joshhsoj1902

joined 1 year ago
[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago (5 children)

That's not a reasonable assumption at all. Everything costs more today than it did 2 years ago, so it's very likely their expenses are higher than it was before.

It's also possible that their profits are way up, but the data you showed doesn't prove that at all.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago (7 children)

That image shows revenue not profit

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

We don't need to even do the math ourselves. It's already be done countless times and the results are always the same.

BEVs over their lifespan in the worst case scenario produce less than half as much CO2 emissions than a similar sized ICE vehicle.

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1357-august-26-2024-small-electric-suv-produces-52-fewer-life-cycle

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

I'm surprised you struggled with this, with so many creditable sources available this was a really easy thing to look up.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

What? You're the one claiming that various metals aren't infinitely recyclable.

It's true that not all metals are, but many of them are (iron, aluminum, lithium to name a few) infinitely recyclable.

Current recycling technology doesn't really matter as it can and will improve with time as the brand new industry scales up.

I'm just here pointing out that your statements are false. That doesn't need to be meaningful to you if you have no interest in learning, but it's useful for other people who are reading this thread wondering why you're being downvoted.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Funny because I never said gas was recyclable. You should learn to read before you try to make snide comments.

I can't get over this. We're talking about energy and hydrocarbons, and you bring up that said hydrocarbon is recyclable. I assume that you're talking about the use of said hydrocarbon in the energy sense (which means burning it to make energy) because given the context that's what makes sense.

Instead you were talking about a completely different and irrelevant use of the hydrocarbon and then think that's it's my fault for not following your nonsensical argument.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Like I thought, you're misunderstanding what you're reading.

Yes current recycling processes can lose 4% of the material. But that's not because they aren't recoverable, that's because it's not currently financially feasible to recover it all.

And that's just the recycling part. For someone suggesting that I should read better you sure aren't great at reading either. So I'll ask it again.

What part of the metal atoms degrade as part of them being used in batteries?

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Yes. Things can be infinitely recyclable. But since you're such an expert. Tell me, what part of a lithium atom degrades during its life as a battery? I'm not expecting a good answer from you though since you think that burning a compound (to release the energy in its bonds) is then recyclable.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Once. They are pulled from the ground once. After which they are essentially infinitely recyclable.

Oil/gas is extracted then used a single time and it's gone.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)

It's so frustrating. There isn't a single situation where Ontario needs this change. If people are unhappy with alcohol access and want less alcohol revenue, we could easily open more stores and allow them to be less profitable per store.

There is absolutely no reason to route money away from the LCBO as it is (at least I've you've actually looked at the financials, I can understand how people who haven't might be convinced otherwise)

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Publish date "2019" ya that makes sense. If this was the case before the pandemic it certainly isn't anymore.

The methodology of this study isn't very convincing IMO. Study 1 is irrelevant (self reported subjective data). Study 2 implys that a small sample size picking to use stairs instead of an elevator to go up one floor means one group is more healthy, this is meaningless IMO,. Study 3 just looks at which groups intend on quitting smoking, with the conservative group being more likely to be wanting to quit. I could jump to a number of conclusions from this that have nothing to do with "personal responsibility".

Overall what a waste of my time.

Edit: I just went and looked at the Reddit comments on this post, they also tore it apart with some decent numbers showing how wrong the this is.