Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support fossil fuel divestment?
Yes - it will help 6 26.09%
Yes - it's a symbloic gesture 0 0%
No - it will hurt the poor and middle class 7 30.43%
No - it will hurt portfolios and do nothing to stop climate change 10 43.48%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2019, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Florida
77,005 posts, read 47,597,802 times
Reputation: 14806

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma View Post
https://www.newscientist.com/article...han-8-billion/

The idea is to break down the companies that are burning fossil fuels so everyone will have to use green energy.

But some say divestment hurts the poor and middle class most:

The notion that building subsidized wind turbines and solar panels can replace the jobs, exports and tax revenues of a long-profitable sector is folly

https://business.financialpost.com/o...dle-class-most

I don't get it though. If people want the end of fossil fuels why don't they just stop using them? Ride a bicycle or get an electric car. Get solar panels for the house. Use a push lawn mower.
Norway has their own reasons for their actions.

I read yesterday that US subsidizes $850 billion a year for use of fossil fuels. Why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2019, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,721,455 times
Reputation: 6745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Indeed. So if we can’t build nuclear plants as a co2-free way of generating power, what’s left?

Most of the good spots for hydroelectric power are already taken. Wind and solar require natural gas backup plants.

Natural gas requires fracking. And natural gas is mostly methane, which is a very powerful greenhouse gas. If the gas leaks during production and transmission, it only adds to the greenhouse gas problem. Granted, natural gas yields less co2 than coal when burned, but gas leakage offsets some of that advantage.
More than people realize.....

https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/hy...aracterization
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 11:32 AM
 
30,058 posts, read 18,652,475 times
Reputation: 20862
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma View Post
https://www.newscientist.com/article...han-8-billion/


The idea is to break down the companies that are burning fossil fuels so everyone will have to use green energy.



But some say divestment hurts the poor and middle class most:




The notion that building subsidized wind turbines and solar panels can replace the jobs, exports and tax revenues of a long-profitable sector is folly

https://business.financialpost.com/o...dle-class-most


I don't get it though. If people want the end of fossil fuels why don't they just stop using them? Ride a bicycle or get an electric car. Get solar panels for the house. Use a push lawn mower.


You are right- Liberals could take action by not using heating, air conditioning, electricity, and start riding a bike.


When asked to actually sacrifice something to achieve their "goals", suddenly they are not enthused.


If half of the US are democrats, think of how much CO2 production would fall if dems simply stopped using everything that produced CO2! It is a simple, direct solution, but will never happen. Why? Dems are happy to complain about something, but they always want someone else to pick up the tab, whether that is personal sacrifice or expenditures.


Ask any one of the AGW nuts whether they still use central heating/air, electricity and drive a car. They all do- probably more than anyone else. However, they genuinely feel that since they are "concerned" (but do nothing) that is "good enough".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,721,455 times
Reputation: 6745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
Fossil fuel=the type of car that a nagging 65-year-old mother-in-law drives.
Do not confuse Gasoline and Fossil fuel derived ELECTRICITY
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,879,874 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by remco67 View Post
No point to it at this time. We just don't have a cost effective viable alternative. But we should be working harder towards that goal then we are. The fact is fossil fuel is a limited resources, there may be a lot of it but its still not infinite and as more of the World modernizes it will only go so far. Better to be ahead of the curve then get hit by a ton of bricks when this happens.
It’s not like you will suddenly run out. Prices will slowly rise over time and alternatives will slowly decline in price. We don’t really need to get ahead of the curve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2019, 11:51 AM
 
6,340 posts, read 2,889,808 times
Reputation: 7273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
Indeed. So if we can’t build nuclear plants as a co2-free way of generating power, what’s left?

Most of the good spots for hydroelectric power are already taken. Wind and solar require natural gas backup plants.

Natural gas requires fracking. And natural gas is mostly methane, which is a very powerful greenhouse gas. If the gas leaks during production and transmission, it only adds to the greenhouse gas problem. Granted, natural gas yields less co2 than coal when burned, but gas leakage offsets some of that advantage.
I wonder how long the natural gas will last. That's what's been putting coal out of business, not solar and windmills. Some sites say 50 years, but that looks like crackpot stuff.



I looked this up":

Quote:
The world is no longer at risk of running out of oil or gas, with existing technology capable of unlocking so much that global reserves would almost double by 2050 despite booming consumption, BP has said.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...s-BP-says.html




Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Norway has their own reasons for their actions.

I read yesterday that US subsidizes $850 billion a year for use of fossil fuels. Why?
To ensure adequate domestic supply and to maintain employment, especially in periods of economic transition. And jobs. Subsidies in the form of reduced prices are used to stimulate particular economic sectors or segments of the population.

Last edited by mascoma; 06-18-2019 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:29 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top