Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Bloomberg Originals" channel.

In Europe the nations and the consumers have nothing against the GAS pipelines (for the most part). Those come from Russia to transport gas (from conventional fields, not fracking) to central Europe). And the U.S. and the NATO hawks are fiercly opposed to Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland getting their gas from Russia. Even Merkel the spineless oppotunist does not want to bow to U.S. interests in this area. It forces the Europeans to consider Russian interests no matter the sanction circus, and the U.S. frackers want to sell their (more expensive) gas in Europe. There are some oil pipelines as well, but the Europeans get a lot of oil via tankers from the Middle East (the oil that the U.S. controls with the bloated military and the occasional war). the U.S. does not need the oil of the ME (not anymoere) - but they want to control it anyway in order to have leverage over the other nations (incl. the "allies" / vasalls like Europe, or Japan). Like they try to control Venezuela. Which in turn get closer to Russia and China, so in terms of foreign policy that is the most idiotic strategy that the U.S. could take. It shows that U.S. foreign policy serves the interests of oligarchs - while Russian and China have geostrategic goals. you may disagree with them, but at least they have a strategy and one that is fairly consistent.
12
GAS pipelines - and not for fracked gas ! It is gas won in the conventional way from russian gas fields.
3
@tomwce1 Maybe they couldn't well afford a second car. so what ? a decent used car will still cost you 8,000 USD plus insurance, maintainance, etc. it adds up. Trains work at better capacity, person can do something else and stress and risk to have an accident is much less. Added benefit: no tickets and also no traffic stops
3
@evannibbe9375 you want to check out MONEY CREATION and velocity of money.
1
@Obscurai You can tell that Indian farmers that buy the fertilizers herbicides and degrade their land with "modern" methods. So it becames less resilient against draughts.
1
Meanwhile China has built the bullet trains 1 decade ago ....
1
You want to check out John Bolenbaugh. Obviously you will NOT get correct information from U.S. media OR the politicians of both parties.
1
The Chinese use 30 - 40 % of energy per person compared to the U.S. (and have become the work bench of the world). (a few years ago it was same consumption for 3 times the people, could have increased). The U.S. has deindustrialized and still squanders more energy than any other major country. Plus China pushed for renewables and helped to promote them globally (they got more affordable and technology improved for all buyers) while the U.S. bailed out banksters and pushed fracking. In China they start to realize the value of water for agriculture, they want to become independent from imports of food and also have large scale projects to win back land from deserts. Whatever they do water pollution wise in the cities and areas of manufacturing - they are not so foolish as to start fracking large scale - they think a few decades ahead unlike the U.S. voters and politicians.
1
@CuriousityFTW solar panels can be installed in land that cannot be used for farming. Windtowers and agriculture coexist just fine. many solar panesl are installed on rooftops (where they shade the building a little bit).
1
@Obscurai The Chinese would have to increase their consumption of energy a LOT to match the U.S. Not sure if U.S. consumption still increases (most likely), it is no wonder that a developing countries that lifted many millions out of poverty increased use of resources, and energy.
1
@Obscurai Have you ever heard of Cancer Valley in Louisiana ? Pollution will increase in China - but it will take them still a long time to get at U.S. levels ! probable they will stop before rich U.S. does anything about it.
1
it does not matter if there is a (lot) of tar in the thick oil, and whether or not California oil if even worse. At least in CA they keep the oil in one place. And the hippies are not happy with it, it is the neoliberal Democrats that allow fracking in California.
1
@Obscurai I think that the crude oild complements the qualities they extract with fracking. For the same reason they want to regime change Venezuela. There is no pipeline so the Koch Brothers refineries in TX have to import the VZ oil. It is harder to process and "dirtier" (Saudi oil is better quality overal and cheaper to extract and process for isntance), but it is a sort of oil they need to add to the mix.
1
it is Canadian oil. on the other hand Biden sold out the water protectors that protested DAPL. (oil from the Dakotas). They. Will. Spill. And with some bad luck into the Missouri, source of water for millions of people.
1
@nicktecky55 Bloomberg with many, many apolgies for the fraudulent "charity".
1
Window dressing. Plummeting oil prices meant the "investors" were not so interested in Keystone XL anyway. Plus in 2016: After months of protests by the water protectors he "stopped" DAPL - but only after Trump had won. Knowing full well that Trump would reinstate the project and I guess they could not do much in December and January anyway (cold in the Dakotas). (Hint. The oil industry not only bribes Republicans).
1
On the contrary. Pipelines for crude oil will leak for sure and they will leak while companies and EPA will look the other way for a long time. and even IF they have to "clean up" because the spill is so huge - you should check out whistleblower John Bolenbough (interview with Jordan Chariton for instance).
1
Check out John Bolenbaugh on leakages, they can go on for years. And Keystone XL is additional capacity so that has nothing to do with stopping anything "overnight", first step: do NOT EXPAND capacities. They do not update railway infrastructure (which CAN be used for other transports, so that would be an investment into the future, whereas pipelines are useless if oil consumption goes down).
1
If safety cannot be guaranteed with railway (due to underfunding). What makes you think the pipelines will be monitored ?? They WILL leak, that is sure. A train spill cannot be covered up - but a pipeline spill will be.
1
How much asthma does an electric car or heating trigger ? as opposed to a combustion machine. What are the costs for noise related illnesses (the stress of living in a loud environment leads to more and earlier heart attacks, likely it has to do with quality of sleep). What are the costs for draughts, floodings, displacment for raising CO2 levels ? No one factors these costs in, it is typical for our economic system to offload external costs. Some countries are really bad (developing countries), some are bad like the U.S. The wealthy European nations have higher standards, but not one country has a HONEST price for the products.
1
Replacing fossil fuel (created in the last 200 million years) with human labor, technology and ingenuity would also be a boost for our economic system. Full employment. Sure there would be higher costs in some areas. Like food. Reduced consumption of energy at higher prices, so net maybe slightly higher. That can be handled by setting a new price point with minimum wages. and a CO2 benefit. They had a tax in Australia and the households got that benefit to offset cost for them. Of course if consumers used energy saving measures and looked out for such products - they could pocket the beneft instead of having to spend it for higher costs of living. Which steered the companies to make such offers. And consumers would naturally go for the low haning fruits first. So not a lot of micro managing necessary. The more realistic costs and prices create their own pressure and the benefit made it politically acceptable and eased the burden for lower income people.
1
The companies buying it knew it was window dressing no doubt. The "charity" is a fraud, no doubt with cushy posts and a few ego strokes for big donors.
1
BionTec got 450 million USD (376 millionen EUR) from the German government. For developing the vaccine, not sure what they got before (or if anything). Not to take away from the contribution and perseverance of the scientists. But Pfizer snatched up Biontec when it was a safe investment and now they insist on patent protection for the developing countries. Which means that the virus will become endemic (if it is not eradicted there, we are not getting rid of it her either and who knows what other variants might pop up, the existing ones are bad enough. Pharma industry does not see that as disadvantage, more subsidies, more research, new vaccines will be needed for new variants .... Unfortunately they get more infectious - or they would not prevail - but also more damiging, I would not complain if they would spread more easily but fewer complications, but that is not the case, it rather goes in the other direction.
1
No they do NOT have a greater footprint and I challenge you to come up with proof. I mean you can either harvest what comes in as huge surplus from the sun - or squander in a few hundred years what needed 200 million years (old coal is that old) to form. Gee, I wonder what has the higher impact. Metals, and rare elements are also used for petrochemical industry. and they create a LOT of pollution. Also traffic or when a hurricane floods oil refineries in Texas and the toxins get into drinking water.
1
When have you heard the last time of a trainwreck with solar panels poisoning a river. or a wind or solar spill creating havock on the environment. Even with rare earth mining - the renewables come ahead. And Lithium will not be used for large scale energy storage in the future. Solar panels work for 20 years just fine, likely longer. Plus they can be recycled.
1