Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment China releases 11x more radiation into atmosphere (Score 1) 106

You can misrepresent the stats by only looking at coal for electrical power generation, rather than total coal use.
You can misrepresent the stats by citing 2 anomalies of new coal plants, while China is building far more coal plants each year.
The fact remains the US long trend is moving away from coal, the Chinese long term and ongoing trend is to burn as much coal as they can dig up and import.

The stats speak for themselves. 4.83 billion tons of coal burned by China and 0.42 for the USA. CO2 emissions for China up 38% over a 12 year period, USA down 13%.

https://e360.yale.edu/features...
https://www.instituteforenergy...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an...
https://www.statista.com/stati...

Comment Re: Everyone does. (Score 1) 45

If you do most of your business in Ireland, then you're a foreign company.

The GP is most likely speaking from the EU perspective. Where Irish registry makes the company (subsidiary) a native EU based company. Allowing it to be treated as a domestic company throughout the EU.

The fact is, with offshore manufacturing, you can engineer the tax rate by "realizing" the profits at any stage in the global supply chain. See other response.

Comment Its also offshore manufacturing ... (Score 1) 45

Most large American (and other countries with reasonable tax rates) corporations at least consider moving to Ireland or similar countries to lesson tax burden.

It's more than that. Offshoring the supply chain also allows companies to "engineer" where "profits" are realized when parts, subassemblies, product assembly, distribution, etc are done overseas. "Profit realization" can occur at any point, reducing taxes even bore the completed consumer product gets to Ireland.

Comment Re:Who would have bought Microsoft if it paid taxe (Score 1) 45

But they had to do it or they would have been crushed or acquired or worse by some bigger and meaner, dare I say more evil, corporate cancer that did a better job of retaining its earnings by using tax dodges.

Is this sarcasm? Which bigger and meaner corporation would have crushed or acquired Microsoft?

IBM could have acquired MS back in the day if they had any brains. Keeping DOS in-house. Instead they decided to play accounting games and have a key critical component under the control of a contractor.

Comment EU not as different as press suggests (Score 1) 106

This is as bad as Europeans crowing about "free" healthcare or higher education. It's not free. They paid for it with their tax euros.

The US and EU are actually not as different as many think with respect to higher education. The US basically has free nor near-free college for all via the community college systems.

With respect to healthcare, US taxpayers subsidized them in two ways. (1) US drug companies selling them medication at or near cost, not including R&D. (2) Defense spending below NATO requirements. With both of these issues changing it will be interesting to see how they manage healthcare.

Comment US and EU coal release more radiation than nukes (Score 1) 106

It is something old nerds are weirdly obsessed with, like Ayn Rand books...

Maybe on the anti-nuclear side. They keep discussing 1960s technology. On the pro nuclear side they are a bit more up to date on the newer western designs which are far safer.

Even Greenpeace founders recognize being anti nuke was an environmental mistake. The US Coal industry has released more radiation than the US Nuclear industry. Similar for the EU.

Comment China burns 11x the coal, CO2 up 38%. (Score 2) 106

But Trump says Americans need to put coal first

This isn't China. The US President cannot command industry to use coal, as Xi Jinping and the CCP do in China. US industry has been moving away from coal for about 70 years.

You can misrepresent the stats by only looking at coal for electrical power generation, rather than total coal use.
You can misrepresent the stats by citing 2 anomalies of new coal plants, while China is building many new coal plants.
The fact remains the US long trend is moving away from coal, the Chinese long term and ongoing trend is to burn as much coal as they can dig up and import.

The stats speak for themselves. 4.83 billion tons of coal burned for China and 0.42 for the USA. CO2 emissions for China up 38% over a 12 year period, down 13%.

"[2026 March 26] Despite being a renewables superpower, China continues to permit and build new coal-fired power plants at a rapid pace. Analysts say the nation’s new five-year plan will ensure further coal plant expansion and jeopardize China’s ability to deliver on its climate promises.
In 2021, China’s leader Xi Jinping made two important promises intended to signal China‘s commitment to fighting climate change. At the Leaders Climate Summit in that April, he announced that China would “strictly control” coal generation until 2025 when it would start to gradually phase it out. He also pledged that year that China would reduce the energy intensity of its economy — the amount of CO2 used to produce a unit of GDP — to 65 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. This month, as China unveiled its plans for the next five years, both promises appeared to be in trouble.
The 15th Five-Year Plan offered a chance to correct these negative trends and get China’s climate ambitions back on track, but it is an opportunity the government appears to have missed ... Instead, they changed the way they calculate energy intensity, perhaps to disguise the failure to meet Xi’s target, and set a looser ambition for the next five years. "
https://e360.yale.edu/features...

"[2026 Feb 10] Despite media and other reports that China is into “green energy,” the country is still using coal to power its economy, with about 80 to 100 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity added in 2025. The Statistical Review of World Energy reports that coal accounted for 58% of China’s primary energy consumption in 2024, with fossil fuels accounting for a whopping 88%. Coal also provided 58% of China’s electricity generation in 2024. While a report by Ember indicates that populous developing countries like China and India “led the charge in adding more renewable energies” in the first half of 2025, their generation shares show that coal is still king in these countries, and their coal-fired capacity additions indicate that coal will continue to power their economies for the foreseeable future.
The Statistical Review of World Energy reports that coal accounted for 58% of China’s primary energy consumption in 2024. Oil was at 20% and natural gas at 10%. That means that 88% of China’s energy came from fossil fuels. Carbon-free energy (nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and most other renewables) only provided 12%. Since 2000, China has more than tripled its coal consumption and now uses more coal than the rest of the world’s combined usage, burning 56% of the world’s coal. As Doomberg points out, China consumes almost 20 times the combined consumption of coal by the 27 member states of the European Union, based on 2024 data.
In 2024, China released 11,173 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — 31.5% of the world’s total. That was about 4.5 times as much as the European Union and almost 2.5 times the amount that the United States released.
China produced 57.8% of its electricity from coal and 33.7% from renewables and hydropower. It is unlikely that China has since switched those numbers so radically when it expanded the capacity of coal-fired plants more in the first half of 2025 than at any time in the past nine years, according to DW. It did so by adding between 80 and 100 gigawatts of new coal power to its grid in 2025, with 21 gigawatts of those gigawatts added in the first half of 2025
The reason that China and India will not divest themselves of coal is that they need affordable and reliable power for their industries and for their residents. With the advent of artificial intelligence data centers that are energy hungry, China will be relying on its vast coal-fired grid — larger than all the generating capacity in the United States — to lead the race. It also needs coal capacity to process the rare earth and other critical minerals that the world needs for “green” technologies."
https://www.instituteforenergy...

"[2025 August 21] Coal-power capacity could surge by as much as 80-100GW this year, potentially setting a new annual record, even as coal-fired electricity generation declines." "A former senior official at one of China’s largest power firms stated in an interview in June 2025 that companies are building coal power capacity due to central government pressure."
"The use of coal to make synthetic fuels and chemicals is growing rapidly, climbing 20% in the first half of the year and helping add 3% to China’s CO2 since 2020. The coal-chemical industry is planning further expansion, which could add another 2% to China’s CO2 by 2029, making the 2030 deadline for peaking harder to meet."
"Excess coal-based capacity and a lack of incentives for shifting production mean that electric arc steelmakers, rather than coal-based steel mills, tend to absorb reductions in output, as their operating costs are higher and costs of shutting down and starting up production lines are lower."
"Even if its emissions fall in 2025 as expected, however, China is bound to miss multiple important climate targets this year. This includes targets to reduce its carbon intensity – the emissions per unit of GDP – to strictly control coal consumption growth and new coal-power capacity,"
https://www.carbonbrief.org/an...

"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. ""
https://www.statista.com/stati...

Comment Re:Power infrastructure (Score 1) 106

The reasoning from half a century ago has not disappeared. It still exists. To ensure industrial power regardless of the public grid's ability to do provide power.

It also seems hypocritical to be saying companies should be putting solar on their building roofs, over their parking lots, etc; but they can't have other types of onsite power generation. If there is excess power from the on-site generation there is no reason not to sell that access back to the grid, just like with solar.

Comment Re:Its already progressive ... (Score 1) 45

Elon should be paying at least 150bn per year in tax if he's worth 1tn. Where's the money?

Where's the money from the income? 1T is a fictitious number, it's just a theoretical guesstimate based largely on stock price. He owns a lot of Tesla and SpaceX, he needs to in order to control those companies.

Many upper middle class Americans are paper millionaires, their fictitious wealth estimate being over 1M based on home and retirement accounts.

Comment Higher rates for wealthier brackets. We do that. (Score 1) 45

> The top 1% pay about 38% of all federal income taxes, while earning around 22% of all income.

That doesn't mean what you think it does.

It does when you include both statements, rather than snip the inconvenient fact that the lower 50% pays 3% of all federal income taxes. A progressive system taxes different income brackets differently, higher rates for wealthier brackets. We do that.

Comment Re:Power infrastructure (Score 1) 106

They aren't more realistic they just don't give a rat's ass if there's a meltdown because they don't have to live near it.

Untrue. The folks working at the onsite power station will live nearby. How they operate the plant affects their families. My home town had such a plant back in the day. The local crew ran the place impeccably. Plus they were still subject to public safety inspections by state authorities despite being used for onsite industrial purposes.

I have yet to see anyone explain to me how you prevent businessmen from coming in and skipping all the maintenance so they can pocket a shitload of short-term profits.

Because the workers who live in town, whose kids go to school in town, etc do the maintenance. And state officials occasionally inspect.

Every time I bring this up somebody inevitably just says but oil and gas kill more people. Okay I don't give a shit because I don't want to be alive in America without property and the people of Fukushima lost all their homes and property.

What I am referring to may be natural gas, or nuclear, or hydro, or geothermal ... just not oil or coal. And if it is nuclear it won't be a 1960s design like Fukushima. Newer designs are far safer.

Comment Re:Power infrastructure (Score 1) 106

AI companies have been caught lying to investors on numerous occasions. More regulation on data centers is the right action, not less.In principle, a nation should not permit the private ownership of vital infrastructure.

I'm only referring to running their own on-site electrical power station. Companies running their own electric power station was a pretty normal thing in the past. They were not connected to the public infrastructure, they were strictly for on site use.

Comment Dupe stories aren't enough on the modern Slashdot (Score 2) 8

What's the deal nowadays where Slashdot stories repeat exact duplicate blocks of text two - or sometimes even three - times? This isn't the first (or second, or third, or fourth...) time we've seen this during the past year or so.

Are they always editor-created stories (versus voted up in the Firehose)? Or, are they always stories submitted by one particular Slashdotter?

I know it's been de rigueur for many years to pick on Slashdot's editing, or lack of it... but recently the quality has somehow dropped even further - it's at an absurdly bad level now.

Slashdot Top Deals

Chairman of the Bored.

Working...