joshhsoj1902

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What part of this change changes that? These locations are setup so that they are close to the people who need them, shutting down the locations doesn't stop the usage, it just pushes it to happen in less safe spaces

Sure it shouldn't be used like this. But incrementing a number isn't enough to steal someone's identity.

Isn't it the address being leaked with it that makes this notable?

You can't add a number to a SSN and also add a number to the street address to then narrow down which full names are associated with that SSN to then possibly be able to use it.

I didn't think the number had any use on its own

To clarify your point. The privatization in Europe has nothing to do with the lower prices, it's the lower tax rate.

In places like Ontario we "double dip" on revenue where the LCBO marks up alcohol as any retailer would and makes revenue for Ontario, but at the same time, alcohol tax is also collected.

When people talk about privatization of the LCBO, it's a portion of that retail markup revenue which we would be unnecessary giving away.

None of this refutes what was said above.

Privatization resulted in alcohol prices increasing.

I've also not seen any numbers that suggest that the Alberta government makes more revenue from the private system than they would have a public system.

Every back-of-the-napkin calculation I've done suggests that the move to a private system increases access to alcohol for citizens while reducing the government revenue related to alcohol sales.

This article shares the per-capita government alcohol revenue in Alberta vs Ontario showing Alberta coming out on top.

Does that feel like a strange stat to anyone else? The revenue would be based off total alcohol sales in dollar amount rather than volume of alcohol sold, I know it would hard to correct for that.

When I looked into this before (and that was hard to do because good Alberta data seemed hard to find, I don't have that data handy unfortunately) it seemed like Alberta cirizens spent like 5-15% more per capita annually on alcohol, knowing that negates the value of a per capita revenue number since on it's own it can't correct for the extra spent per person.

I would almost want a "government revenue" per "wholesale/retail value" or maybe multiple numbers where it's "government revenue" per "liter of liquor/beer/wine/etc" and then compare those in both markets.

Because that's truely what we want to measure right? We want government revenue to be high, while also not significantly increasing volume sold.

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

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