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.
If the Koch brothers can make money off of it it’s good for America. Seems that’s the business practice with so many important issues in our country. CEO’s don’t want to step up and clean up the mess that their corporation made or left behind and the energy industry is perhaps the worst. Profit over cleanup is the first thing that comes from the corporate board of directors. Pollution is always tromped by money and profit so our environment suffers because of it, keep the stockholders happy, give the board members bonus checks at the end of the fiscal year and to hell with the cleanup in America. This is a never ending problem with big oil, coal and now fracking, simply pay the lobbyists and send them to Washington to buy our representatives.
Most everyone wants a clean safe environment but at what costs? It’s too late if you can’t use your water resources any longer, or live in the area because of the poor air quality. Individuals cause this problem and they can fix it, but not until the profit and money can be made first. Some of the problems cannot be turned around and fixed because of the size of the disasters.
I wouldn't rule out anything. Anyone who puts all their eggs in one basket is inviting disaster. As with most things, a balanced approach which takes risks and rewards into consideration would be preferable.
I just want to point out to the OP that if you really wanted a debate here, you could have done a lot better than a paid opinion article in the WSJ. You probably don't know that his family owns a coal mine, but I'm pretty sure that the reason he writes stuff like this isn't because he cares about things that don't involve money going into his pocket.
The desperation on the part of people like this is similar to the desperation of the tobacco barons-- these people know that fossil fuels are doomed and are trying to sow as much doubt as they can before the stock market eats them alive. Articles like this aren't fooling them, they're fooling the poor idiots who still think they can invest in fossil fuels and make a killing since another boom period is due any moment now... or idiots like Stephen Harper who thinks it's smart to tie Canada's entire economy to a boom/bust industry that is on its way out the door.
The best way out of this is to remove all government subsidies for fossil fuel companies, put the money into nanotech solar panels and AI to design them. The technology will improve exponentially and within a decade or so you'll have cleaner, cheaper, ubiquitous energy. You might even have a solution for the CO2 trapped in the atmosphere.
Supporting dying, destructive industries with billions in subsidies makes absolutely no sense, except in terms of preventing a market crash and political instability... which actually does make sense, unfortunately.
I just want to point out to the OP that if you really wanted a debate here, you could have done a lot better than a paid opinion article in the WSJ. You probably don't know that his family owns a coal mine, but I'm pretty sure that the reason he writes stuff like this isn't because he cares about things that don't involve money going into his pocket.
The author of the article specifically mentions the fact that he owns some coal mines. He came out in the article and was blunt about it. Funny though since he mentions in the article supporting nuclear power even over coal power meaning he would lose a lot of money if what he was advising in the article came to pass. The author of the article was honest about what he owns and his views. I guess you glossed over all that in the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
The desperation on the part of people like this is similar to the desperation of the tobacco barons-- these people know that fossil fuels are doomed and are trying to sow as much doubt as they can before the stock market eats them alive.
What are you talking about? Desperation? The guy is in the coal business and the way things are going now he probably doesn't have anything to worry about for a few decades. If anything he is no where near as desperate as the tobacco industry was back in the 1990's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by =Spatula City
Articles like this aren't fooling them, they're fooling the poor idiots who still think they can invest in fossil fuels and make a killing since another boom period is due any moment now... or idiots like Stephen Harper who thinks it's smart to tie Canada's entire economy to a boom/bust industry that is on its way out the door.
Well to blunt people who invested in fracking did make a killing if you are going to be honest. Even with oil war going on fracking is very unlikely to go away and there is still going to be a lot of profit made of it for years to come. Why you ask? It's because we have no real viable alternative to gasoline and diesel for transportation fuel. Unlike coal there is no good rival to replace transportation fuels yet. That is why people still heavily invest in the oil industry.
As far as Canada goes Harper is smart to try and push to use Oil sands it's only hundreds of billions if not a few trillion dollars worth of extractable oil in those sands so I can see why he is pushing for it since if he gets a major buyer for it and/or several buyers it would greatly benefit Alberta and Canada in general economically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
The best way out of this is to remove all government subsidies for fossil fuel companies, put the money into nanotech solar panels and AI to design them. The technology will improve exponentially and within a decade or so you'll have cleaner, cheaper, ubiquitous energy. You might even have a solution for the CO2 trapped in the atmosphere.
Your reminding me of archived news footage of Ralph Nader claiming decades ago that we were on the brink of powering the entire planet with solar energy and that never happened. We have the technology now not 50-75 years from now to get off coal for electricity production. Why not use it? What at the end of the day is actually wrong with nuclear energy? It works a hell of a lot better than solar does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Supporting dying, destructive industries with billions in subsidies makes absolutely no sense, except in terms of preventing a market crash and political instability... which actually does make sense, unfortunately.
The fossil fuel industry as of right now is anything but dying considering the shale oil boom is still going on in the United States even with the oil war with the Saudis.
If the Koch brothers can make money off of it it’s good for America. Seems that’s the business practice with so many important issues in our country. CEO’s don’t want to step up and clean up the mess that their corporation made or left behind and the energy industry is perhaps the worst. Profit over cleanup is the first thing that comes from the corporate board of directors. Pollution is always tromped by money and profit so our environment suffers because of it, keep the stockholders happy, give the board members bonus checks at the end of the fiscal year and to hell with the cleanup in America. This is a never ending problem with big oil, coal and now fracking, simply pay the lobbyists and send them to Washington to buy our representatives. .
So my question to you is do you support nuclear power since it's the only current technology that can dramatically lower the amount of fossil fuels we in the United States use? Or do your religious views (ie environmentalist propaganda) make you automatically opposed to nuclear energy regardless of the real facts. I know you brought up 3 mile island which I live close to as some sort of proof about the dangers of nuclear power. So I'm guessing the propaganda already won in your mind against the truth about nuclear energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AksarbeN
Most everyone wants a clean safe environment but at what costs? It’s too late if you can’t use your water resources any longer, or live in the area because of the poor air quality. Individuals cause this problem and they can fix it, but not until the profit and money can be made first. Some of the problems cannot be turned around and fixed because of the size of the disasters.
If you want to know what actually poor air quality is China is a real world example not the United States.
I have feeling your knee jerk reaction is going to be to try and blame the United States or the rest of the developed world for China's pollution problems but actually the Chinese Communist Party brought that on themselves.
Let's be honest if the Democrats could bet that kind of money from a few donors like the Republicans can they would take it in a heart beat. Regardless if you think there is way to much money or not in politics neither party is innocent in this regard.
The best way out of this is to remove all government subsidies for fossil fuel companies,
If you removed the subsidies (AKA tax breaks) and they passed the costs onto the consumer your electric might increase a few cents per month, it may not even go up anything because most of the coal subsidy is fro research anyway. The cost of gasoline would go up fractions of one cent. The subsidies are so small per unit of production it's really irrelevant to the market and that's just the facts. To put this into perspective the entire subsidy for oil is equal to the revenue Exxon by itself will generate in a few days.
Last edited by thecoalman; 03-19-2015 at 02:21 PM..
China is a state capitalist nation, not communist.
And since it's become capitalist, it's pledged and has done things to mitigate its pollution. And now that it's become capitalist, it has the means to do so.
It's hard to preach cleanliness, recycling, co2 reduction, all the problems wealthy peoples fret over, to people who are starving. Once their stomachs are full, once they have a roof over their heads, they have time and whatever to turn to other considerations. Now that they're capitalist, they can eat, they don't scavenge in garbage dumps, they don't live in the gutter.
Now they can fix their secondary problems. Before, it was survival.
I’m always skeptical and consider any source of information. It’s good to know more about Matt Ridley who he is and who he represents in the world.
So what did he say that was untrue? These are all common sense things I've known for years. Any idiot can see that fossil fuels have created the highest standard of living, brought more people out of poverty, and fed more people than anything else in human history. There isn't anything on earth that can match the energy production of fossil fuels right now except for nuclear, and I would rather take my chances with fossil fuels. Look what happens in a nuclear meltdown. People won't be able to safely live in Chernobyl for centuries to come.
cwa1984[/b];38877784]So my question to you is do you support nuclear power since it's the only current technology that can dramatically lower the amount of fossil fuels we in the United States use? Or do your religious views (ie environmentalist propaganda) make you automatically opposed to nuclear energy regardless of the real facts. I know you brought up 3 mile island which I live close to as some sort of proof about the dangers of nuclear power. So I'm guessing the propaganda already won in your mind against the truth about nuclear energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AksarbeN If the Koch brothers can make money off of it it’s good for America. Seems that’s the business practice with so many important issues in our country. CEO’s don’t want to step up and clean up the mess that their corporation made or left behind and the energy industry is perhaps the worst. Profit over cleanup is the first thing that comes from the corporate board of directors. Pollution is always tromped by money and profit so our environment suffers because of it, keep the stockholders happy, give the board members bonus checks at the end of the fiscal year and to hell with the cleanup in America. This is a never ending problem with big oil, coal and now fracking, simply pay the lobbyists and send them to Washington to buy our representatives. .
If you want to know what actually poor air quality is China is a real world example not the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AksarbeN Most everyone wants a clean safe environment but at what costs? It’s too late if you can’t use your water resources any longer, or live in the area because of the poor air quality. Individuals cause this problem and they can fix it, but not until the profit and money can be made first. Some of the problems cannot be turned around and fixed because of the size of the disasters.
I have feeling your knee jerk reaction is going to be to try and blame the United States or the rest of the developed world for China's pollution problems but actually the Chinese Communist Party brought that on themselves.
Let's be honest if the Democrats could bet that kind of money from a few donors like the Republicans can they would take it in a heart beat. Regardless if you think there is way to much money or not in politics neither party is innocent in this regard.
You quoted my post and then made comments about what YOU THINK I said in that post. I said nothing about nuclear, China or even the Democrats...... ??????????? Do you "always" read things into other peoples comments and posts? Go back and read what I said in the post.
In an earlier post I made, I did mention three mile island because of the failure of corporations cleaning up their waste and mess that they leave behind, as well the Duke Energy company with their coal ash. That's the point I was making, not whether nuclear is a good or bad thing. You seem to have nailed me as a person who has [in your words not mine] "religious views (ie environmentalist propaganda)"as YOU think or believe. Stop making things up about others. The Koch Brothers pour money into "both" political parties and every politician's pocket. They and their political PACS bought favors from everyone not just Republicans. Lobbyists are the politicians best friend and lobbyists work for the energy industry, the American voting public has nothing to say about any legislation or government action because our government was bought and paid for already.
Considering the fact I live by 3 mind island and everyone else who lives by 3 mile island aren't worried about 3 mile island and prefer nuclear energy over using coal for electricity generation this point is beyond weak. Nuclear energy is actually even cleaner then solar believe it or not. I would love to drop a link to the documentary Pandora's Promise but unfortunately it's not available in full for free on youtube so I won't be doing that.
Then promote nuclear power than.
Then again promote Nuclear power. The only way to get off fossil fuels for electricity generation in the United States using existing technologies is switching to nuclear power. Wave Power is not able to do it. Geothermal maybe one day in the future 50 years might be able to. Solar and wind you can forget about because of how much land they require and the fact is they don't generate energy 24/7 which is what a developed nation needs.
If you say so. Personally, nuclear power still scares me, particularly after the Fukishima meltdown. Think of all those fault lines here in the USA. Maybe I'm just being ridiculous, but I'd still rather take my chances with fossil fuels. I know we still have nuclear power plants here and there, but I don't want to build a whole slew of new ones.
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.
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.
