.

That's why it's so funny when you think you sound like you're *getting* someone.



The worst bit is that our children and grandchildren will pay for the dishonest arrogance of denierism.

LMAO! Per reviewed journals? That's hilarious coming from you.

Since you think the world is gonna end like your cultist friends do, what have you done to save the Earth? Oh right... nothing!

Caught out in your blatant lie, you make personal attacks. Typical PoS.

They said 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. That is not the same as pre-industrial levels. Can you acknowledge this or are you going to lie again?

Average temp has been rising long before that so your moronic response is just that, moronic. Now when are you planning to move into that cave?

 

[bluesmoke]

I am fine with battery electric cars competing on an equal footing with traditional cars, but not the government
preselecting a winner.

You mean like the govt preselecting favorable taxes and subsidies as was done for the oil industry, and subsidies and other favoritism that continue to this day?

 

[longview]

You mean like the govt preselecting favorable taxes and subsidies as was done for the oil industry, and subsidies and other favoritism that continue to this day?

As I have pointed out many times, the oil companies get very few actual subsidies, and the tax deductions
are the same type of business expenses all businesses are allowed to write off of gross profits,
altered only by the unique nature of each business.
An example might be a grocery chain that opened a store, that looses money, closes the store and deducts the costs from their gross profits.
It would be no different than an oil company drilling a well, that turned up dry.
Here is a question, is your gasoline price today lower because the Government gave money to the oil company to keep what you pay lower?

 

[Buzz]

As I have pointed out many times, the oil companies get very few actual subsidies, and the tax deductions
are the same type of business expenses all businesses are allowed to write off of gross profits,
altered only by the unique nature of each business.
An example might be a grocery chain that opened a store, that looses money, closes the store and deducts the costs from their gross profits.
It would be no different than an oil company drilling a well, that turned up dry.

Longview is lying about the oil company's tax breaks. Oil companies get to write off significant costs associated with drilling new wells no matter if it produces oil or not. It is not the same thing as other businesses getting to write off losses.

Here is a question, is your gasoline price today lower because the Government gave money to the oil company to keep what you pay lower?

No, it isn't. The law that gave the oil companies the ability to write off much of the costs of drilling new wells was created back during a past oil shortage to get them to produce more oil. But it doesn't do anything nowadays and the oil company lobbyists have prevented Congress from getting rid of the tax break. So they get a huge tax break while doing nothing to lower costs for consumers.

 

[longview]

Longview is lying about the oil company's tax breaks. Oil companies get to write off significant costs associated with drilling new wells no matter if it produces oil or not. It is not the same thing as other businesses getting to write off losses.

No, it isn't. The law that gave the oil companies the ability to write off much of the costs of drilling new wells was created back during a past oil shortage to get them to produce more oil. But it doesn't do anything nowadays and the oil company lobbyists have prevented Congress from getting rid of the tax break. So they get a huge tax break while doing nothing to lower costs for consumers.

Buzz you have no idea what you are talking about!
A business loss is a business loss, the type of business does not matter.
If they spend money drilling a well, they get to write off those costs.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz you have no idea what you are talking about!
A business loss is a business loss, the type of business does not matter.
If they spend money drilling a well, they get to write off those costs.

I DO know what I am talking about. And drilling a new well is not necessarily always a loss. It is only the oil companies that get this tax break whether the well is productive or not. Think I am wrong? Then show us all where other businesses get to write off something similar to drilling a well even though that well is productive and profitable.

 

[Buzz]

And here is where I quoted the law and provided a link to a good description of the law for longview. Obviously, he blocked it from his memory like he usually does.

 

[longview]

I DO know what I am talking about. And drilling a new well is not necessarily always a loss. It is only the oil companies that get this tax break whether the well is productive or not. Think I am wrong? Then show us all where other businesses get to write off something similar to drilling a well even though that well is productive and profitable.

Not true at all, Walmart can write off the cost of a new store weather it is successful or not.
The reason is that it is a legitimate business expense.

 

[Buzz]

Not true at all, Walmart can write off the cost of a new store weather it is successful or not.
The reason is that it is a legitimate business expense.

Prove it.

 

[longview]

And here is where I quoted the law and provided a link to a good description of the law for longview. Obviously, he blocked it from his memory like he usually does.

I remember, but what you are missing is the intangible write offs mean the oil company cannot write off 100% of the expense, most businesses can write off 100% of legitimate business expenses.

 

[longview]

Prove it.

Read the tax code! Almost any expense required for the continuation of the business.
It really does not matter what the business is!

 

[Buzz]

Read the tax code! Almost any expense required for the continuation of the business.
It really does not matter what the business is!

O.K... I see what the problem here is. You don't know the difference between a deduction and a tax break. A deduction allows you to deduct expenses from your taxable income. And this is what all businesses are able to do. A tax break allows you to reduce the amount of taxes paid. And this is what oil companies get to do. Just deduct expenses directly off of the taxes they have to pay. And only the oil companies get to do this. The fact of the matter is that they are two very different things.

 

[longview]

O.K... I see what the problem here is. You don't know the difference between a deduction and a tax break. A deduction allows you to deduct expenses from your taxable income. And this is what all businesses are able to do. A tax break allows you to reduce the amount of taxes paid. And this is what oil companies get to do. Just deduct expenses directly off of the taxes they have to pay. And only the oil companies get to do this. The fact of the matter is that they are two very different things.

No, you are misunderstanding the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit.
The oil companies are mostly allowed tax deductions of business expenses, some of which are unique
to their business, there are very few tax credits available to them.
I will use your own example.Here

Intangible Drilling Costs​

Intangible drilling costs include everything but the actual drilling equipment. Labor, chemicals, mud, grease, and other miscellaneous items necessary for drilling are considered intangible. These expenses generally constitute 60-80% of the total cost of drilling a well and are 100% deductible in the year incurred. For example, if it costs $300,000 to drill a well, and if it were determined that 75% of that cost would be considered intangible, the investor would receive a current deduction of $225,000.1 Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether the well actually produces or even strikes oil. As long as it starts to operate by March 31 of the following year, the deductions will be allowed.

Strange, but I do not see anything about a tax credit, they are deductions, and it sound like the oil company is not allowed to deduct the full cost of drilling the well.

 

[Buzz]

No, you are misunderstanding the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit.
The oil companies are mostly allowed tax deductions of business expenses, some of which are unique
to their business, there are very few tax credits available to them.
I will use your own example.Here

Strange, but I do not see anything about a tax credit, they are deductions, and it sound like the oil company is not allowed to deduct the full cost of drilling the well.

O.K... The oil company doesn't get to deduct the entire cost of drilling a well but 75%(as a possible example) is still far more than what everyone else gets to deduct. Remember, everyone else just gets to deduct expenses from their taxable income. They don't get to deduct their expenses directly from their total tax bill. It is not the same thing as what the oil companies get to do.

And did you ignore this line from Investopedia?

Virtually, no other investment category in America can compete with the smorgasbord of tax breaks that are available to the oil and gas industry.

Obviously, this is not the only tax break that they get that other companies don't get.