Electrostate v Petetrostate: USA is still #1 CO2 emitter, but what of CO2-free goals?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;3060185]I haven't cut and pasted anything from ChatGPT Spidy. I just write and know fossil fuels a lot better than you do. And I'm more accurate on this subject than many of the sources you quote.
OK, if it will make you happy, China is an electrostate that emits 33% of the world's CO2 and relies on fossil fuels for over 80% of its [B]primary[/B] energy.[/QUOTE]LOL! That's funny "you know fossil fuels", since you didn't seem to know [I]the U.S. was still, the world's largest/biggest cumulative CO2 emitter in history,[/I] with China as a distant second, just overtaking Europe. For example see: [URL]https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-have-now-caused-more-global-warming-than-eu/[/URL] OR [URL]https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/which-countries-have-contributed-the-most-to-historical-co-emissions[/URL].
You're just like your MAGA Fuhrer, claiming victory, when there is [B]none![/B]. Just take the latest bullshit bungling and incompetence in Strait of Hormuz, where according to many political pundits, has left Iran, stronger and in more control of the region. But on the other hand, has left the world looking at renewables, clean tech and EV, more favorably. So thanks MAGA Fuhrer!
That said, I look forward to your so called "reverence" on fossil fuels, have at it.
Naturally, I'll continue to focus and discuss my topics choice: [B]Low Carbon to Clean Energy & Tech, Renewables[/B] and [B] Decarbonization[/B] of the residential, commercial and industrial world, by any and all countries, companies and entities, helping move toward a cleaner, greener energy transition and non-fossil fuel choice, where possible.
So while [I]the U.S.[/I] has emitted around 400 billion tonnes of accumulated CO2, the most in history, making it responsible for 25% of historical emissions, in comparison, China is the second-largest contributor with about half that amount. [URL]https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2[/URL]
And while many in [I]the U.S.[/I] would like to deny their CO2 emissions history, China has acknowledged they are today's largest CO2 polluter, accounting for approximately one-third of annual global emissions, China is on track and has committed to their long-term carbon-free goals, in 2030 (peak) and 2060 (net-zero).
China's transition speed, to meet their carbon free goals, is so impressive, they're on track to achieve said goals, earlier than expected. [I]The U.S. not so much![/I]
Is Alberta, just a one trick Pony?
[QUOTE=Canada;3060334] Alberta is voting October to 9 to separate from Canada. It will never pass but it shows the frustration by a conservative province getting screwed by a socialist government.[/QUOTE]Nothing like blaming years of incompetence, on the Feds, right! Correct me if I'm wrong, but at one time, didn't Alberta have some sort of sovereign fund equal to that of Norway?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;3060188]Alberta ran surpluses in four of its last five fiscal years. If you don't believe that, look it up instead of asking me to jump through hoops like a trained seal.
Yeah, when oil prices are low, the province will run deficits. The 9.4 billion CAD deficit estimate for the 2026/2027 fiscal year was made before the Iran war. If current strip prices for oil are indicative of what comes to pass, Alberta will have a surplus in 2026/2027, not a deficit. So you actually came up with an example of "right-wing conservative" competence?[/QUOTE]Alberta sounds like a one trick pony?
And BTW, as China and Asia become more and more clean energy and renewable led dominant economies and less reliant on oil and gas, I wonder if Alberta (this one trick pony), which remains one of the highest cost oil and gas producers in the world, will compete be able to [I]with cheap U.S., Russia, UAE and/or Saudi oil and gas?[/I].
How else does China benefit?
[QUOTE=HotDog666;3060251]This will be remembered in the annals of history as a watershed moment: when America began its downfall from its unimpeached dominance. Humbled and humiliated by a basketcase of a nation like Iran.
What hope does America have against China? None. The Chinese cannot believe their luck. The Americans have wasted vast amounts of money, ammunition (which will take years to build up) and most of all political and global goodwill. The writing is on the wall for Taiwan.
Not only has America lost a great deal from this farce, but so has most of the world. The only ones who've gained are Israel and Russia and possibly China.
The MAGA fuckwits who still endorse Trump are beneath contempt and beyond comprehension.[/QUOTE]Yes indeed, and quite right on all accounts!
BTW, what other ways, do you see China benefiting from this massive MAGA Fuhrer / Iran war cluster-fuck, other than Taiwan, in which I think China will adopt a more prolonged and patient, sort of passive aggressive approach to winning over Taiwan.
3 photos
Why are deadbeat Repub Red state MAGA snowflakes always so ungrateful?
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3060444]Yeah, it is "helpful" to you in that when shown you are dead wrong about a subject, you criticize the link. Here is what you wrote:
You asked for it and were given it and instead of acknowledging you were wrong, you changed the subject. That is why you have the credibility of Bagdad Bob.
And this is the classic dumb Dem: being arrogant as hell on a subject they were dead wrong about and then making personal attacks.
The arrogance really raised its head with the red-blue comment about how the blue states were carrying the red states. The Californian refugee like you is among the most despicable characters in American history. You leave California with your six figure pensions and toss the burdens onto the young but instead of acknowledging the shit shape you left your state in you, you carry your politics with you.
You even arrogantly state: why would anyone live in West Texas v. The great state of California? For certain with the eyeball test, the Amarillo, Texas area does not match the California coast. However, with so many jobs being mobile these days, the difference is astonishing.[/QUOTE]Wow. I actually thanked him for the link after merely asking for it on the eventually proven true suspicion a link would not support any contention whatsoever that Trump produced any "huge economic gains" in America and you ultra-sensitive MAGA snowflakes just evaporated instantly.
I asked the question twice to give AI a chance to add or elaborate details on the topic.
Do Blue states pay more in Federal taxes to support America than they get back in value while Red states pay less than they get back in value?
[B]The AI Overview[/B]
[QUOTE]Blue states generally pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal funding, acting as "donor states," while many red states receive more in federal spending than they contribute, acting as "recipient states". This trend is primarily driven by higher average incomes and higher tax payments in blue states.
Time Magazine
+2
Blue State Financial Flow: Blue states tend to have wealthier residents and higher economic activity, resulting in higher federal income tax payments. Between 2018 and 2022, blue states contributed roughly 60% of all federal tax receipts.
Red State Financial Flow: Many red states receive more in federal aid and programmatic support, often due to lower average incomes and higher demand for social services or federal assistance.
Regional Disparities: In a 5-year assessment, 14 of the top 20 states with the highest net positive flow of federal funds (receiving more than they pay) were red states.
Notable Exceptions: Some states, such as Virginia and Maryland, break this pattern. Although they may vote blue in federal elections, they are often major recipients of federal funds due to high federal employment and large military presences.
Time Magazine
+4
Data shows this trend is a long-standing pattern driven by economic and demographic factors rather than political affiliation alone, though it is frequently highlighted in political debates.
DC Journal
+3
..........
Yes, data generally shows that blue states pay more in federal taxes than they receive in funding, while many red states receive more in federal spending than they contribute.
Time Magazine
+2
Key Disparities
Net Donor States: In 2024, 19 states sent more to the federal government than they received. These "donor states" are predominantly high-income, urban, and Democratic-leaning.
California: Paid approximately $275.6 billion more in taxes than it received in 2024.
New York: Contributed roughly $76.5 billion more than it received.
Net Recipient States: Red states often lead in federal dependence, largely due to lower average incomes and greater needs for federal assistance.
New Mexico: Remains the most dependent state as of 2024, receiving $3.42 for every tax dollar sent to Washington.
Virginia and Maryland: Are major exceptions; though often blue-leaning, they receive massive federal inflows high federal employment and military presence.
USAFacts
+8
Why This Happens
Income Concentration: Blue states generally have higher average incomes ($14,500 per resident vs. $11,400 in red states), leading to higher tax payments.
Social Spending: Federal programs like Medicaid, Head Start, and Title I (education) disproportionately benefit red states where poverty rates are often higher.
Retirement Migration: Residents often pay Social Security and Medicare taxes in high-tax blue states during their working years, then migrate to lower-cost red states to collect those benefits.
Reddit
+3
[/QUOTE]Inarguable Conclusion: Blue states carry the load for deadbeat Red states.
Ask the question yourself for easy access to the hyper links included and seen in the above quotes.
Oh, and as always, we American tax-payers in California offer our usual heartfelt "You're welcome" to Aunt Bea, Jethro, Gomer, Goober, Tiny and you.
