#diesel price reduced

[aquilegiaformosa]

you know, i watch a lot of bujo/journal/diary vids and what really gets me is the commodification of literal garbage and recyclables. printouts that look like crinkled paper and newspaper and old books and fuckin. grocery store coupons. washi tapes of nondescript shopping receipts. tear-out booklets of paper scraps. notepads with the exact same design as mundane office supplies but twice the price and half the pages with some trendy “minimalistic” stationary brand’s logo slapped all over it and shipped all the way from Japan on diesel.

am i going insane. if you want “junk”/“scrap” looks like that, save your receipts. buy a 99¢ romance novel from Goodwill and tear the pages out. buy yellow notepads from staples and office max. pick up the coupon pages from your grocery store. maybe buy one nat geo magazine or a fashion mag and cut the pictures and ads out if you’re feeling zesty. crumple your own fucking paper. reduce reuse recycle with shit that’s already there instead of putting more paper waste and the ensuing manufacturing waste out into the world. does this make any sense.

[wheelsgoroundincircles]

1977 Pontiac Grand Prix

A complete reworking of the front header and bumper highlighted the 1977 Grand Prix, which was the final year for the 1973-vintage bodyshell that was set to be replaced by a downsized GP for 1978. The parking lamps were now positioned between the quad headlamps (same setup as a 1967 or 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass), and the previous year's 'waterfall' grille was replaced by a narrower one that extended into the lower portion of the bumper. Behind the bumper were new reinforcements (mounting panels) made from aluminum rather than steel to reduce weight. In back the taillights were simplified to eliminate the weighty pot metal bezels that created the horizontal stripe effect in 1976. The same three models (J, LJ, and SJ) were carried over with engine revisions. The base Model J got Pontiac's new 135 hp (101 kW) 301 cu in (4.9 L) V8 as standard equipment, which was much too small and underpowered to propel a 4,000-pound car. Optional engines included a 160 hp (119 kW) 350 cu in (5.7 L) V8 or 180 hp (130 kW) 400 cu in (6.6 L); those two engines standard on the LJ and SJ models, respectively. The original thinking on the 301 CID engine was that the weight savings from using a significantly lighter engine would cancel out the horsepower loss from the smaller displacement. This turned out to be a major miscalculation and 301 equipped cars became much less desirable among Grand Prix enthusiasts and collectors in later years. The 301 also had a knocking (pre-ignition) problem that was later determined to be caused by the shape of the combustion chamber.

Each of those engines were Pontiac-built units as in previous years, but offered in 49 of the 50 states. Because Pontiac's own V8 engines could not meet the more stringent California emission standards set for 1977, all Grand Prixs (and other Pontiac models) sold in California were powered by Oldsmobile-built engines including Lansing's 350 cu in (5.7 L) "Rocket V8" for J and LJ, and the 403 cu in (6.6 L) Rocket V8 standard on the SJ and optional on the other two GPs in California. Due to a shortage of Olds 350 engines resulting from record sales of Cutlasses and reduced production of that engine due to a plant conversion to build a Diesel V8 beginning in 1978, a few 1977 Grand Prixs destined for California reportedly came off the line with a Chevrolet-built 350 cu in (5.7 L) V8.

Grand Prix sales increased to an all-time high of over 270,000 units for 1977, the last year for this bodystyle, despite competition from a newly downsized and lower-priced Ford Thunderbird introduced this year and a restyled Mercury Cougar XR-7 whose bodyshell switched to the T-Bird this year from the discontinued Ford Torino/Mercury Montego.

[mariacallous]

On Wednesday, New York governor Kathy Hochul shocked the state and the country when she announced she would indefinitely shelve New York City’s long-in-development congestion pricing scheme. The policy, in the works since 2007 and set to begin in just three weeks, was designed to relieve car traffic, curb road deaths, and send a billion dollars in annual funding to the city’s transit system by charging drivers up to $15 a day to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan, with rates highest at “peak hours.” (Truck drivers and some bus drivers could have paid more than $36 daily.) At heart, the idea is straightforward, if controversial: Make people pay for the roads they use.

But congestion pricing was also set to become one of the most ambitious American climate projects, maybe ever. It was meant to coax people out of their gas-guzzling vehicles, which are alone responsible for some 22 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions, and onto subways, buses, bicycles, and their feet. Policymakers, researchers, and environment nerds the world over have concluded that, even if the transition to electric vehicles were to happen at lightning speed, avoiding the worst of climate change is going to require fewer cars overall.

Now, the movement has seen a serious setback, in a country where decades of car-centric planning decisions mean many can only imagine getting around in one very specific way. Just a few years ago, cities from Los Angeles to San Francisco to Chicago began to study what pricing roads might look like. “Cities were watching to see what would happen in New York,” says Sarah Kaufman, who directs the NYU Rudin Center for Transportation. “Now they can call it a ‘failure’ because it didn't go through.”

On Wednesday, Hochul said her about-face had to do with concerns about the city’s post-pandemic recovery. The congestion pricing plan faced lawsuits from New Jersey, where commuters argue they would face unfair financial burdens. Cameras and gantries, acquired and positioned to charge drivers while entering the zone, have already been installed in Manhattan, to the tune of some $500 million.

Kaufman, who says she was “flabbergasted” by Governor Hochul’s sudden announcement, says she is not sure where the policy goes from here. “If we can’t make courageous, and potentially less popular, moves in a city that has transit readily accessible, then I’m wondering where this can happen,” she says.

Other global cities have seen success with congestion schemes. London’s program, implemented in 2003, is still controversial among residents, but the government reports it has cut traffic in the targeted zone by a third. One 2020 study suggests the program has reduced pollutants, though exemptions for diesel buses have blunted its emissions effects. Stockholm’s program, launched in 2006, upped the city’s transit ridership, reduced the number of total miles locals traveled by car, and decreased emissions between 10 and 14 percent.

But in New York, the future of the program is unclear, and local politicians are currently scrambling to figure out how to cover the transit budget hole that would result from a last-minute nixing of the fee scheme. The city’s transit system is huge and sprawling: Five million people ride the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s buses and subways, almost double the number that fly every day in the US.

In New York, drivers entering the zone below Manhattan’s 60th Street would have been charged peak pricing of $15, but would have only faced the charge once a day. They would have paid $3.75 for off-peak hours. Taxi and ride-hail trips in the zone would have seen extra fees. After years of controversy and public debate, the state had carved out some congestion charge exemptions: some vehicles carrying people with disabilities would not have been charged, lower-income residents of the zone would have received a tax credit for their tolls; and low-income drivers would have been eligible for a 50 percent discount.

[eaglesnick]

“It seems the most logical thing in the world to believe that the natural resources of the Earth, upon which the race depends for food, clothing and shelter, should be owned collectively by the race instead of being the private property of a few social parasites.

— Ralph Chaplin

While more and more homes in Britain suffer severe flooding because of climate change, Rishi Sunak has decided that North Sea oil and gas extraction should be speeded up.

“Hundreds of new North Sea oil and gas licences to boost British energy independence and grow the economy. ”  (GOV.UK: 31/07/23)

This policy has now been confirmed and will be included in the king’s speech. More concerned with winning votes than the catastrophic effects of climate change:

“Sunak has already watered down the government’s climate targets, pushing back the deadline for selling new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers, prompting furious condemnation from the automobile and energy industries.” (Guardian:05/11/23)

The excuse used by Sunak to justify his planned increase in fossil fuel production  is "to reduce emissions and boost UK energy independence."

These claims are simply not true.

Encouraging more oil and gas production does not reduce emissions - it increases them. If you expand the global market for fossil fuels then more will be used with the obvious accompanying increase in emissions. What is more, Rystad Energy, an independent advisory and business intelligence company, has stated that:

“ UK oil rigs are among the highest carbon emitters in Europe. CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere from extracting North Sea oil and gas reached 13.1MM metric tonnes in the UK in 2019, or 21kg of carbon dioxide for every barrel of oil produced – far greater than the Norwegian North Sea, which produced 4MM metric tonnes of CO2 in 2019, or 8kg of CO2 a barrel.”  (Guardian: 13/10/22)

But let us put this evidence aside for the moment and give Sunak the benefit of the doubt regarding emissions, and look at his other claim that increase extraction of gas and oil from the North Sea will “boost UK energy dependency".

Again, simply not true. It was reported only a few weeks ago that the UK EXPORTS 80% of North Sea oil which is processed abroad and then sold back to us at whatever international price makes the oil and gas industries the most profit. (CNN Business: 27/09/23)

The only way to secure energy independence is to have state ownership of our natural assets. But that is not The Tory way.

Unlike the Norwegian government, who invested their countries enormous oil and gas revenues in economic sectors across the world, creating a State owned sovereign wealth fund now worth $1.2 trillion in assets, our Tory government squandered the money, continues to allow private investors to reap the profits, and have refused to create a UK Sovereign Wealth Fund because they are ideologically opposed to public ownership.

While Sunak is forced to sell licenses for oil and gas extraction in order to secure at least some  benefits from our natural resources, the Norwegians impose  a 78% tax levy on private oil and gas companies.

“UK should match Norway’s 78% North Sea oil and gas tax, thinktank says.” (guardian:28/10/22)

But that isn’t going to happen. Instead, our ideologically driven Tory government, opposed to taxes of any kind and especially those aimed at the rich and corporate world continue to draw  headlines like these.

“Shell and BP paid zero tax on North Sea gas and oil for three years.” (Guardian: 30/10/22)

and

“North Sea oil and gas industry offered ‘get-out’ clause on windfall tax.”(Guardian:09/06/23)

The stark contrast between the way successive Tory Government’s in the UK have managed the “bonanza” of North Seal oil and gas and the way the more socialist Norwegian governments have utilised their natural resources couldn’t be more stark.

[royhalls]

Truck for Sale $200,000 OBO Side Dump price Reduced to $100,000 Firm Specs for 2003 378 Peterbilt: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RAx91f-_i2J9T3hP9P8Vr4M30kpnn0jD/view?usp=drive_link

For Sale:- Premium 2003 378 Peterbilt Universal Winch Tractor

For More Photos :- https://1drv.ms/w/s!AsBEsEA5pt2viZhzDVuWsM47WI0v7w?e=a13Sn6 For Description and Videos :- https://1drv.ms/w/s!AsBEsEA5pt2viZh7tRjLGL1xL-UIGg?e=NE83BPF

For Spare Parts:- https://www.kapwing.com/videos/660aa4da15eaf24c7672852a

🚚 Unlock the Benefits of Owning This Premium 2003 378 Peterbilt Universal Winch Tractor! 🚚

🐱 Cat Engine No DEF - Enjoy the reliability of a Cat engine without the hassle of Diesel Exhaust Fluid! 🔧 Easy to Work On - Simplify your maintenance with a user-friendly design! ⛽ Good Fuel Mileage with 475 Cat Engine - Save money and go further with excellent fuel efficiency! 🛠 Air Trac Suspension - Experience great traction and a smoother ride! 🎛 Universal Hydraulics - Hook up to any hydraulic trailer with ease! Make this powerhouse yours and take on any job with confidence! 💪🚛

[jcmarchi]

Study finds health risks in switching ships from diesel to ammonia fuel

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/study-finds-health-risks-in-switching-ships-from-diesel-to-ammonia-fuel/

Study finds health risks in switching ships from diesel to ammonia fuel

As container ships the size of city blocks cross the oceans to deliver cargo, their huge diesel engines emit large quantities of air pollutants that drive climate change and have human health impacts. It has been estimated that maritime shipping accounts for almost 3 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions and the industry’s negative impacts on air quality cause about 100,000 premature deaths each year.

Decarbonizing shipping to reduce these detrimental effects is a goal of the International Maritime Organization, a U.N. agency that regulates maritime transport. One potential solution is switching the global fleet from fossil fuels to sustainable fuels such as ammonia, which could be nearly carbon-free when considering its production and use.

But in a new study, an interdisciplinary team of researchers from MIT and elsewhere caution that burning ammonia for maritime fuel could worsen air quality further and lead to devastating public health impacts, unless it is adopted alongside strengthened emissions regulations.

Ammonia combustion generates nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas that is about 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It also emits nitrogen in the form of nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, referred to as NOx), and unburnt ammonia may slip out, which eventually forms fine particulate matter in the atmosphere. These tiny particles can be inhaled deep into the lungs, causing health problems like heart attacks, strokes, and asthma.

The new study indicates that, under current legislation, switching the global fleet to ammonia fuel could cause up to about 600,000 additional premature deaths each year. However, with stronger regulations and cleaner engine technology, the switch could lead to about 66,000 fewer premature deaths than currently caused by maritime shipping emissions, with far less impact on global warming.

“Not all climate solutions are created equal. There is almost always some price to pay. We have to take a more holistic approach and consider all the costs and benefits of different climate solutions, rather than just their potential to decarbonize,” says Anthony Wong, a postdoc in the MIT Center for Global Change Science and lead author of the study.

His co-authors include Noelle Selin, an MIT professor in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS); Sebastian Eastham, a former principal research scientist who is now a senior lecturer at Imperial College London; Christine Mounaïm-Rouselle, a professor at the University of Orléans in France; Yiqi Zhang, a researcher at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; and Florian Allroggen, a research scientist in the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The research appears this week in Environmental Research Letters.

Greener, cleaner ammonia

Traditionally, ammonia is made by stripping hydrogen from natural gas and then combining it with nitrogen at extremely high temperatures. This process is often associated with a large carbon footprint. The maritime shipping industry is betting on the development of “green ammonia,” which is produced by using renewable energy to make hydrogen via electrolysis and to generate heat.

“In theory, if you are burning green ammonia in a ship engine, the carbon emissions are almost zero,” Wong says.

But even the greenest ammonia generates nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx) when combusted, and some of the ammonia may slip out, unburnt. This nitrous oxide would escape into the atmosphere, where the greenhouse gas would remain for more than 100 years. At the same time, the nitrogen emitted as NOx and ammonia would fall to Earth, damaging fragile ecosystems. As these emissions are digested by bacteria, additional N2O  is produced.

NOx and ammonia also mix with gases in the air to form fine particulate matter. A primary contributor to air pollution, fine particulate matter kills an estimated 4 million people each year.

“Saying that ammonia is a ‘clean’ fuel is a bit of an overstretch. Just because it is carbon-free doesn’t necessarily mean it is clean and good for public health,” Wong says.

A multifaceted model

The researchers wanted to paint the whole picture, capturing the environmental and public health impacts of switching the global fleet to ammonia fuel. To do so, they designed scenarios to measure how pollutant impacts change under certain technology and policy assumptions.

From a technological point of view, they considered two ship engines. The first burns pure ammonia, which generates higher levels of unburnt ammonia but emits fewer nitrogen oxides. The second engine technology involves mixing ammonia with hydrogen to improve combustion and optimize the performance of a catalytic converter, which controls both nitrogen oxides and unburnt ammonia pollution.

They also considered three policy scenarios: current regulations, which only limit NOx emissions in some parts of the world; a scenario that adds ammonia emission limits over North America and Western Europe; and a scenario that adds global limits on ammonia and NOx emissions.

The researchers used a ship track model to calculate how pollutant emissions change under each scenario and then fed the results into an air quality model. The air quality model calculates the impact of ship emissions on particulate matter and ozone pollution. Finally, they estimated the effects on global public health.

One of the biggest challenges came from a lack of real-world data, since no ammonia-powered ships are yet sailing the seas. Instead, the researchers relied on experimental ammonia combustion data from collaborators to build their model.

“We had to come up with some clever ways to make that data useful and informative to both the technology and regulatory situations,” he says.

A range of outcomes

In the end, they found that with no new regulations and ship engines that burn pure ammonia, switching the entire fleet would cause 681,000 additional premature deaths each year.

“While a scenario with no new regulations is not very realistic, it serves as a good warning of how dangerous ammonia emissions could be. And unlike NOx, ammonia emissions from shipping are currently unregulated,” Wong says.

However, even without new regulations, using cleaner engine technology would cut the number of premature deaths down to about 80,000, which is about 20,000 fewer than are currently attributed to maritime shipping emissions. With stronger global regulations and cleaner engine technology, the number of people killed by air pollution from shipping could be reduced by about 66,000.

“The results of this study show the importance of developing policies alongside new technologies,” Selin says. “There is a potential for ammonia in shipping to be beneficial for both climate and air quality, but that requires that regulations be designed to address the entire range of potential impacts, including both climate and air quality.”

Ammonia’s air quality impacts would not be felt uniformly across the globe, and addressing them fully would require coordinated strategies across very different contexts. Most premature deaths would occur in East Asia, since air quality regulations are less stringent in this region. Higher levels of existing air pollution cause the formation of more particulate matter from ammonia emissions. In addition, shipping volume over East Asia is far greater than elsewhere on Earth, compounding these negative effects.

In the future, the researchers want to continue refining their analysis. They hope to use these findings as a starting point to urge the marine industry to share engine data they can use to better evaluate air quality and climate impacts. They also hope to inform policymakers about the importance and urgency of updating shipping emission regulations.

This research was funded by the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium.

[beardedmrbean]

The preliminary phase of the Vastaamo psychotherapy centre data breach trial commences on Thursday at the District Court of Western Uusimaa in Otaniemi, Espoo.

The data breaches are believed to have been committed in November 2018 and March 2019, affecting an estimated 30,000 victims.

Newspaper Ilkka-Pohjalainen carried an STT report that the main suspect in the case, 26-year-old Aleksanteri Kivimäki, faces charges of aggravated data breaches, nearly 9,600 charges of aggravated dissemination of sensitive information, over 21,300 counts of attempted aggravated extortion, and 20 counts of aggravated extortion.

The prosecution is calling on the court to hand Kivimäki a seven-year prison sentence.

Helsingin Sanomat (HS) also reported about the beginning of the trial, noting that Thursday's preliminary session will likely be concise and focus mainly on establishing guidelines as well as scheduling the forthcoming trial, which is set to commence on 13 November.

HS further notes that the defendant plans to participate in the preparatory meeting, despite not being legally obliged to do so until the main trial in November.

Kivimäki asserts his innocence and refutes any connection to the alleged offences, arguing that the case lacks compelling or concrete proof implicating him.

He contends that the true perpetrator is another individual within similar social circles, according to HS.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has previously stated that the evidence against Kivimäki is substantial. Authorities are expected to release extensive preliminary investigation material for the case on Thursday, comprising over 2,000 pages, STT reported.

Petrol prices take surprising plunge

Despite the prevailing global economic conditions and forecasts of gloomy times ahead, fuel prices in Finland have dropped, falling below the two-euro-per-litre mark in numerous locations, as reported by tabloid Iltalehti.

As of Wednesday evening, motorists in Kirkkonummi had the opportunity to fill their tanks with 95E10 gasoline for a mere 1.78 euros per litre.

Back in September, Iltalehti noted, the average cost for 95E10 petrol was 2.15 euros per litre. During the summer, some fuel stations even reached a peak price of 2.50 euros per litre.

In early October, price projections remained pessimistic, and the unstable situation in the Middle East was expected to lead to an upswing in fuel costs.

However, the expected price surge has yet to materialise. According to data collected on October 25th, the average cost of 95E10 gasoline currently stands at 1.94 euros per litre. For diesel consumers, the most budget-friendly refuelling option is available in Vantaa at 1.90 euros per litre, while for higher octane 98E5 gasoline, Kirkkonummi offers the lowest price at 1.88 euros per litre.

Iltalehti noted, however, that it may only be a matter of time before the recent political escalations in the Middle East affect oil supplies and consequently influence prices.

Another Finnish city cancels disgraced singer's gig

Tabloid Ilta-Sanomat reported that the city of Lappeenranta joined other Finnish cities in cancelling concerts featuring singer Jari Sillanpää.

The singer and former tango star was convicted of disseminating child pornography in 2020, although the fine he received was reduced on appeal.

Sillanpää was scheduled to perform at a Christmas concert in the South Karelian city on 3 December, but the city said it had to re-evaluate the hosting of the event citing child-friendly values.

"The former and now re-publicised criminal convictions of Jari Sillanpää are in conflict with the city's values and ethical guidelines and therefore the city does not see cooperation as viable," a press release by Lappeenranta city authorities reads.

Sillanpää's previous convictions have been brought to public attention once again following a documentary series by Finnish broadcaster MTV.

Lappeenranta is the second Finnish city to make such a decision regarding the Christmas concert tour in recent weeks, following a similar move by Turku, while authorities in Pori are also believed to be considering their options.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Russian discount for diesel fades even as Brazil’s harvest demand grows

Brazil’s already big thirst for diesel looks set to grow like the crops in the upcoming harvest, but sources doubt Russian barrels will fill the extra demand as has happened for most of 2023.

The price for delivered Russian diesel has narrowed to at least an 8 cents/gal discount to US-origin barrels, said one Brazil market source.

“Russia is the market maker, but the last two weeks they’re not doing as much,” he said. “We don’t need to chase Russian parity.”

In line with a trend of higher domestic production and reduced imports, an S&P Global Commodities at Sea report Aug. 22 showed Russian diesel averaged just 45,000 b/d for the week ended Aug. 18, the lowest rate since the start of May.

Continue reading.

[battmobileequipment]

5 Reasons to Buy a Fully Electric Wheel Loader

If you're in the construction or mining business, or perhaps looking to take your farm up a notch, you've most likely come across a wheel loader or two. Now, imagine a fully electric version of this massive machinery. Too futuristic, you reckon? Well, not anymore. Fully electric wheel loaders are the future, and here’s why you should be excited about them.

Environmentally Friendly Operation

With electric wheel loaders, say goodbye to all those nasty exhaust fumes. These beasts come emission-free, which means:

Cleaner air for you and your workers.

A massive reduction in carbon footprint.

Contributing to a sustainable and greener planet.

2. Quiet as a Wallaby at Dawn

Electric machinery, unlike their diesel counterparts, are far quieter. What does this mean for you?

Less noise pollution – a bonus for worksites near residential areas.

Happier, less stressed-out neighbours.

Workers can communicate easily without yelling over a roaring engine.

3. Significant Cost Savings in the Long Run

Though the initial investment might be higher, electric wheel loaders can lead to significant savings in the long run.

No more pouring dollars into diesel.

Reduced maintenance costs. Electric motors have fewer moving parts, meaning fewer things can go wrong.

Potential for government incentives for going green.

4. No Worries about Fuel Supply

Are you sick of those days when there's a sudden spike in diesel prices or there's an unpredictable shortage? With electric wheel loaders:

You can charge them up using renewable energy sources, like solar or wind.

No need to fret about the fluctuating fuel market.

Your operations won't be halted by external fuel issues.

5. Improves Work Efficiency

A fully electric wheel loader isn't just about environmental benefits or savings. It can seriously boost your work efficiency. How, you ask?

Instant torque from electric motors ensures rapid and smooth operations.

Consistent power delivery without the lag often experienced in diesel engines.

Less downtime, thanks to reduced maintenance needs.

In Conclusion

Navigating our way into the future, it's clear that our choices now have lasting impacts. Machines like the fully electric wheel loader don't just signify progress in tech but also our commitment to a greener tomorrow. Batt Mobile Equipment has got your back. Because it's not just about moving forward, it's about making sure we're heading in the right direction. Cheers to a sustainable journey ahead!

[atlanticcanada]

Atlantic premiers play on false fear in call for fuel rules delay: environmentalist

An environmentalist in New Brunswick says Atlantic premiers are using scaremongering tactics in their call for Ottawa to delay rules requiring refineries to reduce carbon in diesel and gasoline they produce.

Louise Comeau, director of climate change and energy solutions at the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, said in an interview Friday a release from the East Coast leaders was based on doubtful assumptions that refineries will pass on costs related to the Clean Fuel Regulations this summer.

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston, New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey and Prince Edward Island Premier Dennis King issued a statement Thursday saying the rules would have a "detrimental and disproportionate impact" on the region.

They noted they are expected to come into effect at the same time as carbon charges also scheduled for July 1.

The regulations require producers or importers of gas and diesel to gradually reduce the carbon intensity of the fuels they sell, with the levels to fall 15 per cent below 2016 levels by 2030.

But Comeau said as of July 1 "there should be no price impact in fuel prices at all," but rather the refineries should be pursuing -- at their own expense -- ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their product.

She said the fossil fuel industry is making large profits and can afford to innovate over the next few years, and argues the premiers should instead be focused on working with Ottawa to reduce carbon fuel use across the region.

Comeau called the joint statement a case of the premiers "taking advantage of peoples' concerns and their day-to-day challenges with inflation."

"They continue to make people afraid. And we can't be making people afraid of actions that counter the worst effects of climate change," she said.

"It's unethical, from my point of view."

The statement of the premiers concerned about the timing of the new regulations came after they met with federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, who issued a statement rejecting the premiers' stance.

Guilbeault said refineries in the Atlantic region will face small, incremental costs by 2030, and can cover those through profit margins, adding "there is simply no reason that they need to push costs onto consumers on July 1."

Last week, a report by the parliamentary budget officer said the new fuel regulations, set to take full effect in 2030, would potentially cost lower-income Canadians more than wealthier citizens by the time they're fully implemented.

However, Yves Giroux has also said in interviews with The Canadian Press that "doing nothing" to mitigate climate change would also have costs.

Bora Plumptre, director of research at Electric Mobility Canada -- an advocacy group for electric transportation -- said in an interview that refineries that reduce their carbon intensity will earn carbon credits that can be traded and reduce their costs.

"The premiers really overstated the impact of this policy and certainly as of July 1 there's no reason to believe costs of fuel should go up because of this policy," he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 26, 2023.

from CTV News - Atlantic https://ift.tt/TI3UACj

[canadianabroadvery]

[lifecarelogistic]

Typical Logistics Issues and Problem-solving tips

Introduction

There are still a few key issues that frequently reappear despite the logistics sector's ongoing evolution and integration of cutting-edge technologies into local and global supply chains. We'll examine a few of the most prevalent logistics issues the sector faces in this blog post, along with solutions for avoiding their negative impacts.

Want to be certain that you are overcoming all the typical logistical obstacles without skipping a beat? Make an appointment for your free consultation with the Best Logistic Company in India, and let our logistics experts teach you how to create a supply chain that is more able to withstand logistical issues in the future.

Following Issues and Tips

1. Warehouse Management Errors

Even while we make every effort to keep everything at warehouses and distribution centers functioning without a hitch, mistakes can nevertheless happen. Human errors can be expensive if they are not controlled, whether it be a misplaced product, picking, packaging, shipping problems, incomplete orders, or damage to things during storage. Utilizing efficient and modern warehouse management systems is a surefire strategy to lower these types of errors.

By incorporating more recent technology, such as voice picking, automated picking and packing systems, mobile picking apps, and more, operations can be made more efficient and error-free. The danger of harm or error is also reduced by ensuring that warehouse staff is properly trained and that policies clearly outline where and how the goods are to be handled.

2. Delivery Commodities

Delivery of commodities and products can be slowed down or even halted by manufacturing closures, port capacity concerns, pandemic reactions, labor strikes, piracy, riots, and any number of other disruptive events. These are the dangers associated with a global supply chain, hence it is essential to have multiple supply sources as well as backup delivery options. Slowdowns and delays can also be brought on by infrastructure problems, such as ports' inability to handle the enormous volume of incoming shipments, the impact of labor shortages on freight fleets, and the declining availability of drivers.

3. Transportation Costs

In the logistics sector, reducing transportation costs is nearly always a major concern, and supply chain management typically has little direct control over the solution. Thoughtful planning and inventive solutions are needed to keep transportation expenses as low as possible, even if fuel prices vary according to the market and are frequently rising. Increasing freight rates, gasoline surcharges, and diesel fuel prices can all seem overwhelming.

Costs can be considerably reduced by combining goods and using all available space for transport. Effective and honest communication with carriers is necessary for this. In rare circumstances, fewer carriers can also make a difference.

4. Fragmented Communication

Snags are inevitable in the logistics supply chain since it has so many linkages, from production to distribution and everything in between, from manufacturing to transport. Since there are so many potential points of breakdown in communication, finding and correcting potential faults can be challenging. The adoption of efficient communication and visibility software tools, which are frequently immediately linked to warehouse management systems and have open access to clients and partners, helps ease this. Issues are more easily remedied before they turn into major snafus when everyone involved, including end-use consumers expecting a delivery, has access to the product as it travels through the various stages of production and distribution.

[your-krazy-uncle-bob]

By Victor Davis Hanson

October 26, 2022

Our two parties have both changed, and that explains why one will win, and one lose in the midterm elections.

The old Democrats have faded away after being overwhelmed by radicals and socialists.

Moderates who once embraced Bill Clinton’s opportunistic “third way” are now either irrelevant or nonexistent.

Once considered too wacky and socialist to be taken seriously, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the performance-art “squad,” the radicals of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and her hard progressive wing are today’s Democratic Party kingpins.

The alienating radicals of Antifa and Black Lives Matter often serve as the new party’s shock troops on the streets. They opportunistically appear to push the party to embrace no-bail laws, defunding the police, and the destruction of the fossil fuel industry.

Since none of those positions poll even close to 50 percent with the public, the Democrats routinely either slur their opponents as racists, nativists, and climate denialists or obsess on another Trump psychodrama distraction from the Russia collusion hoax to the Mar-a-Lago raid.

What “blue dog” centrists are left in the Democratic Party either keep mum or, like Tulsi Gabbard, flee in disgust.

Donald Trump also recalibrated the Republican Party and helped to turn it into a nationalist-populist movement that would rather win rudely than lose politely. The MAGA agenda pushed Jacksonian deterrence rather than unpopular nation-building abroad. It finally focused on fair rather than just free trade.  Republicans now unite in demanding only legal immigration and promoting domestic investment rather than globalist outsourcing and offshoring.

In response, many of the old Bush-Romney country-club wing left in disgust. Others licked their wounds as fanatical NeverTrump something or others.

Both parties have also been radically changed by additional issues of class, race, and wealth.

Compare the income profiles of voters, whether by ZIP codes or congressional districts. A once lunch-bucket carrying, union member Democratic Party has become the enclave of three key constituencies.

First, there is the subsidized and often inner-city poor.

Second, the meat of the party, is the upscale, bicoastal professional and suburban credentialed classes.

Third, the real rulers of the party are the hyper-rich of Big Tech, Wall Street, Hollywood, the corporate boardroom, the administrative state, the media, and the legal world. Almost all these institutions have lost public confidence and poll miserably. Their cocooned leaders are never subject to the ramifications of their own often unworkable policies.

In contrast, Republicans this election cycle concerned themselves mostly with material issues of the battered middle classes—inflation, the price of fuel and energy, a secure border, crime, parental control of schools, and realist foreign policy.

Reforming social security, reducing capital gains taxes, and pruning back regulations are still doctrinaire Republican agendas. But they are not iconic of the middle-class dominated party as they once were in the age of Ronald Reagan.

Democrats, as the champions of the well-off, remain redistributionist and seek to tax the middle class to fund ever more government programs.

Joe Biden canceled some student loans. He printed lots of money. And he expanded entitlements. But even these calcified Great Society issues are drowned out by the real concerns of the professional leftist elites who run the Democratic Party.

After all, they do not worry much about the price of diesel fuel, or whether border communities are swarmed by illegal immigration. They are indifferent to whether it is unsafe to take a late-night subway ride. And they are not too worried about being mugged or whether they can splurge for a weekend steak.

Instead, condescending Democratic movers and shakers are obsessed with climate change and sermonize about ending fossil fuels. Diversity, equity, and inclusion—all mandated equality-of-result agendas—are their cultural religion, along with transgender advocacy, and abortion on demand in all 50 states.

The net result of these radical shifts is that Republicans began bonding with the neglected working classes and those without college degrees. That way they drowned out left-wing racial obsessions with ecumenical class concerns.

In the process, the new Republican Party in 2022 is poised to win 45-50 percent of Hispanic voters and a near record number of African-American men.

In our changed political landscape, poorer Republican candidates are routinely outspent in most of their races. Conservatives are more likely to be canceled by left-wing anti-free-expression institutions like Facebook and Twitter. Their access to online knowledge and communication is often warped by monopolies and cartels like Google and Apple.

The Democrats claim Republicans are racists. But they cannot explain why record numbers of minorities are now deserting the Democrats, and the blue-state urban areas they run, to join the new Republicans.

As Republicans diminished the role of race, the Democrats grew ever more obsessed about it—and ignored class. The Oprahs, Meghan Markles, and MSNBC anchors of the world fixate over skin color in direct proportion to their own affluence, status, and privilege—as their hypocrisy turns off the middle classes of all races.

In sum, the party of old left-wing progressives has become one of rich regressives. And once country-club Republicans are becoming a party of middle-class populists. And the election will reflect both those changes.

[mariacallous]

German farmers’ irate marathon protests that reached a high point last week has evoked comparisons to the 1524-1525 German Peasants’ War, the largest uprising in Western Europe before the French Revolution. Across the country, well-ordered columns of tractors, many-hundred-strong, thundered along autobahns en route to urban centers, occupying main squares in almost every major city and hundreds of towns. In some places, the farmers clashed with police; in others, effigies symbolizing the current center-left German government—composed of the Social Democrats, Greens, and liberal Free Democrats—hung from a yardarm.

On Monday, the caravans descended from all directions on Berlin, Germany’s capital city. An estimated 10,000 farmers, agriculture sector workers, and sympathetic citizens marched through the city as snow and freezing winds coursed down its wide avenues. The protesters’ sirens, horns, and cowbells created a din that could be heard many blocks away. Despite the fact that the demonstration shut down the city center and disrupted traffic all around Berlin, the ruddy-faced farmers, thickly bundled atop their imposing machinery got thumbs-ups, approving waves, and words of encouragement from passersby.

The signs fastened to their machinery expressed their dire messages: “If the farmer dies, so does the country,” “Better death than slavery,” “The death of farming = starvation,” and “If German farmers are ruined, you’ll be importing your food.”

The immediate object of the agricultural sector’s ire was the Jan. 4 government announcement that it will cancel a longtime subsidy for diesel fuel. Farmers rely on diesel for many types of machinery and are reimbursed about 21 euro cents (23 U.S. cents) per liter (about a quarter of a gallon) of fuel. That’s about 12 percent of a liter’s total price. This is worth about 1,700 euros ($1,850) a month to the average farm and runs German taxpayers around 440 million euros ($482 million) annually.

Environmentalists and market-minded liberals had long had the diesel subsidy in their sights, but it was pushed onto the front burner late last year, when Germany’s highest court ruled unconstitutional the government’s appropriation of 60 billion euros ($65 billion) left over from COVID-19 pandemic emergency aid for climate measures. The ruling left a gaping 17-billion-euro ($18.5-billion) hole in the 2024 budget that the government has been racing to plug ever since.

The traditionally arch-conservative farmers’ lobby—never a friend of any of the government’s coalition partners—protested vehemently as if the scratched benefit would bankrupt every hard-working, salt-of-the-earth homestead in Germany. But neither this nor other dark prophecies will transpire—and not because the government backed down on Jan. 4 and agreed to reduce the subsidy in phases over three years. In fact, the diesel subsidy has very little impact on most farms’ well-being.

Experts say that the average German farmer isn’t facing existential threat and that the nullified diesel rebate alone would pinch only those small farms already teetering.

“Most farmers aren’t poor,” said Stephan Cramon-Taubadel, an agricultural economist from the University of Göttingen. He pointed to the farmers’ lobby’s own recent study, which show the average income of a full-time farmer is 82,000 euros a year—and that’s just agricultural income, usually only one part of many farms’ total income.

In fact, an astounding half of this income, roughly, hails from subsidies. And that’s just for being farmers—not for specifically being small, family-run farms, or farms hit hard by drought, or farms that are cleaner or less-emissions-intensive or more decent to livestock.

On the contrary, most of the subsidies are distributed per hectare, meaning that the largest agribusinesses are reaping the lion’s share. The condition of the German farmer today is dramatically different than that of their 16th-century predecessors involved in the peasants’ war, who bore heavy taxation and suffered egregious injustice under the yoke of the nobility.

Germany’s nearly 270,000 farmers are recipients of a vast number of direct and indirect subsidies, most of which dwarf the diesel rebate—and even increased in total last year by 200 million euros ($217.5 million) compared to 2022.

The largest chunk of this pie hails from the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, which allocated German farmers about 7 billion euros in 2023, some of which was calculated per hectare (2.5 acres) of farmland, other parts of which went toward specific funding programs for sustainable and environmentally sound farming and rural development. The German government—in other words, German taxpayers—kicks in another roughly 6 billion euros. (In return, Germans pay some of the lowest food prices compared to household income in Europe, which are lower only in Luxembourg and Ireland.)

Moreover, German farmers are coming off banner seasons: In 2022 and 2023, profits rocketed upward by more than 30 percent each year, despite high inflation and, in 2022, the lingering COVID-19 pandemic.

“German farmers had a record year,” said German agriculture expert Alfons Balmann of the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development.

What, then, are Germany’s farmers griping about? Why does one farmer after another interviewed on German television insist that the political class is not listening to them? That they won’t be taken for granted? That they won’t allow change to happen over their heads?

The ham-fisted defense of agriculture’s status quo is not new, but rather the decades-long mission of the Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV), the agricultural sector’s powerful political lobby. Germany’s Christian Democrats above all have loyally served the DBV since the early postwar years—and today is no different. Conservatives such as Bavaria’s governor, Markus Söder, took to the farmers’ stage in Munich, expressing his undiluted support for their demands. “Without our farmers, there’s no Germany,” he said.

But this rigidity comes at the expense of making changes in our modern food production system in line with the changing times and sensibilities. For years now, there has been pressure on German farmers to reform their existing business model: from the EU, from Germany’s environmental agencies, from animal rights and biodiversity advocates, and from the climate movement.

The angry farmers, argued Jost Maurin of the newspaper Die Tageszeitung, partly have “themselves to blame for the fact that their sector is currently losing the energy tax rebate completely. They have ignored all justified demands for a reform of climate-damaging subsidies for decades. For years, the authorities have recommended to employ financing to promote more environmentally friendly agriculture. But climate arguments simply bounce off Germany’s subsidy champions.” One of the options left to the government, Maurin said, was to simply lop off the diesel rebate, killing two birds with one stone.

There’s no better example of this attitude and the close cooperation between the agricultural lobby and European conservatives than the EU reform measures that were ambushed last year by the European People’s Party, the alliance of the continent’s conservatives in the European Parliament. With the agricultural lobby at its back, the European People’s Party led the charge to water down a nature restoration measure and vehicle emissions regulation, as well as to kill off completely a bill that would have reduced the use of toxic pesticides.

Balmann, of the Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development, said that the writing is on the wall for the farmers, and pointed to an extensive study sponsored by the DBV, green nongovernmental organization, and German agencies that charts a path toward sustainable farming.

What do Germany’s farmers say they need to make it happen? Another 10 billion euros each year in government aid. But farmers shouldn’t expect to be given something more from government without giving something up in return.

[ecodweeb]

About the Author

Chris Maxwell (née  Browder) is a lifelong resident of the sprawling mid-south and south-eastern US. To date he has driven over 260,000 electric miles across a variety of EVs that use SAE charging standards (ie, non-Tesla vehicles). Chris has always loved cars and considers himself to be a dying breed of car enthusiast. 

Chris is of the Capitan Planet generation and has always had a concern for the environment, especially air quality as it affects his asthma. In his early adulthood he promoted the use of Biodiesel and diesel engines to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and farming our way to sustainability. This all came crashing down after the Volkswagen Diesel Emission Scandal (aka "dieselgate"), which prompted Chris to take his advocacy into the electric era.

After returning his cheating diesel on April 1, 2016, Chris eagerly took possession of his 2013 Smart ForTwo Electric Drive Cabriolet - named Gopher - and never looked back. Within three months there wasn’t a non-plug-in vehicle in the household under his name. Chris also rediscovered his passion for motorcycling after going electric, overcoming a 20 year hiatus after a crash. 

Chris's contribution to the local North Carolina EV community includes his annual State of NC Fast Charging report, the annual Brentwood Solar House EV Charging Solar Offset report, and his annual range report on the battery health (capacity) of his 10-year old Smart EV. 

Chris has been very active in North Carolina policy surrounding EVs and charging, including the EV parking and charge pricing policy at NC State University. Chris's dedication to this space culminated in an opportunity to work in the EV charging industry, specifically supporting high power DC Fast Charging systems for commercial class vehicles (mostly Buses, but Semi, Box, and Refuse trucks as well).

Media Profiles & Interviews

ChargePoint Driver Profile Part 1

ChargePoint Driver Profile Part 2

Plug-in NC Ambassador Profile

NC Sustainable Energy Association Profile

Fuel What Matters Blog

NC Clean Energy Tech Center: EVs are Paving the Way for Emission-free Transportation

Wallstreet Journal:  What’s Missing in the Electric-Vehicle Revolution: Enough Places to Plug In

Published EV Articles

Out Motorsports: Can Enthusiasts Bond with EVs?