Anthropogenic Global Warming ... how hot is it ?

[sear]

"... bio fuels like palm oil actually reduce CO2 by absorbing more when grown than is released when burned." R5 #440

I'm not sure how that's possible.
And it's not clear to me why palm would be different from other veg.

"So bio fuels are much better than wind/solar." R5

It's the logic of the syllogism. If your premise were true, your conclusion might be also. I'd want to review the scientific data, to verify its validity before I accepted the premise.

"But the way we are headed is batteries, which is the worst possible." R5

We need a battery technology that has a higher energy density than gasoline or diesel, that is durable & inexpensively mass-producible. It may never happen.

 

[Shiftless2]

In the 1950s, almost no one had health insurance or car insurance.

Car insurance began becoming mandatory in the United States in the 1920s, with Massachusetts passing the first compulsory law in 1925, followed by Connecticut, while most other states enacted similar requirements between the 1930s and 1970s, with nearly all states now requiring coverage, except for New Hampshire.

Then in the 1970s, car insurance started to be become mandated by law, which I consider illegal because there was no fairness regulations.

Sorry guy but auto insurance is regulated by the state.

No idea what you mean by "fairness legislation" - the Insurance Department in each state has to approve company's rate filings. And they have to describe whether rates are "unfairly discriminatory".

So tell us what you mean by the term "fairness legislation"

 

[Rigby5]

I'm not sure how that's possible.
And it's not clear to me why palm would be different from other veg.


It's the logic of the syllogism. If your premise were true, your conclusion might be also. I'd want to review the scientific data, to verify its validity before I accepted the premise.


We need a battery technology that has a higher energy density than gasoline or diesel, that is durable & inexpensively mass-producible. It may never happen.

Its easy to explain why bio fuels absorb more CO2 out of the air than is later release back into the air when burned.
Bio fuel, like palm oil, come only from the small fruit.
All the rest of the tree, like the trunk and leaves, never gets burned, so always retains that CO2 that was removed.

That is assuming you use the wood and leaves for something long lasting, and you don't just let them rot back to CO2.

Batteries are always going to be bad because electricity is very inefficient, from resistance, heat, induction, weight, cost, life span, slowness, etc.
A chemical fuel is always much faster, lighter, cheaper, and lasting forever.
If one prefers electric motors instead of combustion, there are fuel cells that also are much better than batteries.

 

[Rigby5]

Car insurance began becoming mandatory in the United States in the 1920s, with Massachusetts passing the first compulsory law in 1925, followed by Connecticut, while most other states enacted similar requirements between the 1930s and 1970s, with nearly all states now requiring coverage, except for New Hampshire.


Sorry guy but auto insurance is regulated by the state.

No idea what you mean by "fairness legislation" - the Insurance Department in each state has to approve company's rate filings. And they have to describe whether rates are "unfairly discriminatory".

So tell us what you mean by the term "fairness legislation"

The fact Massachusetts made auto insurance mandatory in 1925 does not mean other states did.
Wisconsin still does not require mandatory auto insurance.
They just require financial responsibility, which means you don't cause an accident and then fail to pay for it.

Auto insurance is notoriously guilty of redlining, where there is a vast difference in charges based on address, race, income, ethnicity, etc.
If you are going to mandate something like insurance, then it should also be public and uniform.

 

[Shiftless2]

The fact Massachusetts made auto insurance mandatory in 1925 does not mean other states did.

If you bothered reading my comment you'll notice that after commenting about Massachusetts it goes on to say that "[it was] followed by Connecticut, while most other states enacted similar requirements between the 1930s and 1970s, with nearly all states now requiring coverage, except for New Hampshire.

Wisconsin still does not require mandatory auto insurance.
They just require financial responsibility, which means you don't cause an accident and then fail to pay for it.

That's not what the law says. It says you must either have insurance or you must post security in order to drive.

Wisconsin's financial responsibility law, particularly for driving, requires auto liability insurance with minimum coverage of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident for bodily injury, plus $10,000 for property damage, making insurance mandatory since 2010. Proof of financial responsibility (like insurance, cash, or securities) must be maintained to operate a vehicle in the state, ensuring funds are available for potential accident damages, with higher coverage amounts often recommended for better protection.

That means you have to post that much money - not just promise to pay.

Auto insurance is notoriously guilty of redlining, where there is a vast difference in charges based on address, race, income, ethnicity, etc.

First, you don't know what redlining is. I've only heard the term applied to property insurance (generally homeowners) and does not refer to charging different premiums based on whatever criteria. Rather it refers to a refusal to insure properties in a particular area. While the insurance company's decision is generally based on bad loss experience in the area in question (i.e., lots of claims, high crime area, and so forth) often times those areas are found in the inner city and are largely populated by minorities. So people do jump to the incorrect conclusion that the decision was based on race, not loss experience.

That said, you are correct that auto insurance rates vary based on a number of criteria (race and ethnicity are not among them - that's strictly illegal).

And since insurance companies are in the business of assuming risk the premiums they charge are based on the degree of risk associated with individual drivers. Premiums must be "adequate, not excessive, and not unfairly discriminatory". And the premiums charged for the different "categories" is based on actuarial models (i.e., hard statistics) - and the different rates for those categories has to be justifiable - in other words "not unfairly discriminatory" - and since auto insurance premiums are regulated by the state in the US and by the province in Canada the insurance companies have to be able to support those different rates - in fact they generally have to file the actuarial support for those premiums (and insurance departments do employ their own actuaries so the department is capable of reading (and understanding) those filings.

Looking at some of the criteria:

1) address - obviously someone who lives in a major city (where there are a lot of cars) is more likely to be involved in an auto accident than someone who lives in the country where there are few other cars. And it matters how much they drive and where to - the individual who lives in the country but commutes into the city for work is at higher risk than the individual who rarely, if ever, comes into the city.

2) annual mileage - again, it clearly makes a difference if (i) your daily commute is 30 miles or (ii) you only drive short distances

3) driving record [how many at fault claims have you had and what type were they]

4) age - statistics prove that young drivers have more accidents (and more serious accidents) than older ones. That tends to reverse when you consider the "upper end" of the senior citizen bracket.

5) sex - again statistics show that men have more accidents than women.

6) marital status - again statistics do show that married individuals have fewer accidents than unmarried ones.

7) income - I'm not aware of any company that takes this into account

8) type of auto - this generally only affects first party coverages (collision and comprehensive - damage to your own vehicle). Obviously a more expensive car is going to cost more to repair or replace than the basic "econobox". Ditto the age of the vehicle matters. But these covers are generally optional and what car you buy is your decision. BTW, when I say they're optional that isn't always strictly true - if you're paying for the car via a bank loan for example your bank may require you to purchase those coverages.

Now - thing is, not all discrimination is unfair. We have separate washrooms for men and women. We have minimum drinking ages. We don't give drivers licenses to young children and we don't allow them to join the military. Fact is, many places have graduated licensing for young drivers - they can't drive after dark, there are limits on how many passengers they can have, and so forth - those restrictions are removed after they've been licensed (and had no accidents) for however many years the relevant licensing laws require (note that this can be used as a proxy for age since the expectation is that most people will get a drivers license as soon as they are old enough).

Believe me, I've spent too many hours (days actually) testifying, under oath, about this topic.

If you are going to mandate something like insurance, then it should also be public and uniform.

There are places that have introduced public auto insurance but they still use variants on the criteria I discussed above when determining premiums. [To digress for a moment, that does have one advantage - the plates for your car are tied to your insurance - no insurance, no license.]

Of course that runs up against "Friedmans Law" which basically says "government costs twice".

 

[Rigby5]

If you bothered reading my comment you'll notice that after commenting about Massachusetts it goes on to say that "[it was] followed by Connecticut, while most other states enacted similar requirements between the 1930s and 1970s, with nearly all states now requiring coverage, except for New Hampshire.


That's not what the law says. It says you must either have insurance or you must post security in order to drive.


That means you have to post that much money - not just promise to pay.


First, you don't know what redlining is. I've only heard the term applied to property insurance (generally homeowners) and does not refer to charging different premiums based on whatever criteria. Rather it refers to a refusal to insure properties in a particular area. While the insurance company's decision is generally based on bad loss experience in the area in question (i.e., lots of claims, high crime area, and so forth) often times those areas are found in the inner city and are largely populated by minorities. So people do jump to the incorrect conclusion that the decision was based on race, not loss experience.

That said, you are correct that auto insurance rates vary based on a number of criteria (race and ethnicity are not among them - that's strictly illegal).

And since insurance companies are in the business of assuming risk the premiums they charge are based on the degree of risk associated with individual drivers. Premiums must be "adequate, not excessive, and not unfairly discriminatory". And the premiums charged for the different "categories" is based on actuarial models (i.e., hard statistics) - and the different rates for those categories has to be justifiable - in other words "not unfairly discriminatory" - and since auto insurance premiums are regulated by the state in the US and by the province in Canada the insurance companies have to be able to support those different rates - in fact they generally have to file the actuarial support for those premiums (and insurance departments do employ their own actuaries so the department is capable of reading (and understanding) those filings.

Looking at some of the criteria:

1) address - obviously someone who lives in a major city (where there are a lot of cars) is more likely to be involved in an auto accident than someone who lives in the country where there are few other cars. And it matters how much they drive and where to - the individual who lives in the country but commutes into the city for work is at higher risk than the individual who rarely, if ever, comes into the city.

2) annual mileage - again, it clearly makes a difference if (i) your daily commute is 30 miles or (ii) you only drive short distances

3) driving record [how many at fault claims have you had and what type were they]

4) age - statistics prove that young drivers have more accidents (and more serious accidents) than older ones. That tends to reverse when you consider the "upper end" of the senior citizen bracket.

5) sex - again statistics show that men have more accidents than women.

6) marital status - again statistics do show that married individuals have fewer accidents than unmarried ones.

7) income - I'm not aware of any company that takes this into account

8) type of auto - this generally only affects first party coverages (collision and comprehensive - damage to your own vehicle). Obviously a more expensive car is going to cost more to repair or replace than the basic "econobox". Ditto the age of the vehicle matters. But these covers are generally optional and what car you buy is your decision. BTW, when I say they're optional that isn't always strictly true - if you're paying for the car via a bank loan for example your bank may require you to purchase those coverages.

Now - thing is, not all discrimination is unfair. We have separate washrooms for men and women. We have minimum drinking ages. We don't give drivers licenses to young children and we don't allow them to join the military. Fact is, many places have graduated licensing for young drivers - they can't drive after dark, there are limits on how many passengers they can have, and so forth - those restrictions are removed after they've been licensed (and had no accidents) for however many years the relevant licensing laws require (note that this can be used as a proxy for age since the expectation is that most people will get a drivers license as soon as they are old enough).

Believe me, I've spent too many hours (days actually) testifying, under oath, about this topic.


There are places that have introduced public auto insurance but they still use variants on the criteria I discussed above when determining premiums. [To digress for a moment, that does have one advantage - the plates for your car are tied to your insurance - no insurance, no license.]

Of course that runs up against "Friedmans Law" which basically says "government costs twice".

I lived in Wisconsin most of my life and never had auto insurance.
Proving financial responsibility does NOT mean posting anything.
What it means is that you need a clean record and have assets that could be leveraged if you did cause an accident.
That is what all companies do.
They do not post anything, but declare sufficient assets only.

The MAIN time "redlining" is discussed is over home purchase mortgages, but it refers to anytime an address is used to illegally discriminate against an individual.
Since race is specifically illegal to use as a criteria, redlining is used instead, where areas are discriminated against over what actually is based on race.
Using address is obviously just an illegal way of avoiding lawsuits over the actual bias on race.

As for Friedman, here is what the AI says is his "law":
{...

Key​

1. Law as a Social Entity: Friedman posits that law is not merely a set of rules but a social construct shaped by various social forces. This perspective encourages a broader understanding of how laws evolve in response to societal needs and changes.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=2e69...CNTFENURFNkI3NzM1MEI1MUM5RURDMTk3NDUwNw&ntb=1
2. Historical Context: His analysis often situates legal developments within their historical context, examining how historical events and societal shifts influence legal frameworks and practices.
   https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=3966...XJuYWwub3JnL3Jldmlldy9mcmllZG1hbnMtbGF3&ntb=1
3. Methodological Framework: Friedman's work is characterized by a rigorous methodological approach that combines historical analysis with legal theory, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the law's development over time.

...}
And as far as costs go, when we look at health care for example, the countries with public health care cost half as much, not twice as much.

 

[Shiftless2]

Learn something about insurance.

 

[sear]

"Its easy to explain why bio fuels absorb more CO2 out of the air than is later release back into the air when burned.
Bio fuel, like palm oil, come only from the small fruit.
All the rest of the tree, like the trunk and leaves, never gets burned, so always retains that CO2 that was removed." R5 #443

Thanks R5.
But in that case it raises the question of BTU per acre. If instead of harvesting the entire plant, only the fluid is removed, does that reduce the per acre productivity below what's available with alternate fuel crops? What's going on w/ cellulosic ethanol?

"Batteries are always going to be bad because electricity is very inefficient, from resistance, heat, induction, weight, cost, life span, slowness, etc.
A chemical fuel is always much faster, lighter, cheaper, and lasting forever." R5 #443

Aren't electric batteries "chemical"?
What boosts combustion fuel's energy output is combustion, oxygenation.
Batteries, not so much.

How does burning one gallon of gas (8.4 lbs) produce 19.64 lbs of CO2? https://www.quora.com/How-does-burning-one-gallon-of-gas-8-4-lbs-produce-19-64-lbs-of-CO2 or

Oldie but Goodie: How 6lbs of Gasoline Turns into 19lbs of Co2

Burning gasoline may seem clean, but that's not the case. Everything burns to produce CO2 & adds up to the environment, eventually!

terrapass.com

"If one prefers electric motors instead of combustion, there are fuel cells that also are much better than batteries." R5

Not sure this'll help. What little I've read indicates modern U.S. aircraft carrier catapult technology renders the "cold catapult" a failing of the past, obsolete.
We used to harness the power of the BLEVE to launch of FA-18. We used great big boilers to heat water, and then use the steam to launch.
Now we've designed rail-gun technology. "Linear induction"?

I'm old enough to recall a supermarket cash register with a hand crank on the side, a fully mechanical adding machine.
I think we can consider today's shirt-pocket "four-banger" calculator more efficient.

That's not to dispute disparities in energy efficiency, but to acknowledge it's not all ways a simple comparison.

 

[Rigby5]

Learn something about insurance.

The theory of insurance being a risk pool so that the majority lucky moderate the few unlucky, is great.
But there are inherent problems, such as the fact that since you are forced to prepay with insurance premiums, you lose any ability to withhold funds over price or quality disputes.
And in fact, you can be dropped without any reimbursement for all that you already paid in.
The other problem is that since all insurance member prepay and likely do not need payouts till much later, the insurance companies get to use all that equity in powerful ways.
In particular with health care, it is to buy up providers and create a horizontal and vertical monopolies.

 

[Rigby5]

Thanks R5.
But in that case it raises the question of BTU per acre. If instead of harvesting the entire plant, only the fluid is removed, does that reduce the per acre productivity below what's available with alternate fuel crops? What's going on w/ cellulosic ethanol?


Aren't electric batteries "chemical"?
What boosts combustion fuel's energy output is combustion, oxygenation.
Batteries, not so much.

How does burning one gallon of gas (8.4 lbs) produce 19.64 lbs of CO2? https://www.quora.com/How-does-burning-one-gallon-of-gas-8-4-lbs-produce-19-64-lbs-of-CO2 or

Oldie but Goodie: How 6lbs of Gasoline Turns into 19lbs of Co2

Burning gasoline may seem clean, but that's not the case. Everything burns to produce CO2 & adds up to the environment, eventually!

terrapass.com

Not sure this'll help. What little I've read indicates modern U.S. aircraft carrier catapult technology renders the "cold catapult" a failing of the past, obsolete.
We used to harness the power of the BLEVE to launch of FA-18. We used great big boilers to heat water, and then use the steam to launch.
Now we've designed rail-gun technology. "Linear induction"?

I'm old enough to recall a supermarket cash register with a hand crank on the side, a fully mechanical adding machine.
I think we can consider today's shirt-pocket "four-banger" calculator more efficient.

That's not to dispute disparities in energy efficiency, but to acknowledge it's not all ways a simple comparison.

Yes the small harvest from the palm oil tree to make diesel fuel is not all that efficient in terms of yield, but land in Africa is cheap, so it does not matter that much.
And the advantage of palm fruit is you just squeeze the oil out in a press.
There is no expensive processing and water needed, like what it takes to make ethanol out of corn or sugar beets.

I guess you are correct that both batteries and combustion are just "chemical".
But I think of batteries as just being a shift in electrons that does not diminish the contents of the battery material.
While I think of combustion as using up and expelling both the fuel and the oxygen consumed.
But combustion actually is just an electron transfer as well.

Interesting how the exhaust of gasoline combustion weighs so much more than the plain gasoline.
Since the exhaust is a hot gas, I never thought of it having any weight at all.

 

[sear]

"The theory of insurance being a risk pool so that the majority lucky moderate the few unlucky, is great." R5 #449

Counterpoint:
Insurance premium $payments don't reduce probability of accident. Instead they drive up the total cost to the pool,
because the pool will suffer whatever adversity anyway. The loss of the insurance payments, the cost of administering the insurance program is added.

Christopher Columbus wouldn't have needed Lloyds of London on speed-dial if he'd worn a U.S. Coast Guard approved life jacket. [/insurance satire]

 

[Shiftless2]

The theory of insurance being a risk pool so that the majority lucky moderate the few unlucky, is great.

True. But in it's simplest terms an individual insurance policy is a swap - if you know about interest rate swaps this is the same thing - you're swapping a known quantity (today's premium) for an unknown quantity (a potential future loss where both the amount of the loss and the timing of the payment is unknown). And the insurance company is assuming both the amount and timing of the loss and the payment.

But there are inherent problems, such as the fact that since you are forced to prepay with insurance premiums, you lose any ability to withhold funds over price or quality disputes.

You have the same problem if you buy some physical product from a retailer and pay for at the time of purchase.
And you can likely opt to pay your premiums in monthly installments. I know I've had to tell our people that there's a real cost to us (the insurer) by moving people to monthly premium payments from annual.

And in fact, you can be dropped without any reimbursement for all that you already paid in.

Not true. You can't be dropped mid-term unless you don't pay your premium or you've somehow lied on your application. And then you'll receive a refund of the unearned portion of your premium subject to whatever short rate table the insurer uses.

The other problem is that since all insurance member prepay and likely do not need payouts till much later, the insurance companies get to use all that equity in powerful ways.

That's not a problem. It's a benefit - if the insurance company didn't get to invest the premiums and earn interest on them your premiums would be higher. And for the record, investment income on auto insurance policies isn't as big a number as you might think.

In particular with health care, it is to buy up providers and create a horizontal and vertical monopolies.

While this discussion is about auto insurance and health insurance is a complete separate topic I'm still waiting for evidence of your claim that health insurers are buying hospitals.

 

[Rigby5]

Counterpoint:
Insurance premium $payments don't reduce probability of accident. Instead they drive up the total cost to the pool,
because the pool will suffer whatever adversity anyway. The loss of the insurance payments, the cost of administering the insurance program is added.

Christopher Columbus wouldn't have needed Lloyds of London on speed-dial if he'd worn a U.S. Coast Guard approved life jacket. [/insurance satire]

The idea of a joint risk pool makes sense, but because the payments in exceed or are made before the payments out, whoever administers the pool really should not really charge anything, since they get the advantage of being able to invest that pool when it is in excess of pay outs.
Which is almost always.
We start paying into insurance in our 20's and rarely make a claim until our 70's.

 

[Rigby5]

True. But in it's simplest terms an individual insurance policy is a swap - if you know about interest rate swaps this is the same thing - you're swapping a known quantity (today's premium) for an unknown quantity (a potential future loss where both the amount of the loss and the timing of the payment is unknown). And the insurance company is assuming both the amount and timing of the loss and the payment.


You have the same problem if you buy some physical product from a retailer and pay for at the time of purchase.
And you can likely opt to pay your premiums in monthly installments. I know I've had to tell our people that there's a real cost to us (the insurer) by moving people to monthly premium payments from annual.


Not true. You can't be dropped mid-term unless you don't pay your premium or you've somehow lied on your application. And then you'll receive a refund of the unearned portion of your premium subject to whatever short rate table the insurer uses.


That's not a problem. It's a benefit - if the insurance company didn't get to invest the premiums and earn interest on them your premiums would be higher. And for the record, investment income on auto insurance policies isn't as big a number as you might think.


While this discussion is about auto insurance and health insurance is a complete separate topic I'm still waiting for evidence of your claim that health insurers are buying hospitals.

I disagree.
I have often had insurance companies cancel policies for no reason that I was at fault for.
Such as car insurance cancellation from moving to a new address they redlined, home insurance cancelled due to a forest fire in a completely different portion of the state, or health insurance for no reason given at all.