patrick.net

@anonymous the above comment by Goran should not have been marked personal.

The mere use of "you" is not necessarily an attack on you personally.

Sure, if they're insulting you deliberately or talking about your personal motives or qualities, that would be personal.

anonymous says

Don't need safety and environmental protections

Well of course we need safety and environmental protections, but unfortunately the way these laws usually get made is this:

* Big company realizes that the cost of complying with various regulations is a problem for smaller competitors.
* Big company gets super-virtuous in public about "saving the environment" with new regulations which may or may not actually be effective at saving the environment.
* Small company cannot pay the cost of complying with the regulations and still stay in business.
* Small company dies.
* Big company raises prices because there is less competition. CEO puts feet up on desk and smokes cigar, chuckling to self.

So mere "environmental regulation" by itself is not necessarily a good thing. It has to actually protect the environment in some significant way, without just being an anti-competitive move.

Patrick says

anonymous says

Don't need safety and environmental protections

Well of course we need safety and environmental protections, but unfortunately the way these laws usually get made is this:

* Big company realizes that the cost of complying with various regulations is a problem for smaller competitors.
* Big company gets super-virtuous in public about "saving the environment" with new regulations which may or may not actually be effective at saving the environment.
* Small company cannot pay the cost of complying with the regulations and still stay in business.
* Small company dies.
* Big company raises prices because there is less competition. CEO puts feet up on desk and smokes cigar, chuckling to self.

So mere "environmental regulation" by itself is not necessarily a good thing. It has to actually protect the environment in some significant way, without ju...

Same with the war on coal. Clean coal today is pretty clean. Many say it's a dying sector anyways, fine, so let it die, but in the market place. If it were so much more expensive than other forms of energy then it should be a quick end and transition to other sources. Why punish those people working those jobs like Obummer did before they can find a different job? I have a hunch that clean coal will be around for a while because its uncompetitiveness has been greatly exaggerated. If it only takes 10% of the total mix, so be it. Just don't skew the market with government "regulations".

Was talking to Coworker that immigrated to US 15yrs ago about the speech. He said he has been a democrat since he could vote but is disgusted by them and asked me how to change parties. It pisses him off that he had to come here legally and the dems are always siding with illegals.

anonymous says

Anyway the other day the owner of the largest East Coast oil-refining complex is filing for bankruptcy and blaming an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biofuel mandate.

This is actually an excellent example of Patrick's statement above. Biofuels are in most cases less environmentally friendly than oil-derived gasoline. They are pushed by big Agro, which, it turns out, not only gobbles up taxpayers' money, but also increases CO2 emissions. True capitalism, where small investment in legislature gives oversized returns.

Once estimates from the literature for process emissions and displacement effects including land-use change are considered, the conclusion is that U.S. biofuel use to date is associated with a net increase rather than a net decrease in CO2 emissions.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1764-4
drBu

Wow, Huffington Post poll, in 2016, that would have been stilted the otherway.

A lot of people, young people btw, have been red pilled.

2018 midterms will be very interesting to see.

anon_e9ed4 says

This is actually an excellent example of Patrick's statement above. Biofuels are in most cases less environmentally friendly than oil-derived gasoline. They are pushed by big Agro, which, it turns out, not only gobbles up taxpayers' money, but also increases CO2 emissions. True capitalism, where small investment in legislature gives oversized returns.

Absolutely correct, when one considers the petroleum involved in transporting/developing fertilizer and moving heavy feedstock to ethanol plants.

Anyway...Trump to Again Propose Eliminating Chemical Safety Board, Official Says


———————-

Trump is doing a good job so far. Pissing off the piss ant liberals and putting crooked Hillary in jail. #MAGA googoo gaga