Gas lighting is exactly what you are doing. You repeat their lies over and over until people believe it is the truth…
Kurt
Except that’s not gaslighting. Nice try using the newest buzzword though. I’m surprised you’re not also calling people groomer like everyone else that fell for the propaganda like you did.
Maybe I saw a different play. Idk. I was sure the term came from the play, and that is exactly what happens in the play, but perhaps the whole thing was Russian propaganda.
Really? Maybe you need to go rewatch it because it’s not as simple as “repeat their lies over and over until people believe it is the truth.”
You’re right. It’s repeating their lies over and over again about a lamp until it’s taken as truth. I stand corrected.
Have you actually seen the play? You can be honest.
It doesn’t matter what is about so still no.
Trying to get back on track here.
To answer the question asked; " Would you say this administration suports the oil industry or not?"
Short answer, yes.
To elaborate a bit, oil companies have had record profits, which I’m sure they like, but of course oil prices have been in steep decline for a month, which, I suspect oil companies don’t like, but that means lower prices at the pump for you and I, and lower prices at the bunker barge for my ( and many of your) employers.
Of course cheaper oil also means those working on offshore rigs, drillships, or supply boats are more likely to get laid off.
Of course higher unemployment in the oil patch, means some of you will migrate to the Halls, but then our port agents are having trouble filling berths, especially on the greyhulls, and I’m full book, so more junior members paying dues works in my favor…
To me, the question is too simplistic, and the better questions would be;
What type of society do I want to live in 5 years from now? In 20 years? 50? What type of society do I wish to leave behind, what do I want thevworld to look like a century from now?
How about one that is less “woke”…or at least has a definition of a woman…
I’d settle for one that respects women, but I haven’t seen that lately…
Would anyone care to venture a statement on jobs and manning in the domestic oil transportation sector as it applies to futures? In terms of speculation of employment longevity and prosperity or lack of?
I think that we’re really not discussing the right issue. We all need to reduce the use of fossil fuels so as to reduce global warming. We need to protect the only planet we’ve got so that our children and grandchildren have someplace to live. We need to be talking about retraining and re-educating ourselves and the general workforce so that we can find jobs in newly created fields of engineering. For example, there is way too much trash in the oceans. Why aren’t we developing new sorts of ocean-going vessels which will capture the trash and plastics spoiling the seas we love and find new ways to make use of what might otherwise damage the beautiful blue oceans we dream about?
Do we though? From time to time I like to fact check this truism.
If we cut greenhouse gases in half, will the planet be better? How much better in terms of $, lives saved and general quality of life?
If we double greenhouse gasses, will things be worse?
I’m assuming you mean emissions when you say cut in half, because cutting the total amount of atmospheric GHGs in half would put us in a new ice age, and doubling it would put us about 5° C hotter than present.
We obviously can’t “know” anything concerning decades in the future, but the best attempts to figure it out all indicate that reducing emissions will save money vs. current practice. If you take a look at integrated assessment models such as DICE and others, the consensus seems to be that keeping us under 500 ppm CO2 (which will require emissions reductions) saves money even if you ignore any social benefits.
The models all have their flaws and differ quite substantially, but they generally show that reductions in emissions are an economic positive up to a certain point. These models are generally conservative, the main criticism I’ve seen is that they under-rate some costs of climate change. This makes sense, because it’s easy to say how much X number of tons of carbon storage costs, but it’s very difficult to estimate what percentage Central American crop yields will be reduced by due to workers dying of kidney failure.
There’s no strong consensus on what the most economically-efficient CO2 level in the atmosphere is, but there is a consensus that it’s less than what we’re trending towards if we do nothing
Is the US capable of refining it all itself or does it send the crude abroad to have it refined there and then sent back?
Chemicals that end up at sea come mostly from poor agricultural practices. The nitrates, the phosphates, the biocides, all cause immense damage when they are washed away to streams, rivers, deltas and ultimately the sea. You want to know how to solve global warming/climate change? By not looking at the symptom (which is global warming/climate change) and go straight to the source of the problem: consecutive government malpractice. The people in power have not evolved from the Bronze Age Mesopotamia mentality to mine the resources everywhere until there’s nothing left, for the sake of their self-aggrandizing monuments.
I don’t know who is the captain here that takes the trash derived from the packaging the supermarkets use to sell to the public their rationed portions of bread and other sundries, but their trash ends up in the Philippines. No doubt, exporting trash from Europe is a lucrative business with governmental blessing. And so too is, perhaps, the dumping of fishing gear at sea - which is picked up by The Ocean Cleanup crew. Those Chinese/South Asian fishing vessels don’t bother with taking it back ashore for disposal, something that is not at all surprising when you consider Fishing to have an incredibly high rate of slaves manning the ships. All is extractive, all is exploitative.
I don’t understand most people’s surprise, however, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average is so well known, and Dow Inc. is immense.