re: Massive hole reopens in Antarctic sea ice

quote:

---

Thank you.

I will read this and consider it when I have time.

I do appreciate the effort.

---

There are a number of easily available resources, or easy to digest literature that I can point you in the right direction with. Or if time is of the essence, some pretty informative lectures and podcasts that can expand on the subject to whatever degree you seek. Within a more condensed time frame.

quote:

---

You're naive if you believe this. China and many others will say they're meeting their goals while not actually doing so. Welcome to real politik.

---

Much harder to hold them accountable sitting on the outside of the only major global climate accord that can hold them accountable, and giving them the leadership position to make that self-determination without US pushback.

Though that statement of yours is also a bit of a misrepresentation of the reality. Fact is China has made major investments in green energy, and will continue to do so because they see the future as all indictors have signaled, and have said as such loudly and definitievely, that they will not be late to the green revolution like they were to industrial and digital revolutions. They want to be leaders and they want to dominate the industry.
LINK
LINK
LINK

quote:

---

the transition is happening solely based on the free market, I'm ok with it. If it happens by government fiat I'm not.

---

Hate to break it to you, but our energy economy post industrial revolution has almost never been a free market. And it certainly is not one today. Not by any definition I am aware of. We subsidize oil and have for over a century. Either directly or through indirect subsidies like carving out preferential treatment on land leases. Sometimes legally, sometimes not. Today, a good bulk of it is done militarily. We also insulate polluters from the true cost of their products by not fully accounting for their negative externality costs. Something a libertarian to a liberal economist will tell you is a major market breakdown problem that warps consumer signals and decision making.

To go further on this point, in fact, studies have looked at the global subsidization of fossil fuels and found a staggering figure: over 5 trillion globally in 2015. So even if hands off is your ideal, you might want to start with the number one offenders in that category, the fossil fuel industry. Which is by far the largest beneficiary of subsidization. Which as a side point, should also signal to you just how naive it is to think you can advance as a major energy producer and exporter without investment.

Our president talks about beating China on trade and becoming a country that builds things again, well, you are competing with countries that are not scared to make investments in the energy economy of the future to gain a leadership position. As that study illuminates very clearly. China is ramping up to invest 350 billion in green energy by 2020. Which will help continue their march toward being the global leader in many types of solar panels while also making major inroads on wind energy. Bringing millions of jobs with it already. America can get with the times and begin the process of building that future, while helping reduce the cost of the unavoidable bill we keep adding to because of climate change, or we can stagnate and continue compounding the problem and wait til its too late to catch up. While letting the trillions in investment opportunities go to the next countries.

quote:

---

We subsidize oil and have for over a century.

---

I missed this last night.
In fact, we """subsidize""" many things . . . and we do so for a reason.

Meanwhile, these are the companies paying the most in US taxes:

1. ExxonMobil
• Income tax expense: $31.05 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $78.73 billion
• Revenue: $428.38 billion
•1-year share price change: 6.56%
• Industry: Oil and gas

2. Chevron
• Income tax expense: $20.00 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $46.33 billion
• Revenue: $222.58 billion
• 1-year share price change: 9.52%
• Industry: Oil and gas

3. Apple
• Income tax expense: $14.21 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $55.96 billion
• Revenue: $164.69 billion
• 1-year share price change: -20.68%
• Industry: Computer hardware

4. Wells Fargo
• Income tax expense: $9.10 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $28.47 billion
• Revenue: $79.45 billion
• 1-year share price change: 16.77%
• Industry: Banks

5. Wal-Mart
• Income tax expense: $7.98 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $25.74 billion
• Revenue: $469.16 billion
• 1-year share price change: 21.87%
• Industry: Supermarkets

6. ConocoPhillips
• Income tax expense: $7.94 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $15.42 billion
• Revenue: $60.35 billion
• 1-year share price change: -22.86%
• Industry: Energy exploration and production

7. JPMorgan
• Income tax expense: $7.63 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $28.92 billion
• Revenue: $91.66 billion
• 1-year share price change: 24.30%
• Industry: Financial services

8. Berkshire Hathaway
• Income tax expense: $6.92 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $22.24 billion
• Revenue: $162.46 billion
• 1-year share price change: 31.01%
• Industry: Asset management

9. IBM
• Income tax expense: $5.30 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $21.90 billion
• Revenue: $104.51 billion
• 1-year share price change: 7.57%
• Industry: IT consulting

10. Microsoft
• Income tax expense: $4.57 billion
• Earnings before taxes: $20.03 billion
• Revenue: $72.93 billion
• 1-year share price change: -12.04%
• Industry: Software

quote:

---

in fact, studies have looked at the global subsidization of fossil fuels and found a staggering figure: over 5 trillion globally in 2015.

---

There simply is no truth to the claims here. None. In addition to US tax citings above, the UK oil and gas industry pay over twice their normal corporate tax rate. None of that includes other assorted assessments such as gasoline tax. The $5Trillion claim is just bizarre.