the latest lapdog snake oil salesman. Also, like most serious science, where is that paper with the concise theory again that explains it all and peer reviewed by all scientists including the ones that disagree?
You mean the ones that disagree that are paid large sums by the oil lobby?
There are plenty of published studies out there. Many studies discussing various aspects of climate change are free and easily accessible if you are legitimately vested in finding out for yourself. Nobody is stopping you from educating yourself on the topic.
to 'fix' global warming. If that's not enough to convince you that a lot of this is hype for people to get their hands on our money, I don't know what is.
And yes, you can rag on the link source, but it was the most concise write up of the very technical report.
FYI According to Gore, NYC should be underwater right now. Link - ( New Window )
Wait, so you're telling me this entire thing is just an elaborate plot for Al Gore to get $15 trillion? How did I not realize this before?
Forget the actual trillions that energy companies have Â
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
Actually I do. It's carbon that already existed when are we at a low point of CO2 in the earths history with our output declining? You actually are agreeing with me. There are a lot more factors involved than fossil fuels that we are weaning off of. Climate change is real. If those gas pit that would have been there if w never existed and ignited for millions of years, would the out come have been different? You can what if every thing to death. We just don't know. We are weaning of of everything that is considered "bad" What is the problem with that?
You don't think we should be exploring new energy sources? Everything we have right now and are pursuing has it's down falls.
What should we do about the potable water situation with our ever growing population if you are worried about sea water
losing it salinity?
That is a much more dire problem for the human population.
RE: Coal is dying and it ain't coming back. That's something people Â
are going to have to live with, and much of the reason it is dying has nothing to do with clean energy solutions.
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
It may be, so why spend so much trying to kill it? Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I never said anything about what is viable. The question is that killing coal prematurely can and does hurt a lot of people. And most of the replacement of coal is natural gas from fracking, which I'm sure you are also against.
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
Actually I do. It's carbon that already existed when are we at a low point of CO2 in the earths history with our output declining? You actually are agreeing with me. There are a lot more factors involved than fossil fuels that we are weaning off of. Climate change is real. If those gas pit that would have been there if w never existed and ignited for millions of years, would the out come have been different? You can what if every thing to death. We just don't know. We are weaning of of everything that is considered "bad" What is the problem with that?
You don't think we should be exploring new energy sources? Everything we have right now and are pursuing has it's down falls.
What should we do about the potable water situation with our ever growing population if you are worried about sea water
losing it salinity?
That is a much more dire problem for the human population.
My entire point is that we should be exploring new energy sources. And I'm not "what if-ing" anything. I'm just looking at the facts of what is and has been happening and the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures.
As far as clean water shortages, I absolutely agree that it is an enormous problem we need to solve. Right now I'm more optimistic on our ability to develop technologies, such as desalination facilities and tools, to allow for the creation of clean water.
RE: RE: Coal is dying and it ain't coming back. That's something people Â
are going to have to live with, and much of the reason it is dying has nothing to do with clean energy solutions.
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
It may be, so why spend so much trying to kill it? Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I never said anything about what is viable. The question is that killing coal prematurely can and does hurt a lot of people. And most of the replacement of coal is natural gas from fracking, which I'm sure you are also against.
You talk about killing the coal industry like Al Gore is personally going around to coal mines and filling them in with concrete.
Yes, China does it, so it's ok for us to as well. Sound logic. Â
"My entire point is that we should be exploring new energy sources. And I'm not "what if-ing" anything. I'm just looking at the facts of what is and has been happening and the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures."
He who solves that problem rules the world and beyond if we can go warp speed Scotty. That's a given
"As far as clean water shortages, I absolutely agree that it is an enormous problem we need to solve. Right now I'm more optimistic on our ability to develop technologies, such as desalination facilities and tools, to allow for the creation of clean water."
Well does desalination work if you want to keep a certain salt level in out oceans? Not as simple as you think.
As I said, we agree. I just don't think you understand the downfalls of all the present technology's and if it would be helpful or harmful. Unintended complications.
So do you want to stop air, sea and ground traffic worldwide that is dependent on fossil fuel?
I had to laugh at a post a while ago that listed flight as one of the greatest inventions but was hesitant to say the combustion engine. Guess what, we would still be on the ground.
linked the op - objectively it's a pretty crappy song and performance. But the overall point about the sexual spectrum is an important one.
Perhaps Bill Nyes Netflix show may not be the best venue for it, but certainly the country is in need of greater exposure and dialogue about the topic of sexuality outside the realms of entertainment and politics.
So do you want to stop air, sea and ground traffic worldwide that is dependent on fossil fuel?
I had to laugh at a post a while ago that listed flight as one of the greatest inventions but was hesitant to say the combustion engine. Guess what, we would still be on the ground.
Did I say that? I'm not debating the benefits that fossil fuels have allowed us from a technological standpoint, but we have progressed in that regard and should be looking at better ways to do things.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
May be wrong but, rumor has it that China reduced it sale of coal to NK and the US is picking up the slack in deals made. NK keeps on with its BS, China makes out, and Trump makes good with the coal miners. We'll see.
"Did I say that? I'm not debating the benefits that fossil fuels have allowed us from a technological standpoint, but we have progressed in that regard and should be looking at better ways to do things."
And I have been saying nothing else from what you just opined. You are just arguing because you "think" I don't have the same view.
Politics today don't let you agree with me even though we agree.
Doesn't that suck. Now you know why there is such a divide in the country.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
You extrapolated all of that off of what was posted there by Buford? You're giving her way more credit than she deserves. If that is what she meant, then that's simply a loser's mentality. China consumes so much coal (they are actually using less now, because conditions have been so bad) it's futile to not even make an attempt at lowering our emissions and transitioning to alternative sources of energy?
Whether parents in the developed world should be punished for having more children. That in a nutshell is both why Bill Nye is a kook and why people are skeptical about the direction this is taking.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I said that because we export a lot of coal to China. So yeah, the death of coal is premature.
And if someone doesn't understand that there was a 'war on coal' and it was described as such and it was stated that energy bills would skyrocket, then I don't know what to tell you. This discussion started by saying that no one was harmed by the push for renewables. As I said, that might be, but in their zeal to push renewables and crush coal, they did indeed hurt millions of people. And guess how those people voted in the last election.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
You extrapolated all of that off of what was posted there by Buford? You're giving her way more credit than she deserves. If that is what she meant, then that's simply a loser's mentality. China consumes so much coal (they are actually using less now, because conditions have been so bad) it's futile to not even make an attempt at lowering our emissions and transitioning to alternative sources of energy?
No David, he read the post correctly. Because he's not a ideologue who wants to attack a poster personally at every chance he gets. I responded to a post saying that 'coal was dead' by saying that we export a lot of coal to China. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.
And the US still uses a heck of a lot of coal. Where do you think a lot of the electricity to power those electric cars comes from?
Whether parents in the developed world should be punished for having more children. That in a nutshell is both why Bill Nye is a kook and why people are skeptical about the direction this is taking.
I don't see anything wrong with asking that question.
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I said that because we export a lot of coal to China. So yeah, the death of coal is premature.
And if someone doesn't understand that there was a 'war on coal' and it was described as such and it was stated that energy bills would skyrocket, then I don't know what to tell you. This discussion started by saying that no one was harmed by the push for renewables. As I said, that might be, but in their zeal to push renewables and crush coal, they did indeed hurt millions of people. And guess how those people voted in the last election.
Hurt 'millions of people'?
The UK just went coal free - how many people died in that one?
Globally, solar capacity around the earth DOUBLED in 2016. Capacity is already beyond where initial DOE estimates of 10 years ago thought they would be in 15 years. China is leading the way. What are we doing? Proposing more coal burning. The EPA is denying climate change. It's not just wrong, it's embarrassing. The fact that more people supported this bullshit is an indictment of our educational system and nothing more.
You should really stick to giving nutritional advice doled out by physical therapists pretending to be doctors.
of pockets of Appalachia. The geographical concentration means it's not just the industry, it's everything that supports it. Millions? Probably not. Hundreds of thousands? Sure. And mountains of data exist describing the various problems plaguing that part of the world. Meth, heroin, poverty, illegitimacy, etc etc. But the salient question is whether the "war on coal" is responsible for the losses or if a significant chunk, maybe a majority, simply owe to market forces.
of pockets of Appalachia. The geographical concentration means it's not just the industry, it's everything that supports it. Millions? Probably not. Hundreds of thousands? Sure. And mountains of data exist describing the various problems plaguing that part of the world. Meth, heroin, poverty, illegitimacy, etc etc. But the salient question is whether the "war on coal" is responsible for the losses or if a significant chunk, maybe a majority, simply owe to market forces.
And the advent of the automobile meant that all those horse outfitters lost their jobs. Give me a break, that's not 'hurting millions' that's progress.
Let's bring a halt to all advancement while we're at it. No more automated tolls, because we can't put the toll clerks out of work. No more washing machines, because we can't withstand the employment losses that will incur.
Talk about a strawman. Here's an idea - the government that's willing to cut the corporate tax rate down and swell the national debt should consider, instead of pushing coal burning and the destruction of our environment, maybe putting some money into developing these areas so they don't die along with the coal?
will show you first hand how population density and coal use are a bad combination. The most amazing thing about China to me is, far and away, how visible air pollution can be. I thought I'd seen air pollution in the US. It was nothing compared to China.
OK, to be fair, how much stuff they can carry on a moped was pretty amazing, too.
RE: RE: The demise of coal has meant the demise... Â
of pockets of Appalachia. The geographical concentration means it's not just the industry, it's everything that supports it. Millions? Probably not. Hundreds of thousands? Sure. And mountains of data exist describing the various problems plaguing that part of the world. Meth, heroin, poverty, illegitimacy, etc etc. But the salient question is whether the "war on coal" is responsible for the losses or if a significant chunk, maybe a majority, simply owe to market forces.
And the advent of the automobile meant that all those horse outfitters lost their jobs. Give me a break, that's not 'hurting millions' that's progress.
Let's bring a halt to all advancement while we're at it. No more automated tolls, because we can't put the toll clerks out of work. No more washing machines, because we can't withstand the employment losses that will incur.
Talk about a strawman. Here's an idea - the government that's willing to cut the corporate tax rate down and swell the national debt should consider, instead of pushing coal burning and the destruction of our environment, maybe putting some money into developing these areas so they don't die along with the coal?
I'm not disagreeing with you. If these jobs are being lost because coal is being demonized, with or without cause, that's one conversation. If these jobs are being lost because it's simply not cost-efficient to produce power in this way, that's the neo-Luddite conversation and on that we're largely in agreement. I'm inclined to think a good bit of it is the latter, even if the various sales pitches put on by both parties - pandering to different constituencies - suggest the former.
I don't see how you can demonize something like coal, though Â
That would imply the negative impacts to the environment and public health are being exaggerated. That's not the case.
In addition to the greenhouse gas concerns, there's the public safety factor; coal generates as much nuclear fallout as your standard boiling or pressurized water reactor. If we're going to focus on the human impact, these people need a better choice than dying of cancer from radiation or dying of meth or heroin addiction.
Of all places - China - as fkap mentions above, the home of air pollution - has been trying to decrease their coal footprint for some time (and has been successful, albeit with a long way to go). When you have to ask whether you measure favorably against China on an environmental stance, you know you've gone too far. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ - ( New Window )
Its economics plain and simple. When you add in the adverse non-economic factors, health and work hazards, the decline should have been earlier and faster.
The local politics are full of hypocracy; when those jobs were in abundance, the complaints were about exploitation. They fought for workers rights, pay and safety (regulations, god forbid!) that made their jobs less viable. Now they are complaining that those awful jobs are gone.
Big problem is who would go in there offering new industrial jobs when the work force is relatively poor quality? I can think of million places I would rather invest, no matter how much they are "retrained" Its a tragedy looking for a villian.
Every region in America has gone through massive change in local economies. Change is constant. The real issue is demagogues lying to them by promising to bring back coal.
All due respect, I don't think that's the real issue. It was just another example of exploitation. The lying isn't new, and doesn't change the economics. Please don't cross the line that deletes this otherwise decent thread.
some of these communities have been dead for decades. The jobs aren't coming back. Some may have a glimmer of hope, they may have been "taken in", but when the other party has abandoned the field - declining to campaign meaningfully in coal country in Presidential campaigns since the 90's - and occasionally celebrated the decline of these industries the votes are going to go to the candidate who at least acknowledges their existence.
Investors wouldn't give a shit about demonization if it was profitable Â
People go to where the jobs are. Think 19th century gold rush. When the jobs are gone, people leave. If you haven't seen some of the hundreds of abandoned gold-mining towns in the mountain west, please visit. They are incredible. If there are no jobs, and no prospects, the idea that someone should continue to support them or be responsible for bringing them new jobs is misguided.
People go to where the jobs are. Think 19th century gold rush. When the jobs are gone, people leave. If you haven't seen some of the hundreds of abandoned gold-mining towns in the mountain west, please visit. They are incredible. If there are no jobs, and no prospects, the idea that someone should continue to support them or be responsible for bringing them new jobs is misguided.
No disagreement, but the gold rush and the various other rushes lasted for years in many cases. These are towns that go back 100+. It's about as easy to leave a boom town as it was to go there in the first place. You probably didn't have your family with you, certainly not three or four generations. Mobility is probably the best answer, but psychologically and financially it's not necessarily an easy one.
It implies, and its partly contractual, that if you work you will be provided for. It implies, but does not state, that this will occur where you live. No need to move. Its created a psychology that condones dependence. That didn't exist in the 19th century, so people just left, even if they were born and raised there, which many were.
RE: Thats the moral hazard of social security..... Â
It implies, and its partly contractual, that if you work you will be provided for. It implies, but does not state, that this will occur where you live. No need to move. Its created a psychology that condones dependence. That didn't exist in the 19th century, so people just left, even if they were born and raised there, which many were.
And without taking it too far down this road, SSDI has replaced wage income for many in this strata, geographically and socio-economically. So they have enough to live, and they and their progeny engage in a slow-motion multigenerational train wreck with all the attendant social horrors.
This already played out in the inner cities in the 60s, 70s and some of the 80s. Its what prompted welfare reform of the 90s.
History is definitely echoing. Incarceration isn't on the scale of the War on Crack/Cocaine but it's taking a toll too - rightly or wrongly - and overdoses are through the roof, of course not just in coal country either.
It doesn't help anyone to make false claims about manufacturing, coal, etc. and significant damage is done when politicians focus policies on restoring those jobs.
You mean the ones that disagree that are paid large sums by the oil lobby?
There are plenty of published studies out there. Many studies discussing various aspects of climate change are free and easily accessible if you are legitimately vested in finding out for yourself. Nobody is stopping you from educating yourself on the topic.
And yes, you can rag on the link source, but it was the most concise write up of the very technical report.
FYI According to Gore, NYC should be underwater right now. Link - ( New Window )
Wait, so you're telling me this entire thing is just an elaborate plot for Al Gore to get $15 trillion? How did I not realize this before?
Quote:
In comment 13441857 732NYG said:
Quote:
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
Actually I do. It's carbon that already existed when are we at a low point of CO2 in the earths history with our output declining? You actually are agreeing with me. There are a lot more factors involved than fossil fuels that we are weaning off of. Climate change is real. If those gas pit that would have been there if w never existed and ignited for millions of years, would the out come have been different? You can what if every thing to death. We just don't know. We are weaning of of everything that is considered "bad" What is the problem with that?
You don't think we should be exploring new energy sources? Everything we have right now and are pursuing has it's down falls.
What should we do about the potable water situation with our ever growing population if you are worried about sea water
losing it salinity?
That is a much more dire problem for the human population.
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
It may be, so why spend so much trying to kill it? Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I never said anything about what is viable. The question is that killing coal prematurely can and does hurt a lot of people. And most of the replacement of coal is natural gas from fracking, which I'm sure you are also against.
it just changes from liquid, to solid, to gas.
It just purifies and recycles itself.
China cancelling coal plants - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13442002 ctc in ftmyers said:
Quote:
In comment 13441857 732NYG said:
Quote:
demise, though. We have the capabilities to try to fix things. That's how we adapt.
But it's all carbon based. It was all ready here and created.
All petroleum products were created by carbon based plants and animals that died and went through a natural process to create oil and natural gas.
That happened without any human interaction.
Your talking about a gas that is less than 2% of 1 percent of our atmosphere. Think about that for a minute.
Think about all the pollution we have eliminated in the past 60 years.
Think about how cities and pavement have contributed to warming and how much that was made with petroleum products not related to fuel?
How much are solar panel farms going to increase warming as cities have done?
The thing everyone should be looking at is the potable water situation.
A much more dire problem than petroleum based products.
Also, what do you do with those countries that their entire economy is petroleum based and will go back to being sheep herders on sand?
I think you're not understanding a fundamental aspect of your argument. The fact that fossil fuels are remnants of long dead carbon-based organisms does not change the fact that once you burn it as fuel, it undergoes chemical change, and is no longer just sitting in the ground doing nothing. The byproduct of CO2, among other gases, such as methane, are released into the atmosphere where they aid in trapping heat that would have otherwise radiated out. None of that happened before humans, or the industrial revolution for that matter. Animals weren't going around burning petroleum to drive cars and heat their homes. This is a problem you can lay entirely at our feet. And we do have the technology to mitigate the damage being done, even adding to the economy through growth in the renewable sector.
Also your claim that 2% of the atmosphere is not a big deal is so far off the mark, I don't even know where to begin. 2% is a big deal. That is A LOT of gas, most of which wouldn't be there were it not for us. If the ocean decreased its salinity by 2% (another potential issue you can contribute to climate change), you would see mass extinctions. Changing the environment by what we would consider only a small margin has enormous consequences.
Actually I do. It's carbon that already existed when are we at a low point of CO2 in the earths history with our output declining? You actually are agreeing with me. There are a lot more factors involved than fossil fuels that we are weaning off of. Climate change is real. If those gas pit that would have been there if w never existed and ignited for millions of years, would the out come have been different? You can what if every thing to death. We just don't know. We are weaning of of everything that is considered "bad" What is the problem with that?
You don't think we should be exploring new energy sources? Everything we have right now and are pursuing has it's down falls.
What should we do about the potable water situation with our ever growing population if you are worried about sea water
losing it salinity?
That is a much more dire problem for the human population.
My entire point is that we should be exploring new energy sources. And I'm not "what if-ing" anything. I'm just looking at the facts of what is and has been happening and the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures.
As far as clean water shortages, I absolutely agree that it is an enormous problem we need to solve. Right now I'm more optimistic on our ability to develop technologies, such as desalination facilities and tools, to allow for the creation of clean water.
Quote:
are going to have to live with, and much of the reason it is dying has nothing to do with clean energy solutions.
Also, your link said nothing about the jobs created by the renewable sector. Do you not think that matters, or are coal, gas, and oil the only forms of energy production you consider viable?
It may be, so why spend so much trying to kill it? Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I never said anything about what is viable. The question is that killing coal prematurely can and does hurt a lot of people. And most of the replacement of coal is natural gas from fracking, which I'm sure you are also against.
You talk about killing the coal industry like Al Gore is personally going around to coal mines and filling them in with concrete.
"My entire point is that we should be exploring new energy sources. And I'm not "what if-ing" anything. I'm just looking at the facts of what is and has been happening and the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and rising global temperatures."
He who solves that problem rules the world and beyond if we can go warp speed Scotty. That's a given
"As far as clean water shortages, I absolutely agree that it is an enormous problem we need to solve. Right now I'm more optimistic on our ability to develop technologies, such as desalination facilities and tools, to allow for the creation of clean water."
Well does desalination work if you want to keep a certain salt level in out oceans? Not as simple as you think.
As I said, we agree. I just don't think you understand the downfalls of all the present technology's and if it would be helpful or harmful. Unintended complications.
See Buford's comment
I had to laugh at a post a while ago that listed flight as one of the greatest inventions but was hesitant to say the combustion engine. Guess what, we would still be on the ground.
Perhaps Bill Nyes Netflix show may not be the best venue for it, but certainly the country is in need of greater exposure and dialogue about the topic of sexuality outside the realms of entertainment and politics.
I had to laugh at a post a while ago that listed flight as one of the greatest inventions but was hesitant to say the combustion engine. Guess what, we would still be on the ground.
Did I say that? I'm not debating the benefits that fossil fuels have allowed us from a technological standpoint, but we have progressed in that regard and should be looking at better ways to do things.
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
May be wrong but, rumor has it that China reduced it sale of coal to NK and the US is picking up the slack in deals made. NK keeps on with its BS, China makes out, and Trump makes good with the coal miners. We'll see.
And I have been saying nothing else from what you just opined. You are just arguing because you "think" I don't have the same view.
Politics today don't let you agree with me even though we agree.
Doesn't that suck. Now you know why there is such a divide in the country.
Look in the mirror my friend.
Good night.
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
Quote:
In comment 13442107 Bill L said:
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
You extrapolated all of that off of what was posted there by Buford? You're giving her way more credit than she deserves. If that is what she meant, then that's simply a loser's mentality. China consumes so much coal (they are actually using less now, because conditions have been so bad) it's futile to not even make an attempt at lowering our emissions and transitioning to alternative sources of energy?
[quote] You read the Daily Caller for science news/information? [/quote
It's a transcript of testimony - no edits
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I said that because we export a lot of coal to China. So yeah, the death of coal is premature.
And if someone doesn't understand that there was a 'war on coal' and it was described as such and it was stated that energy bills would skyrocket, then I don't know what to tell you. This discussion started by saying that no one was harmed by the push for renewables. As I said, that might be, but in their zeal to push renewables and crush coal, they did indeed hurt millions of people. And guess how those people voted in the last election.
Quote:
In comment 13442114 David in LA said:
Quote:
In comment 13442107 Bill L said:
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
yes, but nowhere did she say that we should emulate them (as far as I can see anyway). I take from her comment, in context, that it would be difficult to impactfully eliminate coal usage because China is a heavy user still. And then someone pointed out that China may be working toward reduction of usage. One of that suggest to me that anyone was advocating using it because china does it.
You extrapolated all of that off of what was posted there by Buford? You're giving her way more credit than she deserves. If that is what she meant, then that's simply a loser's mentality. China consumes so much coal (they are actually using less now, because conditions have been so bad) it's futile to not even make an attempt at lowering our emissions and transitioning to alternative sources of energy?
No David, he read the post correctly. Because he's not a ideologue who wants to attack a poster personally at every chance he gets. I responded to a post saying that 'coal was dead' by saying that we export a lot of coal to China. If you can't understand that, I don't know what to tell you.
And the US still uses a heck of a lot of coal. Where do you think a lot of the electricity to power those electric cars comes from?
I don't see anything wrong with asking that question.
Quote:
In comment 13442107 Bill L said:
Quote:
From any of the conversation?
See Buford's comment
Quote:
Oh, and many other countries, like China still use a heck of a lot of coal.
I said that because we export a lot of coal to China. So yeah, the death of coal is premature.
And if someone doesn't understand that there was a 'war on coal' and it was described as such and it was stated that energy bills would skyrocket, then I don't know what to tell you. This discussion started by saying that no one was harmed by the push for renewables. As I said, that might be, but in their zeal to push renewables and crush coal, they did indeed hurt millions of people. And guess how those people voted in the last election.
Hurt 'millions of people'?
The UK just went coal free - how many people died in that one?
Globally, solar capacity around the earth DOUBLED in 2016. Capacity is already beyond where initial DOE estimates of 10 years ago thought they would be in 15 years. China is leading the way. What are we doing? Proposing more coal burning. The EPA is denying climate change. It's not just wrong, it's embarrassing. The fact that more people supported this bullshit is an indictment of our educational system and nothing more.
You should really stick to giving nutritional advice doled out by physical therapists pretending to be doctors.
And the advent of the automobile meant that all those horse outfitters lost their jobs. Give me a break, that's not 'hurting millions' that's progress.
Let's bring a halt to all advancement while we're at it. No more automated tolls, because we can't put the toll clerks out of work. No more washing machines, because we can't withstand the employment losses that will incur.
Talk about a strawman. Here's an idea - the government that's willing to cut the corporate tax rate down and swell the national debt should consider, instead of pushing coal burning and the destruction of our environment, maybe putting some money into developing these areas so they don't die along with the coal?
OK, to be fair, how much stuff they can carry on a moped was pretty amazing, too.
Quote:
of pockets of Appalachia. The geographical concentration means it's not just the industry, it's everything that supports it. Millions? Probably not. Hundreds of thousands? Sure. And mountains of data exist describing the various problems plaguing that part of the world. Meth, heroin, poverty, illegitimacy, etc etc. But the salient question is whether the "war on coal" is responsible for the losses or if a significant chunk, maybe a majority, simply owe to market forces.
And the advent of the automobile meant that all those horse outfitters lost their jobs. Give me a break, that's not 'hurting millions' that's progress.
Let's bring a halt to all advancement while we're at it. No more automated tolls, because we can't put the toll clerks out of work. No more washing machines, because we can't withstand the employment losses that will incur.
Talk about a strawman. Here's an idea - the government that's willing to cut the corporate tax rate down and swell the national debt should consider, instead of pushing coal burning and the destruction of our environment, maybe putting some money into developing these areas so they don't die along with the coal?
I'm not disagreeing with you. If these jobs are being lost because coal is being demonized, with or without cause, that's one conversation. If these jobs are being lost because it's simply not cost-efficient to produce power in this way, that's the neo-Luddite conversation and on that we're largely in agreement. I'm inclined to think a good bit of it is the latter, even if the various sales pitches put on by both parties - pandering to different constituencies - suggest the former.
In addition to the greenhouse gas concerns, there's the public safety factor; coal generates as much nuclear fallout as your standard boiling or pressurized water reactor. If we're going to focus on the human impact, these people need a better choice than dying of cancer from radiation or dying of meth or heroin addiction.
Of all places - China - as fkap mentions above, the home of air pollution - has been trying to decrease their coal footprint for some time (and has been successful, albeit with a long way to go). When you have to ask whether you measure favorably against China on an environmental stance, you know you've gone too far.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ - ( New Window )
The local politics are full of hypocracy; when those jobs were in abundance, the complaints were about exploitation. They fought for workers rights, pay and safety (regulations, god forbid!) that made their jobs less viable. Now they are complaining that those awful jobs are gone.
Big problem is who would go in there offering new industrial jobs when the work force is relatively poor quality? I can think of million places I would rather invest, no matter how much they are "retrained" Its a tragedy looking for a villian.
People go to where the jobs are. Think 19th century gold rush. When the jobs are gone, people leave. If you haven't seen some of the hundreds of abandoned gold-mining towns in the mountain west, please visit. They are incredible. If there are no jobs, and no prospects, the idea that someone should continue to support them or be responsible for bringing them new jobs is misguided.
People go to where the jobs are. Think 19th century gold rush. When the jobs are gone, people leave. If you haven't seen some of the hundreds of abandoned gold-mining towns in the mountain west, please visit. They are incredible. If there are no jobs, and no prospects, the idea that someone should continue to support them or be responsible for bringing them new jobs is misguided.
No disagreement, but the gold rush and the various other rushes lasted for years in many cases. These are towns that go back 100+. It's about as easy to leave a boom town as it was to go there in the first place. You probably didn't have your family with you, certainly not three or four generations. Mobility is probably the best answer, but psychologically and financially it's not necessarily an easy one.
And without taking it too far down this road, SSDI has replaced wage income for many in this strata, geographically and socio-economically. So they have enough to live, and they and their progeny engage in a slow-motion multigenerational train wreck with all the attendant social horrors.
History is definitely echoing. Incarceration isn't on the scale of the War on Crack/Cocaine but it's taking a toll too - rightly or wrongly - and overdoses are through the roof, of course not just in coal country either.