Let's learn and grow. New things are cool!Links 'n' stuff down below. Lots of links.First, the "clean version." Please pass that around.https://youtu.be/Zgxb...
Amazing video by Technology Connections. It’s a long one, but don’t miss his 30 minute angry rant at the end.
I have watched only a few minutes of this vid so far, as well as the timestamps and I must admit I don’t agree with this approach because of something I learned today.
He says around 2 m something like: the strategic US reserve of oil even tho the number of barrels sounds huge, they could sustain the US only a month of our current use. From the context my understanding is that he implies that this is due to casual, everyday-people consumption.
Anyways, if he talks about the US military petroleum consumption, please let me know. Or if I got something wrong with this new info I got about the US military, let me know too.
I’m really sorry that this is what you got from what I wrote. I definitely don’t think we should keep using fossil fuel. On the contrary, I am all in for phasing out extractions and usage.
Cuz the US strategic oil reserve isn’t earmarked for the federal government and the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil consumption of the US economy.
the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil
consumption of the US economy
I don’t understand what you are saying, could you please explain and/or share a relevant link? Btw maybe I should clarify that by talking about “consumption” I was not talking in economic terms, just in the sense of “utilizing”.
Come again? I am saying “isn’t earmarked for the federal government” and you come up with a fact check saying that it is not earmarked for military use. Which is the same thing.
Also, you are comparing the share of the military in the federal government’s energy usage. The government’s energy usage is largely electricity, not oil-based, while for the military it is the inverse. Also, the military consumes oil outside of the US economy: the oil consumption of an US Air Force base in say Spain is part of the Spanish economy, not of the US economy. Or at least, the overseas bases consumption will not be pulled from the US strategic oil reserves.
So it is all orthogonal to the US strategic oil reserves what the US military’s share in energy consumption of the US Federal Government is.
I am saying “isn’t earmarked for the federal government” and you come up with a fact check saying that it is not earmarked for military use. Which is the same thing.
No. “Isn’t earmarked for the federal government” is not the same as “isn’t earmarked for military use".
Any links to back what you say would be highly appreciated.
Given that the US military is part of the US federal government, yes, that is a difference without a distinction. If it is for general use, per your own source, and not earmarked for the US federal government, then it is by extension not earmarked for the US military either.
You could do worse than to actually watch the whole video and not dragging your dislike of having a military into a conversation that is not about that to begin with. Or as others have put it in a more pejorative way, stop it with the leftist bean soup.
I have watched only a few minutes of this vid so far, as well as the timestamps and I must admit I don’t agree with this approach because of something I learned today.
He says around 2 m something like: the strategic US reserve of oil even tho the number of barrels sounds huge, they could sustain the US only a month of our current use. From the context my understanding is that he implies that this is due to casual, everyday-people consumption.
Well, it looks like the Department of Defense is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer, accounting for between 77% and 80% of all federal government energy consumption since 2001. So why is this huge percentage missing from this long analysis?
Anyways, if he talks about the US military petroleum consumption, please let me know. Or if I got something wrong with this new info I got about the US military, let me know too.
You should rewatch the video, because you totally have missed his main point
You’re right, we shouldn’t electrify and should keep using fossil fuels.
I’m really sorry that this is what you got from what I wrote. I definitely don’t think we should keep using fossil fuel. On the contrary, I am all in for phasing out extractions and usage.
Because this video isn’t about the US military, and all you’re doing is bean soup leftism.
Cuz the US strategic oil reserve isn’t earmarked for the federal government and the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil consumption of the US economy.
According to a factcheck site it looks like the U.S. Oil Reserve Created for Supply Disruptions, Not Strictly Military Use. So maybe your statement is wrong? Otherwise could you share the source you got this from?
I don’t understand what you are saying, could you please explain and/or share a relevant link? Btw maybe I should clarify that by talking about “consumption” I was not talking in economic terms, just in the sense of “utilizing”.
Come again? I am saying “isn’t earmarked for the federal government” and you come up with a fact check saying that it is not earmarked for military use. Which is the same thing.
Also, you are comparing the share of the military in the federal government’s energy usage. The government’s energy usage is largely electricity, not oil-based, while for the military it is the inverse. Also, the military consumes oil outside of the US economy: the oil consumption of an US Air Force base in say Spain is part of the Spanish economy, not of the US economy. Or at least, the overseas bases consumption will not be pulled from the US strategic oil reserves.
So it is all orthogonal to the US strategic oil reserves what the US military’s share in energy consumption of the US Federal Government is.
No. “Isn’t earmarked for the federal government” is not the same as “isn’t earmarked for military use".
Any links to back what you say would be highly appreciated.
Given that the US military is part of the US federal government, yes, that is a difference without a distinction. If it is for general use, per your own source, and not earmarked for the US federal government, then it is by extension not earmarked for the US military either.
You could do worse than to actually watch the whole video and not dragging your dislike of having a military into a conversation that is not about that to begin with. Or as others have put it in a more pejorative way, stop it with the leftist bean soup.