Re: (ReacTor) Five SFF Books Featuring Frigid, Icy Worlds

On 7/18/2024 10:59 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 17:52:49 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 7/17/2024 10:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 19:47:12 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
=20

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:15:08 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
>

Five SFF Books Featuring Frigid, Icy Worlds
>
Celebrate the coldest summer of the rest of your life with some
frosty SF and fantasy novels!
>
https://reactormag.com/five-sff-books-featuring-frigid-icy-worlds/

>
I could comment that your posting is itself a dystopian SF story,
about a world where giant oil companies have managed to control the
political system and hypnotize the populace so as to prevent any
effective response to global warming...
>
if it weren't for the fact that it seems like calling that scenario
"fiction" has already proven to be over-optimistic.

=20
One of the two theories I have seen on why the Texas electrical system
died again (if that actually happened; Bing seems to know nothing
about it, being fascinated by the event in 2021) is, indeed, that the
State of Texas, having funds that could have been used to fix the
problem, chose instead to shovel it into the pockets of the Oil
Industry. Typical Republican behavior.

...
>
I do not know of any Texas state funds being used for the State Crude=20
Oil and Natural Gas industry.  On the contrary, they are the number one=20
tax payer in the state, the state universities are 100% funded by oil=20
and gas revenues, google Texas Permanent University Fund.
>
Please specify the exact amount of funds being paid from the State of=20
Texas to the Crude Oil and Natural Gas industries.

>
That is a theory I read. As I noted, it is clearly biased.

 On the other hand, there are other methods of state support
that don't directly result in 'funds being paid from the State';
such as tax breaks.
    'Spring, 1990, Senator Don Henderson [...] urged his
    fellow state senators to give the oil patch some more
    love.  The Houston Republican, a lawyer closely allied
    with the fossil-fuel industry, had introduced a bill to
    slash the tax on natural gas wells deemed particularly
    tough to develop. "They can be huuuuuuge wells," he
    told the finance committee.'
    'If these wells were so alluring, why did taxpayers
    need to offer Texas drillers a handout? Because, Henderson
    explained, the wells were "expensive and chancy."

Also so much for the definition of "alluring".  "Expensive" and "chancy" are not alluring words to hydrocarbon production.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky dirty old man.