"I have a lot of left-wing friends that have relocated to red states. They enjoy the fruits of the red states while espousing their left-wing fallacies"
They are parasitic locust. They will fed until there is nothing left of the crops, and then go to the next lush field. In effect, they are rich, mobile enough to vote in left wing stup1d sh1t and then when the consequences happen, move on to the next field.
I don't disagree. Beto ought to move to California and really experience life there. I have a hard left friend who escaped Oregon for South Carolina. Can't figure out why one would do that. The good news is many people who escaped from blue states like CA/NY/IL for ID/MT/NC/NV/FL/TX/TN are waking up to why they moved. You cannot be a religious hard right wing Republican and get their vote, but you can be Republican. That's a step in the right direction. The problem is states like Texas need to pass policy that embraces freedom of choice, less regulation, etc (like school choice). When they don't they defeat themselves OR you get a state like Utah where Democrats pose as Republicans and run--->and get elected.
Beto was the greatest thing to Trumpian movement. His open borders ideology, along with his left wing friends, destroyed the health care, public safety and public schools systems along the border. Most Mexican-Americans know this. It is why the Rio Grande valley flipped so dramatically in less than 10 years.
I twist this a bit....some actual environmental investment can be a very good thing. I am in on a small nuclear reactor investment (small reactor and small investment). It makes perfect sense for an Electric Steel mill to have their own nuclear reactor, if the cost to manage it can be made reasonable.
Thus good for the environment and profitable.
Now, I am sure that the Great Thurnberg's of the world and her disciples in Government wouldn't approve of this. That is mostly because they are against humanity and business in general, and not because of any environmental concerns. But you can still invest in things that are good for the environment and profitable. Just have to work through the clown show of regulation.
Well right, but it can pay to be environmentally efficient. Cummings has a hydrogen powered hi-HP engine with comparable performance to a diesel engine. Much better idea than trying to go electric with semi-trucks and construction vehicles.
You don't have to ignore the environment to make better products. It's the goofs who are stuck on their 8th grade science projects who are holding this back.
That is exactly correct. There are costs and opportunity costs to being environmentally efficient. Once the costs bend in favor of environmental efficiency, with NO government input (regulation, subsidy or tax) capitalists will always choose to be more efficient.
Well right, but they can regulate you out of business very easily. Pretty sure we could have a French level of nuclear production going already, but the nimwits who once watched the China Syndrome are the ones now in power at the regulatory committees.
The tricky part is getting the people who really think the China Syndrome is good science to step aside so we can make cheap electricity. They aren't going to go without a fight.
From Cummins' home page: "Our environmental, social and governance strategy focuses on reducing emissions, using natural resources responsibly, and helping communities address real environmental challenges."
They've always been a lefty company, but with focus on making money. Maybe they'll squeak through again.
A lot of modern companies strike the pose to try and keep the crazies off their back and away from their profit center. Tying themselves in knots to not offend! If they're truly trying to make money then they're Capitalists in fact while paying "tribute" to the Marxists. Wish they had more spine.
But hydrogen is simply another way to store energy, like a battery. It will never be competitive on a cost basis with diesel fuel, so while it may be a better idea than electric, it is still uneconomic and thus pointless greenwashing.
If Nuclear electricity costs basically nothing on a marginal basis, and we can make hydrogen out of water, with harmless O2 as a by-product, then it resolves a lot of issues with weight of batteries and heavy metals needed for battery production, plus the inherent inefficiency of multiple energy transfers.
On further thought, the environmental establishment would decide that 02 is some type of pollutant that causes global warming or something, if nuclear -> hydrogen had a chance of working.
"I have a lot of left-wing friends that have relocated to red states. They enjoy the fruits of the red states while espousing their left-wing fallacies"
They are parasitic locust. They will fed until there is nothing left of the crops, and then go to the next lush field. In effect, they are rich, mobile enough to vote in left wing stup1d sh1t and then when the consequences happen, move on to the next field.
I don't disagree. Beto ought to move to California and really experience life there. I have a hard left friend who escaped Oregon for South Carolina. Can't figure out why one would do that. The good news is many people who escaped from blue states like CA/NY/IL for ID/MT/NC/NV/FL/TX/TN are waking up to why they moved. You cannot be a religious hard right wing Republican and get their vote, but you can be Republican. That's a step in the right direction. The problem is states like Texas need to pass policy that embraces freedom of choice, less regulation, etc (like school choice). When they don't they defeat themselves OR you get a state like Utah where Democrats pose as Republicans and run--->and get elected.
Beto was the greatest thing to Trumpian movement. His open borders ideology, along with his left wing friends, destroyed the health care, public safety and public schools systems along the border. Most Mexican-Americans know this. It is why the Rio Grande valley flipped so dramatically in less than 10 years.
Great post Mr Carter! Not sure which part of your "stack" I enjoy more. Your astute observations or the comments they engender! Well done!
Down in flames like every other socialist enterprise. Maybe it didn’t succeed because it was never really tried?!?! They’ll never learn. Sad!
I twist this a bit....some actual environmental investment can be a very good thing. I am in on a small nuclear reactor investment (small reactor and small investment). It makes perfect sense for an Electric Steel mill to have their own nuclear reactor, if the cost to manage it can be made reasonable.
Thus good for the environment and profitable.
Now, I am sure that the Great Thurnberg's of the world and her disciples in Government wouldn't approve of this. That is mostly because they are against humanity and business in general, and not because of any environmental concerns. But you can still invest in things that are good for the environment and profitable. Just have to work through the clown show of regulation.
That's capitalism, not ESG
Well right, but it can pay to be environmentally efficient. Cummings has a hydrogen powered hi-HP engine with comparable performance to a diesel engine. Much better idea than trying to go electric with semi-trucks and construction vehicles.
You don't have to ignore the environment to make better products. It's the goofs who are stuck on their 8th grade science projects who are holding this back.
That is exactly correct. There are costs and opportunity costs to being environmentally efficient. Once the costs bend in favor of environmental efficiency, with NO government input (regulation, subsidy or tax) capitalists will always choose to be more efficient.
Well right, but they can regulate you out of business very easily. Pretty sure we could have a French level of nuclear production going already, but the nimwits who once watched the China Syndrome are the ones now in power at the regulatory committees.
The tricky part is getting the people who really think the China Syndrome is good science to step aside so we can make cheap electricity. They aren't going to go without a fight.
From Cummins' home page: "Our environmental, social and governance strategy focuses on reducing emissions, using natural resources responsibly, and helping communities address real environmental challenges."
They've always been a lefty company, but with focus on making money. Maybe they'll squeak through again.
A lot of modern companies strike the pose to try and keep the crazies off their back and away from their profit center. Tying themselves in knots to not offend! If they're truly trying to make money then they're Capitalists in fact while paying "tribute" to the Marxists. Wish they had more spine.
This is one essence of virtue signaling, and I think you are spot on.
I like the caveat 'real' environmental challenges, as quite a few environmental challenges are just made up as part of a power grab.
But hydrogen is simply another way to store energy, like a battery. It will never be competitive on a cost basis with diesel fuel, so while it may be a better idea than electric, it is still uneconomic and thus pointless greenwashing.
Never? I'd take that bet.
If Nuclear electricity costs basically nothing on a marginal basis, and we can make hydrogen out of water, with harmless O2 as a by-product, then it resolves a lot of issues with weight of batteries and heavy metals needed for battery production, plus the inherent inefficiency of multiple energy transfers.
On further thought, the environmental establishment would decide that 02 is some type of pollutant that causes global warming or something, if nuclear -> hydrogen had a chance of working.