Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "TLDR News EU" channel.

 @ivanbrezina7632 Even with 100% coal power a EV still pollutes less then a gasoline car if you just drive it daily for more then a year before replacing it.
1
@Axeiaa Yes and no. I think that you're on to something. But also rural areas need to be electrified. But perhaps a rationing of plug in hybrids would work. People who genuinely need gasoline will buy a plug in hybrid etc even if the waiting list is 5 years. Everyone else will just cave in and buy a electric car they can get instantly.
1
@istvanczap3004 Actually that depends. EVs experience less wear and tear. But when they do need repairs it's often batteries (expensive) or electronics that's complex and expensive to repair, especially because you need to know different things to repair those then a gasoline car...
1
@yarpen26 And that's why we need more transfer of funding from countries like mine that can afford it. Still, I believe that what we've already sent has helped a great deal. Poland has exploded economically since joining the EU.
1
 @dixiedean1955 You can tow just fine with a EV, just make sure that you find one rated for it as not all EVs are.
1
@aleks5405 Even in a rural community you can plan to make costs lower. Instead of farm houses being built in the middle of a farm you can have 4 farms with the buildings in the corners of the plots close to each other with a road, electric lines, fiberoptic cables, sewage and clean water all going on the border between the farm plots. With the houses close together you can cut costs and the use a public transportation on demand service serving multiple such households. A EV on top might be needed, and can be shared between them. Likewise with 2 electric tractors shared between them instead of four diesel ones owned by each farmer seperately... And so one and so forth.
1
@aleks5405 As for EVs vs Gasoline cars impact on the environment. Buying a EV and scrapping it after 10 years is still better for the environment then a well maintained ICE car. The cutoff if you're running on 100% coal power and drive daily is slightly over 1 year I believe? So yes, if you want to buy a new car and then put it on the scrapheap after less then a year a ICE car is indeed better for the environment. That said, if you are using 100% coal power a plug in hybrid actually is better then a pure EV for far longer. Perhaps that 10 year number you cited was for that? I don't remember how long it was...
1
 @rudysmith1552 Isn't Bulgaria in the EU? If it is those Chinese, Russian and US cars will have to follow the same rules.
1
 @eskemeldgaardkrogh4145 Busses don't have to be powered by diesel...
1
@mitotakjde9763 I live in a village with a population of just 1 200 on a island with just 5 000 people, I don't own a car and don't need one. I can walk to the village center for stores and services and jobs etc and take the bus to the express boat to the closest city from another village that's connected by said express boat to the mainland. Living somewhere rural isn't a excuse for poor public transportation. Granted, for individual farms you do need cars... But that's where EVs can do the job. Now granted, this isn't ideal. I wish there where more busses. And I'm probably going to save up for a EV because it's practical in some years, but it's not urgently needed for me.
1
@Member_zero No one is going to pay 20 000 USD for a new battery. I'd you have a worn battery you'll replace individual cells rather then the whole battery once the gurantee runs out. It's far cheaper. The car as a whole like I said needs less maintenance and costs less to fuel, so while the up front cost is slightly higher the lifetime cost is actually lower. As for driving, the instant torque of a EV beats the slow one of far more powerful ICE cars any day for me... And I like the low center of mass... If you want to keep a ICE veteran car that's of course your prerogative. But with time I hope that those ICE cars will be banned from regular roads and only found on racing tracks or conventions etc where people have applied for temporary permission to run them. It's not going to be a problem if a ICE car runs once in a blue moon like one of the cars from the 1800s... But they shouldn't be a part of peoples normal commute etc. Rather I'm hoping they'll be with a EV to the location in question them drive around a little bit showing it off then driven back by a EV to the garage it's stored in.
1
What do you mean? Got any sources?
1
 @nntflow7058 Actually those are anarchists... The social democrats are more centrist.
1
 @Joso997 That was actually center right compared to the political center of Germany at the time.
1
@Agentforty532 Isn't what that?
1
I do hope that you guys in Africa manage to pull out of poverty. You seem to be doing great so far. We're still going to depend on Africans willing to move to Europe for a while though. Basically every continent except Africa has too low a birthrate to maintain a sustainable population even if individual countries in said continents do. Indeed China alone is going to lose the equivalent to the whole population of Africa in population in the next few years... Europe isn't doing quite as badly, but still needs more people. I hope that Africans will continue to make use of services like the free universities in here in Norway (free for non-citizens too). Even if the majority returns to their homelands in Africa to work there having some stay here would still end of benefitting us in the long run.
1
As for the aid and grants... Not all of it is harmful... Norwegian aid from my understanding doesn't involve any diplomatic demands or any other negatives, at least not intentional ones... It's generally speaking meant to be accountable, and results oriented.
1
@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Seriously... The EU is a project of solidarity that has ensured peace in Europe. It's definitively a good thing that it exists as it puts a stop to what would otherwise be a constant power conflict between the major European nations... Germany, Benelux and France most certainly belong in a union together although I think the push towards a federal model rather then a confederate model is a bit too hard even there. As for the idea of anyone being charged with treason? Like, seriously, are you real? They all worked within the legal and democratic framework of their individual nations. I'm against membership for my own nation and the other nordic countries because I think the EU is too dominated by people living in the high population density temperate lowlands who don't have much experience with rural arctic and mountainous conditions, nor with dealing with actual nature in the sea or on land and ensuring the continued survival of the fish species in our seas etc...
1
@Kallikukurinn I don't think it's offensive to our relatives at all personally. Joining the EU could be positive, but the EU needs reform before it's suitable for us in Iceland (you) or Norway (me).
1
@karankapoor2701 Eh, no... Iceland is a nice place, but there's a lot of room for improvement in Iceland. Maternity leave on Iceland is still behind other nordic countries. The system of distributing fishing rights from how I understand it, still favors larger fishing vessels too much rather then smaller ones, something that can be detrimental to smaller fishing communities. There's quite a bit of racism in the country and a belief that Icelanders are somehow superior to others, including us living in other nordic countries (I'm a Icelandic citizen living in Norway). No, Iceland most definitively isn't "pefect". There's a reason why me and my family left the country.
1
Bloody first past the post electoral systems...
1
 @Erydien While the fourth republic wasn't perfect it was certainly closer to ideal then this monstrosity...
1
 @julymalamb The burning has always been unnecessary, and is concerning. But strikes and protests are definitely justified.
1
@zwyxy A pension reform will eventually be needed. Europeans don't have enough kids, so the tax burden pr tax payer will have to increase if nothing is changed because fewer people are paying for the pensions of more people. But there's many different ways of reforming such systems. And there are other alternatives that can help quite a bit in reducing the impact of the lowering population. Like increased immigration. Or increasing the productivity of the economy and therefore the tax income.
1
@jameskillops4314 No, when you vote for a president directly it's a single person position. And that is a problem. Because it's a binary election result, meaning that if you have 10 candidates getting 10% of the votes each one person wins even if the majority of the population disagree with this persons politics. And sure, France has a runoff system, but even so that left wing voters where forced to vote for Macron because La Pen had a few more votes then the left wing candidate and Macron despite prioritizing the elite at least isn't a racist like La Pen... In South Africa there's other issues holding you back, not the electoral system as such. Nordic countries have proportional representation just like South Africa, but our countries are well run. Stop voting for ANC and things will improve. South Africa needs to develop a democratic tradition... With other parties actually forming a realistic opposition... It might take some years. The labour party essentially ran Norway alone for several years after the war since they ruled at the outbreak and lead the government in exile. So just like ANC they had many votes due to historical actions rather then actual policies. But eventually their grip on power where lost. And now we're switching between the political blocks quite a bit...
1
@jameskillops4314 Canada and France both have poor governments that's not really all that democratic... The only anglophone country that has a good electoral system is New Zealand. Also, comparing economies with Europe is hardly fair...
1
@jameskillops4314 I'm not French, nor do I live in France... I live in Scandinavia, and from our point of view they're not doing great...
1
10:06 Okay, that's a fair bit of criticism. Although there are changes. They're just generally gradual in nature. A evolution rather than a revolution. Something that's usually better economically as companies are able to predict what environment they'll be operating under more accurately when making plans. Yes, changes are made, but it's rarely Earth shattering ones. I'm a former far left voter, and I still think that's a good thing. You don't loose sight of the end goal, but you work your way there slowly and steadily instead of turning everything upside down overnight like certain countries has done recently...
1
@marcdc6809 Unless you like the climate of Venus you might want to reconsider that idea... But even if we don't reach the point of no return it's still making the weather more and more unpredictable. The planet might be getting warmer on average but it's still likely to get colder in some areas etc...
1
That probably plays a role too, but this is still going to help us a great deal.
1
Derisking? Definitely. Decoupling? Not necessarily. I'd like us to both avoid doing certain things with China and enforce requirements for access to alternative supply chains when China is involved. But if 25% or even 50% of a companys production is in China that's not the end of the world. But if sudden decoupling happens our companies shouldn't suddenly stop functioning.
1
Why is that?
1
@Showwieh No. Not northwest, or northeast or anything, just *north*. Countries like Scotland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Estonia shouldn't be grouped together with the likes of Germany or Spain. Our climate is different, our culture is different and our history is different. And as a result so is our values. Don't get me wrong, we have a lot in common with Germany in the those of the nordic countries that has germanic languages. But ultimately we've been both blessed and cursed with having a totally different geo-political climate to operate in. Different challenges to face. And while technically we do end up landing in the "west" when forced into a system that only divides into those two, east and west. It's outright offensive to be labeled in the same group as the continentals. The continentals can rely on food security due to the agriculture on the European plains and overland trade with nations on those planes. Because of that food they have a history of empires with high enough populations to be capable of defending themselves in a way that north european nations could only dream of. And a cultural unity that just doesn't exist here. They had resources we couldn't muster. Large cities. Feudalism. Professional armies. All of those things. It didn't really work the same way up here. I mean, sure, Denmark and Sweden each tried to make empires at various times. But neither ever had the populations to trully back up those attempts. And we always where the underdogs vs our much larger neighbours. Russia, England, the HRE and France. Scotland, Norway and Sweden had rugged terrain that we used to our advantage in wars. Norway, Sweden and Denmark all relied on our navies to try to hold our own. In Denmarks case to land troops behind invading armies once those push too far north, cutting off supplies. And all of us have tons and tons of islands to defend. Parts of Scotland together with Iceland, the Faero islands, Finland and Estonia where essentially colonies of the nordic region for a long, long time and spent so much time under our rule that we left our mark there. There's just so much...
1
"PEI"?
1
Proportional representation would help with this issue. My suggestion is this. Make the island ruled by a parliament elected through multiple multi member constituencies. Distribute seats between the constituencies based on how many of each ethnic groups is there. So donone round of granting seats based on the French population, one round for the Asian and Oceanian immigrant population and one round for the Native population. Give the natives more seats to distribute this way, but don't make any of these seats exclusive to any ethnic group. This way more people from areas with a large native population will be represented regardless of how many immigrants or French people might move in, and everyone of each group has a vote even if they might have less influence depending on where they live, if they live in a area with a native majority their vote is just as important as that of the natives. Then add leveling seats for each constituency. These helps correct the difference between how many seats a party gets from the various constituencies, how many votes a political party gets at a national level and how many sests rhey would have gotten at a national level. Again this benefits the native population in the sense that they get more seats populated with their ethnic group, but it also makes the votes of the overall population matter more im terms of the balance between the political parties. Remove the electoral threshold for the individual constituencies, but keep it for the leveling seats. With multimember constituencies and proportional representation you also split up the voter blocks, making it less ethnicly focused. As people voting for smaller parties either reprinting a ethnicity or just the population at large will get more representation, leaving the big ethnicity focused parties weaker, and giving more room for coalition negotiations across ethnic lines... It gives both ethnic groups more room to get someone from the other ethnic groups over on their side in the parliament. Pick a representative to the French parliament by making the local parliament elect them, meaning that even parties not big enough to get into the French parliament will be involved in picking who is sent. And kick the can down the street when it comes to independence 40 years. Add a renegotiation about the number of seats between the ethnic groups 20 years down the line within the Parliament, meaning that natives in theory can get more say in how they're distributed then. And give everyone who has lived on the island for 10 years or more voting rights on the island, if they apply for it (think citizenship). Then automatically from then on. Gives more immigrants a say in matters too. People will be able to move around to influence what constituency has the most seats and the ethnic makeup of the area. And political parties can appeal to a certain ethnic group or to multiple ethnic groups or the whole population depending on what they wish to do. But with the coalitions and cooperation of a parliamentarian system it should hopefully make peoples identity leas connected to voting patterns. Oh, and in independence referendums and other referendums every vote is equal. Make constitutional changes require a referendum.
1
Any particular reason why the greens where placed left of the S&P on the left-right scale? Wouldn't it be mor eaccurate to place them to the left of Renew Europe but right of S&P?
1
@illegitimateotaku794 Yeah, I'd love a overview of the various European political parties. But not just limited to a few like that. While I vote Green they're a small party here in Norway and in several other European nations even though they're big in some now. And there's other parties that's interesting. Some unique to individual nations.
1
@hansheinrich958 A break up of the union into smaller pieces is perfectly fine. As a liberitarian I don't believe that the end goal should be a fixed political status but rather a dynamic everchanging status with different paterns emerging as the needs of the region changes. Yes, I want nations in the region in general to move in a more liberitarian direction on the whole with more freedom for the individuals and the societies. But enforcing that would be wrong and counter to such liberitarian values. If you truly believe in freedom and peoples right to self determination you need to value the freedom and right to self determination of those who don't like or want it too unfortunatly... Be that economic freedom of social freedom. The political freedom one is a bit tougher since removing it removes the dynamism and ability to increase freedom that we value... But Eastern Europe must want said freedom themselves, we can't force it on them. Get my meaning? So back to the union. If the eastern nation want trade without other aspects of the union we should respect that. The region has been subject to a lot of warfare through the ages, and there's been a need for a centralized political structure to ensure that nations in the area wasn't swallowed by nearby powers. While we in the west for the most part had at least some natural barriers defending us. Germany was a bit of an exception, but having the Holy Roman Empire protecting the member states the smaller member nations ended up having quite a bit of freedom that nations further east just didn't have the luxury of. Likewise mountain nations had to deal with hard conditions with little interaction with the outside world, be that outside rulers or trade or anything else, encouraging self reliance and people helping eachother by sharing resources and treating eachothers as equals, because quite frankly any of us could end up subject to a avalanch or rock slide or flood or storm at sea or whatever and might need shelter and food and help from eachother... The whole strong leader thing just didn't hold water in such conditions. The viking era kings didn't even have a single capital in Norway, they literally had to travel along the coast from royal farm to royal farm to hear cases because expecting people to travel to some kind of capital was just downright insane and you needed to be local in some way to have any kind of power locally. The Swiz and us both followed the old germanic traditions of having local councils where people could bring up issues, create laws etc. And even when we here in Norway had kings those where elected in such councils on a region by region basis and said councils remained important even under the kings, retaining a lot of power. Kings where developed from kind of "chiefs" I guess... Kind of hard to explain this in English... The Norwegian word is "høvding". But basically the germanic tradition was someone being first among equals. The warriors choosing one among them to lead the tribe who wasn't some "God anointed supreme being" but rather just a regular warrior that just happened to be respected enough to be in charge for the time being for whatever task was at hand. If they no longer did a good job someone else would be choosen.
1
@hansheinrich958 My point is, we can only grow together if we allow people to choose not to do so. With a really, really decentralized approach like a confederate structure we here in Norway may one day join the EU, but we'll never feel comfortable with staying and it's always going to be a lot of backwards and forwards on that topic. The only way we'll ever be able to join is if A the power comes from the bottom up meaning from the states rather then from a central entity, said central entity can be given power from a local level but said power needs to be revokable and the powers needs to be opt-in. And B we need a way out, or we'll never want to join to begin with. We are not the same peoples as the Germans, related language or not. You guys are used to completely different conditions, you're used to having to band together against external enemies due to living on the flatlands and living conditions where relatively speaking easier in Germany then in mountain nations like Norway or Switzerland since you actually have proper farmlands in most of your territory. Your main enemies where other people. Ours where nature itself and the changing conditions that kept popping up. We barely consider people in a different valley the same people as ourselves and certainly are not going to let those outsiders of the different valleys dictate how we live our lives, so how on earth would we ever be able to settle down and let people who don't even live in mountains rule over us? Germans have also been exposed to centralized goverment since the time of the Romans since you bordered them, you had the Frankish empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire... For you the idea of somehow having the same goverment as someone who you can't go and face on a daily basis doesn't seem as batshit crazy as it does to us. And similar cultural differences exists all over the continent. Trying to shoehorn everyone into the same exact goverment just does not work. And trying will not lead to peace. The main reason that the EU has managed to promote peace so far is exactly because it isn't unified in that way, because it is fairly bottom up in its power structure still. Although I would argue that it isn't bottom up enough and is becomming more and more top heavy... There's a lot of people who want more cooperation, including me. But more cooperation will only happen in a framework where people make the choice to take part in said cooperation at a local level. And have the option to opt in and out at *will*.
1
@Orthane Seriously... Be real here... The EU is nothing like the Soviet Union, and you know it... Yes, there's definitively issues about the EU that needs to be resolved... But it's not a dictatorship and it's not Soviet Style, quite the countrary, the EU is more democratic then most former eastern block nations are themselves...
1
@hansheinrich958 That said, Orthane talking about the EU as being a soviet style dictatorship probably stems from the eastern nations quite frankly being tired of being dictated by a external power on a political level. Another reason why trying to force political conformity is harmfull...
1
@hansheinrich958 Germany France and the Benelux countries drive towards a more unified EU with a top down power structure shows a lack of understanding of the rest of the continent. It might be a good solution for the border areas between France and Germany where there's resources you've faught over so many times. But for a whole continent with as much cultural diversity as Europe has you need a more nuanced approach.
1
Why on Earth would we think otherwise?
1
 @Spacedog79 That's not exactly true. The majority of people that's economically left wing is also libertarian and the other way around.
1
10:40 Norway also got our election coming up, have a look at our system too? It's complicated (although that's not something the voters need to think about much) but it's quite a interesting system. Also, Norway is at the top of the democracy index. Our system is a variation of the party list proportional representation system, but with a completely different way of calculating it to the Netherlands. There's elements of our system that addresses many of the things that Americans and Brits have critiqued about proportional representation. We have increased power to rural areas (one of the arguments for the US electoral college etc), we have multiple electoral circles instead of just one, so a bit more like the UK then the Netherlands. Parties can grow their power either in a region or the nation as a whole (parties can get representation even without being popular enough in any one electoral circle to get much power if they're overall popular enough) There's no lower limit to the number of voters you need to get a representative. And just like as swing states in the states get more voter participation there we have a swinging point for every party where having more or less then 4% if the votes easily can mean the difference between 2-3 representatives and 6-11 representatives. Meaning that every vote makes a difference even for smaller parties. It can feel a little bit arbitrary to nonlocals. But there's actually good reasons for it.
1