Comments by "C_R_O_M__________" (@C_R_O_M________) on "The Diesel Story - How the EU Pretended to Fight Climate Change While Poisoning its Citizens" video.

@mmuller2402 you don't know what you are talking about. Uranium rods are not discarded or half-spent, especially after the re-enrichment process that is being used for years now. Go read Cameco's details about that, you might learn something useful. Nuclear technology has advanced a lot! Now about Fukushima and Chernobyl: The first was a mistake by Japanese authorities not having the back up generators at correct positions (and as far as I now General Electric was telling them to change things and they didn't) and the Chernobyl "accident" was not exactly an accident but an experiment (beyond the capacity of the reactor) that went south! But what do you expect from communist regimes that have no regard for human life whatsoever, overcome by their greed/lust for world domination...
19
Fun fact: The American company Caterpillar had done a similar trick to that of VW's "dieselgate" prior to VW and only got a slap on the wrist (they got fined by only a very small fraction of the amount that VW was made to pay). Some say that VW saw that and risked to cheat. Another fun fact: Get ready to see the same "revelations" (on carbon emissions and pollution) by EVs. They are not "green" whatsoever. Moreover, CO2 is not a problem at all, it's beneficial and the planet has actually greened by about 20% due to more atmospheric CO2 and crop yields are at all time highs. Governments are tweaking regulations to maximize tax revenue and central planning. Just as the clip showed, they always APPEAR to act on good intentions but in reality cronyism, taxes and the excuse for central planning are the actual end goals. Finally, when it comes down to governments trying to predict the future, there's a problem: the future!
16
@MrBenHaynes "clean batteries" is more of an oxymoron. Batteries are the most toxic waste in landfills (by far).
15
@alessandro3139 then vote for politicians who advocate for the elimination of such crony relationships. A certain newly elected President in a Latin American country, comes to mind. P.S. At the same time pursue PERSONAL SOLUTIONS which will make you independent and in no need of assistance from political scumbags.
8
@allahuvonaugustera7895 Exactly! As if the atmosphere around the center of cities, such as London. has invisible barriers and doesn't mix with the air from surrounding areas where all sorts of vehicles are allowed.
6
@wolfgangpreier9160 "Owning a car is a burden not in any form independence. You have to pay for it. " >> That's some weird prerequisite for defining or excluding "independence". I know very well the independence cars and motorcycles give me as I can go anywhere I want, whenever I want without depending on someone else! That's the point. "Independence does not have anything to do with owning any products or paying money" Money makes it possible to gain independence. I can buy a property and become independent on almost everything I need, energy, food, even fuel. Try doing without it and you'll possibly end in prison (trying to steal from others). "Clean = not emiting poison from its behind." >>That's some seriously unthought definition. What if the poison doesn't come from its behind but gets emitted by the machinery that mined for its parts, the industry that produced it or supplies the energy that it moves with? Is that "clean"?
2
Great comment!
2
@torres4433 The "climate change" comment is nonsense! I can easily prove to you that you don't know what you are talking about!
1
@Simon-dm8zv what's wrong?
1
@Simon-dm8zv Yeah, I figured that much. Would you mind telling me where's the mistake? Specifically. Do you actually believe that EVs are produced and operate without emissions (which is the "green" criterion - not mine, theirs) and that end of life toxicity (of those huge batteries) isn't going to pose huge environmental issues? For reference, Lithium-ion batteries are notoriously difficult to recycle. Then, are you doubting that CO2 has greened the planet to a great degree? If you think so you are doubting what NASA themselves say. Of course, in their typical fashion, they compliment the fact with some dubious theories about how this is bad (!!!). Notice that the "bad" part that NASA serves to the public is just theory whereas the greening is observable and a fact. If the earth had its green (foliage) coverage reduced year-over-year, they would scream from the top of their lungs (and I'd probably joined them) that this is not good, but now they try to propagate that actual greening of the planet is bad! That's, of course, nonsense! Fun fact: the satellite program which measures atmospheric temperatures across the globe and possibly monitors foliage coverage (that's how we know the planet is greening) is operated (and invented) by two avid skeptics, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy.
1
@Simon-dm8zv "EV produce LESS CO2, not 0" >>You obviously begin with the false assumption that more CO2 is bad. It isn't! It's a benefit on all accounts. The greenhouse effect is something that might depend very little to CO2 as CO2 is just 0.04% of the atmosphere from which 0.03% was already there before we even started adding to it 200 years ago! 0.04% is nothing and one would assume a very high ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) to refer to CO2 as a "problem" (which I sincerely don't see, at the end of the day a warmer world is much more hospitable for all life on Earth than a cold one). The problem with modeled ECS at high sensitivity values is that it doesn't align itself with observations and that means it's likely substantially lower. In other words, the assumed "forcing" of CO2 (never actually proven experimentally) is exaggerated in theory vs what we actually see in reality. In the meanwhile the planet is actually greening. Not just theoretically. I'll stick with reality vs the potential malevolent incentives of people who want to persuade us that they can predict the future, even though they don't even though they can't provide basic answers on climate questions (like what causes the ENSO cycles). Your Laconic answers tell me that you don't know much about the subject. I happen to do so and I am a scientist who understands the unfathomable complexities involved and the huge uncertainties in proving causality. On EVs, don't be so sure that they are a net saver of emissions. That depends on many many outcomes throughout its life. It's not that simple not black and white. Nuance is needed.
1
This assumes that regulations work! They don't! They just maximize incentives for more lobbying!
1
@imrileth6618 being content for low taxation is like being thankful that a rapist didn't use the whole length of his, you know what, in you! Involuntary taxation is theft!
1
@victormiguelmontero136 renewables are a horrendous scam. Not only they are not "clean" (be their own criteria) but their EROEI is so abysmally low and horrendous that they make no sense whatsoever. Unless of course you got cronyism and energy companies you have to feed (off taxpayer money) as a government. The toxic waste that these "renewables" (which are NOT renewables at all - they can't be recycled) will produce at their end of life is going to need a new wave of regulations, taxes, scams, from governments. The usual staff!
1
@1873Winchester It's the governments you vote and allow to "regulate" the market that have the power to attract cronyism and lobbying. If governments weren't allowed to regulate companies could just focus on a good market product. Surprise!
1
@lurifaks92 "They easily made that back in reduced hospital bills with a renewal of the car fleets of the countries" >> That's just your hypothesis. I could argue that the newer fleet is faster hence potentially more dangerous. The net result no one really knows. You are favoring regulatory intervention which brings lobbying and cronyism. Then the net result is worse products for all (as it is not the market forces that determine what's best - but the distortions from regulations, just like the clip showed).
1
@wolfgangpreier9160 "First it must be clean, then it must be compelling then the people must pay for the folly of owning a car. " >> Define "clean"! Why is it a "folly" to own a car? Owning a car is independence!
1
@chrishoff402 I agree with many of what you said in your comment. I am a scientist and have been researching climate science as a hobby for at least 15 years. It is a huge scam.
1
@meetim6271 "government is typically under the control of big business one way or the other." >>When people vote for government interventions they inadvertently vote for regulatory capture, lobbying and corruption. It's the lack of economic literacy in the general population that makes this possible. Hence, malevolent governments incist on public education schemes (if possible they would eliminate all competitors from the private sector) to keep the populace at economic illiteracy levels.
1
@1873Winchester "Yeah you need to know the root cause in order to tackle it, lobbyism and corruption, but I repeat myself." >>Lobbying and corruption isn't possible until you vote for a government program (and politicians) that endorse high degrees of regulation activity (which attract regulatory capture) and market interventions. When you bestow the power to clueless politicians that are there to promote their political careers, corruption is a natural consequence.
1
@crissd8283 "Often politicians are seen as not doing their job if they don't pass a bunch of stuff. Sadly this pressure causes them to pass garbage." >>That's because people from below want politicians to turn things in their favor. A good politician will resist regulations. One such great politician was the American President Coolidge who resisted interventions to the economy and managed to overcome a bigger (initially) economic crisis than the subsequent 1929 market collapse. The crisis he handled (by doing nothing - a conscious choice) was resolved in a year and a half (if I recall well) whereas the 1929 crisis lasted for over a decade and with two very intervening Presidents (Hoover and FDR). FDRs perceived (but not actual) success was not due to his very intervening New Deal policies but due to the fact that WW2 awoke US productivity and gave a huge industrial boost for the decades thereafter.
1
@1873Winchester "That's the stupidest thing I've ever read" >>Visit the possibility that you are just the stupid recipient of a very educated comment.
1
@jansebesta3112 the Chinese overtake us because they don't abide to any silly law about CO2 emissions. Thus they still have very cheap energy (burning coal) and combined with (still) low labor cost, you simply can't compete with them.
1
@MarcoYolo420 Actually, you don't know what you are talking about! Batteries and EVs are NOT emission free. In fact they are MORE emission-intensive than ICEs, especially during production and with many cars getting written-off even after minor road accidents, way before reaching the very high break-even point mileage (for emissions vs an ICE), you are left with net emission GAINS, not reductions from EVs! Moreover, fossil fuel subsidies are actually TAX reductions, not actual subsidies. On the contrary, the same Big Oil companies that have transitioned to call themselves "energy companies" (like TOTAL) they are getting actual monetary subsidies for their "renewables" projects which is an actual scam. "Renewables" are not only NOT renewable (you can't recycle them) or carbon-free (how about many hundred tons of cement for the base of just one wind-turbine?) but they are also inevitably horrendously low in EROEI figures and unreliable, with inevitable intermittency which makes them nonsensical and just virtue signalling instruments! That's what they really are! Propaganda in name ("renewables") and reality (not at all carbon-free and needing carbon-intensive backups) so as to make you willing to allow high taxation and the central planning of the economy (which is always a very bad idea).
1