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.
Do you realize how small those little pieces of dirt are? Not to mention uninhabited. I think you realize how ridiculous your example is.
You asked a question, I gave you an answer - there are indeed nations in the process of losing territory to the ocean. It only makes sense that the least usable and lowest lying areas would go before the more usable populated areas.
Incorrect. China is well aware of its energy needs and dramatically investing in large-scale renewable energy installations. Price is continually dropping, coal is the more expensive source of energy to generate electricity. That is one of the reasons why coal is rapidly going away in the US because it can't compete and other sources are far cleaner and cheaper.
I'm trying to not fall on the floor from laughing so hard at such an absurd statement.
Mandates, subsidies and guaranteed ROI via lawmakers guaranteeing electric utilities can raise rates to their customers in order to pay for the nonsensical "renewable energy" systems they are being COMPELLED to build, along with completely insane mandates like carbon capture, technology used in a single place in the US because old oil well benefited from having CO2 pumped in and were therefore able to produce more oil (a rare case that is not likely to be duplicated in too many locations), in essence build and utilize technology that doesn't exist, are the ONLY reason renewables have been built and coal plant have been shuttered. Even in Germany, Europe's most prominent poster child for renewables including solar, old shuttered lignite coal plants (the absolute worst and dirtiest CO2 producing) have been brought back online to prevent grid collapses.
Please tell me, if renewable (solar or wind) energy is so great AND costs less to produce, why didn't electric utilities, including the one I'm retired from, build them BEFORE being mandated, subsidized and guaranteed a ROI if it was in their economic best interest? Wouldn't you think these companies would have done so to benefit themselves, their shareholders and their customers? IF it was so great an investment AND coal cost more... ERMAGHERD... they would have done it long ago, but according to people like you, folks who have no clue about the industry, renewables are good and coal is bad.
Get back to us after 5, 10, 20 years of working for an electric utility, when you can finally offer an opinion based on knowledge rather than one based on political theater.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 06-02-2017 at 02:26 PM..
Incorrect. Electric utilities know that coal is obsolete, that is why they are not building any new generating plants- moving to natural gas, wind, solar, and hydro. Businesses and consumers demand cleaner sources of energy as well. I also know what it's like to live on top of many coal power plants, it isn't good at all.
More nonsense from someone who doesn't know anything about the electric generation, transmission and distribution business.
I actually find it kind of funny that so many people have basically been brainwashed into supporting Agenda 21 under the feel good guise of helping the planet, these same people who rail against the supposed 1% are actually making the 1% not even have to work hard anymore, the useless brain dead drones in the US support their own extinction, haha.
Liberals: Name Even a Single Thing Barack Obama Did that Reduced Global Warming.
No, not action he took that is **supposed* to work one day...that **may** be good for the earth at some future point.....but actual, tangible, quantifiable proof that Barack Obama positively impacted our climate through his actions.
If you can't do that, then you have no business criticizing President Trump for reneging on agreements, rules, regulations, etc, that have no proven track record. Speculation is not good government, and crossing your fingers and wishing on a fantasy is not a good reason to admire Barack Obama's track record on the environment.
The effects of an environmental protection regulation are not measured in days, weeks, months but in years or decades,
To see how complicated a real effort to assess the impact of an environmental regulation is, take a look at the following document. It's over 600 pages. These things are not simple, like you are trying to make out.
It's not like a regulation to reduce an environmental pollutant means that the next day or month or year there are fewer cancer deaths. You're dealing with an ecosystem, and attempts to reduce a contaminant are not instantaneous, and the positive effects are not instantaneous either.
He was black, and, therefore, made liberals feel less self-hatred for themselves for having voted for him. For perhaps the first time in their rodent-like existences, self-hating white liberals could stick their concave chests out with a modicum of pride and turn to their equally self-loathing liberal friends... or even better, a PoC, and say: "But I'm not a racist. I'm one of the "good ones". I voted for Barack, man".
How, precisely, did that improve the environment? Well, higher white liberal self-esteem means far fewer of them groveling an sniveling on their scabby knees like the spineless, cowardly inchworms they really are. With fewer liberals on their knees, there's far less damage to, and far fewer stains on, our grass and soil, hence better for the environment.
He was black, and, therefore, made liberals feel less self-hatred for themselves for having voted for him. For perhaps the first time in their rodent-like existences, self-hating white liberals could stick their concave chests out with a modicum of pride and turn to their equally self-loathing liberal friends... or even better, a PoC, and say: "But I'm not a racist. I'm one of the "good ones". I voted for Barack, man".
How, precisely, did that improve the environment? Well, higher white liberal self-esteem means far fewer of them groveling an sniveling on their scabby knees like the spineless, cowardly inchworms they really are. With fewer liberals on their knees, there's far less damage to, and far fewer stains on, our grass and soil, hence better for the environment.
I looked upon this marvel as if I had wrote it......good job!!
Incorrect. China is well aware of its energy needs and dramatically investing in large-scale renewable energy installations. Price is continually dropping, coal is the more expensive source of energy to generate electricity. That is one of the reasons why coal is rapidly going away in the US because it can't compete and other sources are far cleaner and cheaper.
Then why the need for a treaty?
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.
