'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Namewithheld, Feb 9, 2012.

  1. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    Back in the late-70s, there was a lot of noise (pretty tame by today's social media standards, however) about the influx of Japanese cars and the effect on the US car makers. Lots of "Buy American" stickers, especially in Detroit, and such. I saw a Datsun truck with a sticker that said "Real Americans Buy What They Want". I was so impressed, my first new car was a 1980 Datsun 4x4 King Cab.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. nashhorn

    nashhorn 2,500+ Posts

  3. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

  4. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I don't have a problem with a general preference for buying American. In the '80s Walmart used to celebrate that, which is ironic given that they now epitomize the idea of selling cheap **** from China. However, if the US company sells crap, you're not doing the country any favors by buying from them. If I had bought a car in the '70s, there's no question I would have bought Japanese. US auto manufacturers were selling crap and were very arrogant about it. They make decent cars now, but they had to be humbled.
     
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Such bravery
    (but she also likes air conditioning in the summer)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  6. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • poop poop x 1
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2020
  7. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    I don't care about the reason. One less idiot on a bull horn screaming at people about the end of the world is always a good thing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    You're right. However, the author has a point. Climate change is largely a hobby horse for pretentious, wealthy white liberals in seek of a purpose and morality in life after rejecting Christianity. I don't see many broke-*** poor Guatamalans or Nigerians protesting climate change.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Poor people want to be able to use more energy resources to improve their lives.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Yep, and they simply don't have time or mental energy to expend on something like climate change. It's a bit of a first world problem. The truly poor in the world (none of whom live in the United States or Europe) don't know where their next meal is coming from, whether the next sip of water they drink will contain a lethal parasite, or whether the next illness they get will be a death sentence due to a true lack of medical care. If that's how you live everyday, you're not going to give a crap about some speculative long term collective problem like climate change just because some Western self-ordained intellectuals and journalists think it's a big deal.
     
  11. nashhorn

    nashhorn 2,500+ Posts

    I tell you I’ve always been a skeptic as to what man contributes to it and what can be accomplished (I agree we should show some responsible behavior) but the bit about the wind mill blades blows my mind. Those pictures of the land fill where they are being covered up is disgusting.
     
  12. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    I read they can be used for coral reefs on the seabed, but it’s just cheaper to bury them. Lots of land in West Texas
     
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    This kind of science can make choices so difficult. Because cows fart, which kills the environment, so we have to destroy them.
    So confusing.

     
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Tough call

     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  15. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    “The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt,” the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported Tuesday. “US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.”

    “A 15% reduction in the use of coal for power generation underpinned the decline in overall US emissions in 2019,” the IEA continued.
     
  16. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    The EPA needs to be gutted. They pick winners and losers these days. The practice something called "Secret Science". They fund the science they want. They give no access to the data for others to analyze. There is no way (little) way to sue or hold accountable.

    They have decided coal must die, so it is dieing. The coal industry doesn't even fight it because there is no way for them to defend themselves. You win one case against the EPA? They will start 3 new ones until you lose. So coal and other groups have decided to play nice and hope EPA will go after some one else.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  17. Horns11

    Horns11 5,000+ Posts

    Coal isn't dying because of the EPA and lawsuits. Coal is dying because of profitability and natural gas. The coal industry is now down to 0.03% of the workforce, down 100x from it's peak of 3 percent of the workforce a little over 100 years ago.

    Coal miners make good blue collar stories, but that's about all they got going for them now.
     
  18. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    There are multiple factors. The EPA has made them much less profitable to begin with. I doubt that has had 0 effect.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. OUBubba

    OUBubba 2,500+ Posts

    But that's a maslow thing. They aren't having their primary needs met and are sure as hell not concerned about protecting the earth.
     
  20. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 1,000+ Posts

    Coal is dying in part because well functioning plants are being shut down by regulations that limited CO2 emissions that were implemented by Obama's EPA. Trump has been able to remove many of the federal regulations, but pressure by the media, liberal states and liberal groups have caused many low cost electricity providers to switch to natural gas. Gas is a better option for new plants. But shutting down a well functioning coal plant with scrubbers and cyclones and filters does not make economic or environmental sense. There is more CO2 emitted from coal than natural gas, but I remain completely unworried about the rise in CO2 concentration from 300 ppm to 400 ppm over the last 100 years.

    Here is an example of the media bias against coal. Coal plants are closing across the West. Here are the companies sticking with coal
     
  21. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Yes 4th. When you close a well functioning coal plants you are essentially destroying wealth. You are literally impoverishing Americans. Then replacing with unreliable, expensive sources further impoverishes Americans. Natural Gas energy production should be even more popular. Great across the board.

    It is stuff like this that affects the GDP and wage growth over the last 20 years. It suppresses everything else because money that could go to labor and investment now gets flushed down the toilet. All for appeasing Socialists.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Using modern energy sources including coal and natural gas protects the earth from people burning down ALL the forests of the earth and animal crap to cook and keep from freezing to death. Moreover, burning wood and crap is much more dangerous for human health. Air quality in the US and EU is essentially clean now. China, India and the rest of the developing world need to move as fast as possible to coal and natural gas production. Respiratory problems will disappear.

    Modern technology is godsend and a miracle. It is what gives us an enjoyable life and it is what gives us the ability to do that in a clean manner.
     
  23. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    That's true, but how low it is on Maslow's hierarchy should tell you something.
     
  24. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

  25. OUBubba

    OUBubba 2,500+ Posts

    Food and shelter are the base level. I'd put it at the safety/security level. That's where the big differences are. I prioritize it there. You, on the other hand may put it higher on the pyramid. Interesting read here: Environmentalism, Maslow Needs and Civilization’s Power Cycle

    I'm going to try to make time to read it later. I hit the high points and have to pee.
     
  26. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Barry, it's largely a matter of indifference to huge numbers of people who aren't starving to death. India and China aren't on Western standards, but they aren't Ethiopia circa 1985 either. People there generally aren't starving to death, and they still don't give a crap about climate change.
     
  27. Horns11

    Horns11 5,000+ Posts

    1. Coal is cheap, we get it. Is that just the bottom line? We shouldn't look to other energy sources because we'll be better of wealth-wise for using it? The costs for using coal just shift elsewhere. The EU did a study that it costs about 43 billion euros per year to treat lung-related conditions due to coal. The total value of all coal mined in the US in 2015 was $27 billion.

    2. How much GDP depression is due to the obsolescence of coal? Wage growth... in what industry? Coal mining? An industry smaller than tire making and bowling ball and pin manufacturing? Of course it's going to make a difference for them. This is akin to the "resurgence" of manufacturing, despite the obvious fact that mechanization is a bigger killer of those jobs (AND coal jobs) than the mean old government.
     
  28. OUBubba

    OUBubba 2,500+ Posts

    Shhhh...don't tell Trump's coal miners...
     
  29. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Of course, that is big reason to use nuclear power. However, Germany is dumping their nuclear plants and having to boost their lignite coal, despite the entire country being covered in solar panels and wind farms. And nobody's trying harder than they are. They're subsidizing the hell out of wind and solar, forcing energy efficiency to an extreme degree, and absolutely sodomizing their electricity customers with a 10-incher and no KY Jelly. They're paying about triple what US customers are paying. Despite all that, they're having to rely heavily on coal.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2020
  30. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 1,000+ Posts

    A coal plant licensed to operate in the US does not emit anywhere near enough pollution to cause any disease, much less 43 billion euros worth. I think this study is most likely crap.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2

Share This Page