Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[pedro]

First topic message reminder :

Corbyn I guess.

[McLaren]

Hard to imagine just how frustrated Alonso must feel right now. Will someone please get him in a car that can win something.

Not watched Indy500 for a long time and have to say it was a bit stop start, making the race a series of short stints where you try and avoid an accident. It is not clear to me what factors contributed to Sato winning. The strategy, lap times (speed) etc seemed almost irrelevant.

[super_realist]

I think you're the only one who cares for that overblown engineering competition Mac.

In fact, I'm surprised you are into it given your green party stance. There's probably no sport in the world with a carbon footprint as large as F1 for all its globetrotting.

[McLaren]

Super

The indy 500 is a indyseries event, not an F1 race.


And on the carbon footprint thing, what do you think creates a bigger carbon footprint; A season of F1 or a couple of weeks of fans travelling to English league football in cars and buses. I don't know the answer but it must be pretty close.

Although hopefully sport is not really contributing enough to global warming that we need to worry about it.

[super_realist]

I'm well aware of that Mac, but it still boils down to an engineering competition.

I'm not even talking about the expenditure of fuel per race, it's all the globetrotting around the world for all the teams that probably adds even more than the race does.

Football simply means you're a hypocrite on both counts then, condoning a sport with a massive carbon footprint. How do you square that circle with your benevolent Green party vote?
How about your travelling by Diesel powered buses everywhere? You aren't very green at all are you Mac?

[McLaren]

Super

In the Indy SeriesAll the cars have the same Dallara chassis, with lots of standard parts. It is a long way from the "engineering competition" you so detest about f1.



Do you think people attending sporting events is a major contribute to climate change?

[super_realist]

Mac, millions of people take part in sport every week, this involves lots of travel. I don't know what level it contributes, but you're the one who professes to be such a fan of the useless Green party yet you support the two sports (well one sport and one two horse engineering competition) which are probably the worst offenders.

[beninho]

Why does everything just become a nonsense arguement on here. Anyway, I watched bits of the indy500 its a bit bonkers, that crash though was huge, cant believe he just walked away. Alonso was supreme, just got unlucky with the engine, but the honda engine is pretty good in indy, just pretty poor in f1. Really wanted kimi to win yesterday!

[McLaren]

I watched bits of the indy500 its a bit bonkers, that crash though was huge, cant believe he just walked away. Alonso was supreme, just got unlucky with the engine, but the honda engine is pretty good in indy, just pretty poor in f1. Really wanted kimi to win yesterday!

That crash was crazy, that nothing made contact with his head was just luck. If the car had gone into the barrier cockpit side first it would have been a really grim outcome.

When watching f1 you are aware of things like pit strategy and tyre strategy and you can follow what they will mean for a driver, but in Indy the strategy is either not all that important or the commentators just don't mention it. I would probably go with not that important as the tyres easily last until the next stop (which is usually a free stop under caution). The constant caution periods just seem to reset the race and any strategies the teams could be on.

[beninho]

From what I gather, the only real strategy is getting one less stop for fuel and then clinging on hoping to sace fuel under the constant yellow flags. It was so different to f1 though. I enjoyed it but not a convert over f1 yet, though the monaco gp was nit the most exciting, though it never is!

[McLaren]

The issue with the indy seemed to be that no stint was ever seen out to fruition, and the teams were almost certain they would get a stop in the last 50 laps or so under a safety car. Maybe this years race had more cautions than usual?

But overall I did enjoy watching it, although I am not sure how much of that was the Fernando factor.

[kwinigolfer]

Great. Nicaragua and Syria are joined by the United States. Three against the world.
Just how cynical can they get?

[puligny]

The Donald is so clever he must know something not readily available to the rest of us. Top man, not a sad bad man - come to think of it not even a man. Transcends all of that!! I recall my dad had a word for it!

[Diggers]

No response from May over the Paris accord, weak yet again. I'd say weak leadership but there isn't any leadership, just kiss arse pandering. Want to hold Donald's hand again Teresa?

[McLaren]

I get that Trump would like to leave but won't he have to pass something through congress/senate to actually leave the Paris treaty?

[Roller_Coaster]

And that will be a problem for a swathe of science deniers how?

[super_realist]

Congress and Senate are populated by creatards Mac. What do you think would be the problem?

[Davie]

I get that Trump would like to leave but won't he have to pass something through congress/senate to actually leave the Paris treaty?

I think I read somewhere that entering the Paris accord was an executive order passed by Obama - so Trump can just overturn it without having to have it passed by senate/congress

Maybe wrong though I'm sure someone will correct me if so

[Diggers]

He certainly announced it as a done deal, no mention of any referral to the houses. Looks like California is going to attempt to continue the Paris proposals anyway.

[super_realist]

In all reality, it wouldn't really make a difference, America is already the biggest polluter, them not being in it won't make any difference as I can't see how they were going to reduce their pollution in the first place.
Petrol is virtually given away there and there is no need for them to make or import efficient vehicles.

[kwinigolfer]

In all reality, it wouldn't really make a difference, America is already the biggest polluter, them not being in it won't make any difference as I can't see how they were going to reduce their pollution in the first place.
Petrol is virtually given away there and there is no need for them to make or import efficient vehicles.

super,
Agree about the petrol but there have been huge changes in environment "management" in the time that I've lived here - and I really don't expect much of that to change.
As with so many "nationalistic" policies, the people to suffer the biggest impact, in the US anyway, will be those who are most likely to be deny-ers, represented by oil interests.

[super_realist]

Kwini, just for the record, the oil companies are not deniers. Those who invest in them might be however.

America still have vehicle categories in which they do not need to meet any emission standards, and they also gerrymander some of the tests by having cars that work on fewer cylinders at test speeds, yet have the audacity to moan about VW.

They also lie about the emission of many European cars which they claim are too high, denying them export to America, despite selling cars and trucks which are far worse. Rank hypocrisy.

[Diggers]

It's an economically dumb decision. More people in the US work in sustainable and renewable energy than they do in mining fossil fuels. That pattern will only increase, if he had a brain he'd be investing in those areas.

[kwinigolfer]

super,
I'm aware of all that!
Just saying huuuge changes have been made and there's a strong grass roots momentum to sustain the improvement.

Not least because Diggers is spot on!

[super_realist]

It's an economically dumb decision. More people in the US work in sustainable and renewable energy than they do in mining fossil fuels. That pattern will only increase, if he had a brain he'd be investing in those areas.

Is that actually true Diggers? Seems unlikely given their reliance on Oil and Gas and their relative reluctance to embrace renewables. Perhaps more than coal mining, but doubtful that it's more than the E&P industry.

Having been to Houston and seen how many people work in O&G in just one city, I find it hard to think that more work in sustainable and renewables. Happy to be proven wrong though.

[Diggers]

Kwini, just for the record, the oil companies are not deniers. Those who invest in them might be however.

America still have vehicle categories in which they do not need to meet any emission standards, and they also gerrymander some of the tests by having cars that work on fewer cylinders at test speeds, yet have the audacity to moan about VW.

They also lie about the emission of many European cars which they claim are too high, denying them export to America, despite selling cars and trucks which are far worse. Rank hypocrisy.

They aren't deniers, broadly speaking they just don't care, Shells actions being a prime example. And the investors effectively are the oil companies, one doesn't exist without the other.

[super_realist]

I'll simply put that down to your ignorance and political stance rather than any knowledge of it Diggers.

Alternatively, you could research the renewable portfolio's of many of the companies you seem to deride.

[Diggers]

It's an economically dumb decision. More people in the US work in sustainable and renewable energy than they do in mining fossil fuels. That pattern will only increase, if he had a brain he'd be investing in those areas.

Is that actually true Diggers? Seems unlikely given their reliance on Oil and Gas and their relative reluctance to embrace renewables.

Having been to Houston and seen how many people work in O&G in just one city, I find it hard to think that more work in sustainable and renewables. Happy to be proven wrong though.

That's what they said on last night Newsnight report. Plenty of margin for error I guess.

[super_realist]

It's an economically dumb decision. More people in the US work in sustainable and renewable energy than they do in mining fossil fuels. That pattern will only increase, if he had a brain he'd be investing in those areas.

Is that actually true Diggers? Seems unlikely given their reliance on Oil and Gas and their relative reluctance to embrace renewables.

Having been to Houston and seen how many people work in O&G in just one city, I find it hard to think that more work in sustainable and renewables. Happy to be proven wrong though.

That's what they said on last night Newsnight report. Plenty of margin for error I guess.

I presume they mean Coal mining. Millions employed in O and G, so can't see Renewables surpassing that.

[Diggers]

I'll simply put that down to your ignorance and political stance rather than any knowledge of it Diggers.

Alternatively, you could research the renewable portfolio's of many of the companies you seem to deride.

Your choice, I've heard your apologist stance so many times, whatever the evidence to the contrary, that your opinion on the subject ceases to carry any value. A shame as you clearly know your stuff, but from a one eyed viewpoint.

[super_realist]

I'm not being an apologist, I'm simply more aware of what O&G companies are involved in than you appear to be.
You don't seem to appreciate the changes they've made to production techniques to reduce emissions, the investment in renewables, the fact some have completely abandoned Fossil Fuels completely, investment in more efficient engineering, the plans to inject CO2 into rock strata, more efficient platforms, pipelines, abandoning Tar Sands and Arctic drilling etc.

Not saying it will ever be 100% green, nothing ever is, but to say "they don't care" or infer they are doing nothing is very much a 6th form stance and demonstrably untrue.

[Diggers]

You've apologised for their actions in Africa and the carnage caused by their accidents and subsequent attempted cover ups.
How much of their research is due to global  pressure and govt  intervention to change rather than any supposed desire to help the environment?
Ultimately the only thing these companies care about is the share price, to a large extent they have to. But if you can't see that BP and Shell have acted in ways that's deserve derision then fair enough, your choice.

[super_realist]

How much of any change, e.g. government, policy,law is also due to pressure or societal change?

I accept that at times oil companies, as many non oil companies/charities have also acted poorly, but it doesn't mean they are currently in that situation or aren't doing something in regards to environment.

I've never excused any accidents.

I don't think you could name a single company anywhere which has ever done anything which would not upset someone, perhaps Lothian Buses might be one of Mac's heroes, but other than that I can't think of one.

The majority of companies focus on share price, not sure why you're demonising oil when companies like Amazon are hugely wasteful AND don't pay taxes.

On another note, the profits of oil companies, are taxed HIGHER than any other industry and are probably more likely to have financed environmental projects than any other. Not to mention, most people's pensions are directly linked to big oil.

[Diggers]

I deplore Amazons tax stance, using that as some form of comparison to excuse the crimes of companies like Shell is utterly irrelevant. Does paying tax (as little as possbile no doubt) excuse decades of blatant disregard in the pursuit of profit? Maybe for you, not for me.

[super_realist]

I'm not using it as an excuse, in fact I only mentioned in it because people only talk about their tax dispute. They waste a massive amount of resources through their bad practices which no one ever mentions and their zero hours employment and exploitation of staff goes un-noticed too.

At least Oil companies are taxed to take account of their damage to the environment. How are Amazon accountable for theirs?

Can't you name any other oil companies, or is it just BP and Shell that concern you?


FYI, in the UK oil companies pay between 40-80% tax depending on the type of field it is, so I'd hardly call that "as little as possible" Can you think of any industry that is taxed so highly? Of course it doesn't excuse past mis-deeds, but it does show their value to countries sensible enough to have State Oil Companies. You can basically run Norway on their 66% of Statoil.

[kwinigolfer]

super,
Most of the impact of these nationalist t0ssp0ts will be self-inflicted, increasing deregulation of industrial farming and chemical co's, resultant contamination of waterways, lakes, encouragement of deforestation, incentive to make less efficient vehicles (and thereby perpetuating the appeal of better engineered vehicles from abroad, etc, etc.

And the USA can do all this with careless abandon because, if it all gets out of kilter, god will take care of things:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/01/tim-walberg-climate-change-trump-paris-agreement/102389286/

[Diggers]

Again, I agree with you completely re Amazon. Again, one example of of bad practice does not magically excuse that of another.
The North Slope oil companies recently lost a massive tax dispute in Alaska, worth around a billion dollars. Hardly shows that oil companies are universally desperate to pay their taxes.

[super_realist]

I didn't say there were desperate to pay their taxes, who is and who wouldn't try to mitigate their liability especially at 40-80% tax rates. Doubt they'd bat an eyelid at the 20% or whatever other industries pay.

I said they're more highly taxed than any other industry.

[raycastleunited]

FYI, in the UK oil companies pay between 40-80% tax depending on the type of field it is

Not sure about that. In the North Sea that's true for Norway and Netherlands, but not Germany and UK.

[Diggers]

I didn't say there were desperate to pay their taxes, who is and who wouldn't try to mitigate their liability especially at 40-80% tax rates. Doubt they'd bat an eyelid at the 20% or whatever other industries pay.

I said they're more highly taxed than any other industry.

By that argument you also believe Amazon's tax position is justifiable.

[super_realist]

I'm not remotely saying that. Amazon don't pay a fair share whatsoever, Oil companies pay 2-4x more than their fair share.

Why do most firms pay 19% corporation tax, yet oil companies are charged in three different ways?

Corporation tax, PRT and Supplementary Charge.

[Diggers]

And why are they taxed - because of the collateral damage caused from their profits. And again, a billion dollar tax case is not minimising their tax position.
Basically your view is: Tiger Woods asleep at the wheel, guilty, idiot, throw the book at him. Oil company destroys huge areas of Nigeria causing devastation, well at least they pay some tax in the U.K.

[super_realist]

No, they're not taxed because of collateral damage whatsoever. Taxes go back to the very first days of the industry.
They are taxed because it's a commodity that people need and the government see it as an easy piece of taxation.

I've never said don't throw the book at oil companies for their damage have I? I've said that their tax is excessive compared to other industries and that they are more highly taxed than other industries.

Sometimes I think even Mac can read context better than you.

If you want to blame oil companies for "destroying" large parts of Nigeria, then you ought to hold the Nigerian government to be more responsible, they've allowed them to do it through their profiteering and lack of regulation. I'm not excusing the oil company, but they're not the only ones to blame.

Why would a company paying 80% tax not seek to mitigate it if there's a reason to make a claim? Are you saying you wouldn't?

If an oil company wasn't taxed so absurdly high in the first place, perhaps they wouldn't try so hard to mitigate it, but you cannot hold oil companies up as an example of not paying their tax when they pay a higher percentage than any other company. Their corporation tax rate is also higher.

[navyblueshorts]

In all reality, it wouldn't really make a difference, America is already the biggest polluter, them not being in it won't make any difference as I can't see how they were going to reduce their pollution in the first place.
Petrol is virtually given away there and there is no need for them to make or import efficient vehicles.

True, but they made big strides under Obama. Also, Americans love money and there's no way Trump can make coal cheap again or roll back the increase in solar and wind power, in the U.S. or anywhere else. All he's done is make America look really, really, stupid and 'satisfy' his bonehead core support that he's followed through on a campaign pledge.

[super_realist]

Certain places might have seen strides under Obama, like the more normal West Coast.

Plenty places still untouched by renewables and not keen to embrace.

I filled up a 4ltr car there for about $25 last year. Hilarious. I thought the pump was broken. With those prices America has zero incentive to be frugal with fuel.

[Diggers]

Strewth, and you say you aren't an apologist? Try reading your own post and spot the contradictions. You make excuses at every turn, yeah, let's blame the Nigerian govt for being so easily corrupted, how can you possibly expect the oil companies not to exploit these countries. Of course they should seek to avoid taxation, how could they not.
One eyed hypocrisy.

[super_realist]

Mac, I mean Diggers, I'm simply saying you can't place the blame solely on the oil companies.

I'm not saying they're avoiding taxation, I'm saying they're seeking a more FAIR rate of taxation commensurate with other businesses.

Funny how you only name Nigeria.

[Diggers]

Is screwing over one country not enough for you?

[super_realist]

Apart from the wealth that it has given Nigeria. Easy to forget about that.

In that case Diggers, I hope you enjoy living in your grass hut in the field and walking everywhere, because oil is vital to EVERY part of your life unless you do live exactly like that. You better log off the computer and throw it out the window because it's made of oil products.

and you infer I'm a one eyed hypocrite?

[Diggers]

That's a crap argument, the debate is how you choose to conduct yourself whilst providing a product. Oil companies have a shocking record in this regard. You're still making excuses whilst claiming you don't.

[beninho]

Nigeria is not a,wealthy country. It is a corrupt country with a massive inequality gap. No one should use that place as a positive in anything. I know little about oil and gas industry but would assume that if they pay 50% tax now they would try and bring it down, if they had 20% liability they would still try and bring it down. I hate companies that bring the liabilities down through various means. All companies should pay what they have to.

[Sponsored content]