Dude, if you think the Daily Caller leans left, you must consider Atilla the Hun a moderate.

> If you invent something that causes no physical harm, it's your right to dictate what you do with it.

If this is true, itâ(TM)s only true if you invent in a vacuum. In the real world, every inventor benefits tremendously by innumerous public goods. Accordingly, in an equitable system, the public receives benefit and is allowed some say in deployment.

Alas that we do not live in an equitable system. Even inventors and innovators suffer a lot today, thanks to an insufferable intellectual property regime.

Most of your complaints about conditions in the 1700s had nothing to do with the technology available, as much as it does the availability of technology.

We didn't yet have vaccines, but we had antibacterials, running water, sanitation, painkillers, and more. We also had, as a species, the ability to have enough of these for everyone. We did not, however, distribute these things equitably, for the same reason in the industrial revolution we did not distribute the rewards of new productivity equitably, and while today we do not distribute the rewards of the last few tech revolutions equitably (globally). Arguably, in some realms like biotech, we are moving backwards, as companies are strongly incentivized to developed long-term treatments, as opposed to healing interventions.

Iâ(TM)m definitely peeved about this, but apparently we are in a very small minority who prefer a compact phone with up to date specs. My hands are averaged sized, how do people use their phones one handed? How do they not bend them in their pockets? Donâ(TM)t they get tired of the weight?

Not sure what you mean by âoeweâ, but assuming the US genpop, that figure (if accurate) represents only *consumption*. Parentâ(TM)s point is about refining and finance, of which a Large Portion is handled and profited by US an Euro companies.

where decreased demand correlates with increased prices. Next we'll find that increased supply also increases prices!

We do live in a dark timeline.

> Just as a note - this reactor gobbled up 9 billion dollars for a return of nothing.

Well hardly nothing. I mean, you are a nuclear contractor right? Sure I bid 20 billion low, but itâ(TM)s nuclear. Change orders under 100 million get rubber stampedâ¦my marketing and lobbying money has earned me more digits than i have fingers and toes and _____.

Like 100 years ago?

But end risk for a few species? You betcha! Iâ(TM)m a conservationist, and want to preserve biodiversity much more than the next guy. But this is a nasty double standard.

the real solution is to enforce more meticulous extraction. It can be done, but it does add cost. And this result should be reversed. American wealth stands on the gross exploitation of first people and certain Africans. The least we can do is protect some of their special places.

Not that the judges or the is government cares a whit about anything sacred other than âoedevelopment,â it seems the timing of the âoediscoveryâ (by whom, anyway?) shouldnâ(TM)t matter at all.

I think you misunderstand.

Let me start by agreeing, suburban growth is the problem.

But given that we are here, and people are going to drive, let us discern the social cost of their various choices. My point is simply that, for a given size vehicle, the social cost of EVs tend to be downplayed vs. their ICE counterparts. My point is not that they are greater, but that if they are lesser, it is by a small margin, and a properly tuned diesel's social cost is probably less than an EV (again--given the same size vehicle. So think, jetta wagon v. prius, not oversized powerstroke mega diesel oversized pickup v. prius. Also, powerstroke oversize mega truck diesel is probably better than EV mega truck, especially considering accidents and road wear to do excessive mass).

It just moves the problem away from the endpoint, as I tried to point out in my original comment.

Yes, oil extraction is harmful. But there's still oil extraction with EVs, it's just burned at the power plant. Sure, there's nukes, renewables, etc., but for now, fossil fuels are still a necessary part of the energy supply.

In the short term, for the residents of your city, the problem is away. But it isn't gone. Whether simply shifted to folks closer to the harm, or to future generations, it is still shifted.

It's a hard calculation to carry out, but I'm pretty sure a small, well tuned diesel motor is, mile for mile for a given size car, cleaner globally than any EV.

Of course, the real solution is to move away from cars for personal transportation (let alone ginormous pointless luxury pickups and suvs). If we halved or quarted the miles driven in the US, Canada, Europe we'd probably return to 1800 levels of CO2 right quick.

Removing, via regulation, the profit motive from critical infrastructure operations is not nearly the same as a planned economy.

But hereâ(TM)s a solition that provides both: simply make the people sole shareholders in infrastructure companies. They can run however they like, but they are directly responsible to a board elected by the people, who themselves have all the same rights as shareholders in other corporations.

> it's clearly the better option for moving people around

Thatâ(TM)s not clear to me. The social cost has yet to be fully accounted for. We have simply sequesteres those costs further away from final point of use.

I think in terms of true overall cost, diesel is still a better option. Until we get lighter, longer lasting batteries that arenâ(TM)t dependent on seriously nasty mineral extraction, small and smart ICE is better.

This isnâ(TM)t accurate either. In most cases, addiction is just the most extreme symptom of a highly dysfunctional family. In some cases, addicts can find their way out (often putting in stark boundaries with that dysfunctional family), but I have never seen it happen solely through their own personal efforts. I have also never seen it hastened or delayed due to availability of dope.