On 06/12/2022 12:38 AM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 05:24:39 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/2022 05:40 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:08:59 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/10/2022 09:42 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 04:09:04 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/10/2022 06:21 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:48:25 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
>>>>>>> <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 03:51:56 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 06/09/2022 11:06 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 22:16:57 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2022 01:49 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 06:27:09 +0100, rbowman
>>>>>>>>>>>> <bowman@montana.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/06/2022 11:07 AM, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 11:09:47 PM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:39:50 AM UTC+2, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:26:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gas price was still cheap in 2019, around $3. It's $8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlikely to fall back again. So, less of the stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burning up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the price of gas won't stay at $8 a gallon. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else, over the next few years, the amount consumed will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because of BEVs and that will continue to make permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreases
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the price of oil and gasoline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an enviromental argument for taxing it more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heavily, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less of it gets burnt. As more renewable energy becomes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> availalble,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxing fossil carbon will put less of crimp on the economy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole, so it probably will happen, but the fossil carbon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extraction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> industry won't like it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure if it really make sense to ship LNG to Europe. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (US) got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than enough and Europe need more of it. For $8 NG, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> costs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around $3 to liquidify, $6 to ship and $2 to gasify. It makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economical sense, but only political sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not an overnight solution either. The last I knew Germany
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was light
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on LNG terminals that could easily be wired into the existing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipelines
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for distribution. I see it as the US trying to sweet talk them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that really isn't to their advantage. The Ukraine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiasco is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good excuse for dropping the pipeline that would be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fuck the Ukrainians, buy cheap Russian gas!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to be slowly occurring to the Europeans.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> India is amping up coal production and imports to generate
>>>>>>>>>> power, and
>>>>>>>>>> buying Russian oil to refine and export to countries that won't
>>>>>>>>>> drill
>>>>>>>>>> or refine themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The market works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/exclusive-india-seen-facing-wider-coal-shortages-worsening-power-outage-risks-0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The market or desperation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They need to stop reproducing so fast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.news18.com/news/india/indias-birth-and-fertility-rates-have-fallen-more-than-chinas-data-shows-3967391.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole world is trending towards negative population growth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2 billion would be a good number.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10 million in the US would be good... Even the 160 million of 1950
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be better than 330 million and growing. Double the population ain't
>>>>>> double the fun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now compare your density to the UK. I meant how many people not how
>>>>> stupid you are :-)
>>>>
>>>> 68 million in 93 thousand square miles. You must be falling over each
>>>> other. This state is 147 thousand square miles with slightly over 1
>>>> million. You could drop the entire UK into the eastern part of the
>>>> state
>>>> where there's not much besides prairie dogs and antelope.
>>>>
>>>> At 700 people per square mile there are few American states thatcome
>>>> close.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/183588/population-density-in-the-federal-states-of-the-us/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yip, the UK is so overloaded it will soon sink. It's not global
>>> warming, it's weight!
>>
>>
>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-guam-could-capsize-after-marine-buildup/
>>
>>
>> He said he was joking but given the quality of our politicians you never
>> can tell. At least you didn't make Boris walk the gangplank to lighten
>> the load. I do like the idea of sending excess baggage to Rwanda though.
>> Where, exactly, is Rwanda again?
>
> I hope you're joking. Most yanks don't know where their own country is.
> https://youtu.be/kRh1zXFKC_o

I'll admit on being hazy on Africa. First, most of the countries there
have changed since my school days. Second, who really gives a damn?