Obama Administration Takes Action on Climate Change--Big Time

[SunEagle]

OMG, if we stop using coal, we're going to sink the economy. OMG, if we start depolluting car exhaust, we're going to sink the economy. OMG, if we require cars to be more fuel efficient, we're going to sink the economy. Sounds familiar?

Now, not using coal here to export it to China does not help anybody. Richard Muller advocates helping China develop fracking so that it can switch to natural gas to lower its pollution. http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/rich...ironmentalists

Please don't lose your cool because I disagree with your beliefs.

I happen to know people that have jobs that will be affected if the use of coal to generate electricity is severely curtailed.

So I guess you don't know anyone in that position or even care that people will be losing their job. Sounds pretty insensitive to me.

As for China using natural gas. Sure they will look into that source of fuel but coal will be cheaper and China will continue to use it along with a number of other countries that have only coal burning generators and can't afford other types of generation.

As long as there is coal available someone will purchase it and burn it. We can't stop it being used world wide so why shut down the use of it here in the US?

At least the coal mining industry will continue to survive.

[JCP]

Please don't lose your cool because I disagree with your beliefs.

I happen to know people that have jobs that will be affected if the use of coal to generate electricity is severely curtailed.

So I guess you don't know anyone in that position or even care that people will be losing their job. Sounds pretty insensitive to me.

As for China using natural gas. Sure they will look into that source of fuel but coal will be cheaper and China will continue to use it along with a number of other countries that have only coal burning generators and can't afford other types of generation.

As long as there is coal available someone will purchase it and burn it. We can't stop it being used world wide so why shut down the use of it here in the US?

At least the coal mining industry will continue to survive.

I'm not losing my cool at all. I'm just pointing out that this is a rehashing of old issues. I certainly feel bad for folks whose livelihood will be impacted, but that does not change the fact that coal is bad for us. And China can afford to switch to natural gas, and since they're now the biggest coal consumer and polluter on earth, that would make a huge difference. If China and the US get off coal, it would have a major impact on global pollution.

[J.P.M.]

Please don't lose your cool because I disagree with your beliefs.

I happen to know people that have jobs that will be affected if the use of coal to generate electricity is severely curtailed.

So I guess you don't know anyone in that position or even care that people will be losing their job. Sounds pretty insensitive to me.

As for China using natural gas. Sure they will look into that source of fuel but coal will be cheaper and China will continue to use it along with a number of other countries that have only coal burning generators and can't afford other types of generation.

As long as there is coal available someone will purchase it and burn it. We can't stop it being used world wide so why shut down the use of it here in the US?

At least the coal mining industry will continue to survive.

SunEagle:
On the job displacement thing:
I generally agree with your opinions and, having been there myself, like most other folks, I don't like unemployment any more than anyone else. But, why can't displaced coal workers find different jobs the way, for example, unemployed cigarette workers have. Similar to how you know people facing potential job loss, I know several of those people (former cigarette factory workers) who went through it, and the analogy seems to fit somewhat. I, and they, bemoan the loss of jobs. But, the alternative of continuing to make cancer sticks in the same numbers as in the past is an untenable situation, both ethically (perhaps) and from a practical standpoint. Because I know someone who had to be retrained because the world changed and made their job an anachronism doesn't mean I think the changes are evil, and I don't think I'm insensitive because of it. Anyway, nothing stays the same forever. The U.S. once manufactured things. Now that's mostly done elsewhere. Who's to blame ? Anyone ? No one ? That's just that way it is.

[SunEagle]

SunEagle:
On the job displacement thing:
I generally agree with your opinions and, having been there myself, like most other folks, I don't like unemployment any more than anyone else. But, why can't displaced coal workers find different jobs the way, for example, unemployed cigarette workers have. Similar to how you know people facing potential job loss, I know several of those people (former cigarette factory workers) who went through it, and the analogy seems to fit somewhat. I, and they, bemoan the loss of jobs. But, the alternative of continuing to make cancer sticks in the same numbers as in the past is an untenable situation, both ethically (perhaps) and from a practical standpoint. Because I know someone who had to be retrained because the world changed and made their job an anachronism doesn't mean I think the changes are evil, and I don't think I'm insensitive because of it. Anyway, nothing stays the same forever. The U.S. once manufactured things. Now that's mostly done elsewhere. Who's to blame ? Anyone ? No one ? That's just that way it is.

I understand that s**t happens and people lose their job and that they may even find a much better one. And I agree with you that this has been happening every time a new technology replaces an old one or an industry that is hurting people needs to change. I guess since it is a little personal I am less open to this change as well as being unhappy with the way our government is trying to make the change.

There is no way the world will stop using coal, so instead of not using it ourselves maybe more research should be done to make it "clean" without making it more expensive. Then others can still use coal but it won't create the pollution it does. Maybe the effort should be put toward the improvement of the industry instead of just turning it off.

[J.P.M.]

I understand that s**t happens and people lose their job and that they may even find a much better one. And I agree with you that this has been happening every time a new technology replaces an old one or an industry that is hurting people needs to change. I guess since it is a little personal I am less open to this change as well as being unhappy with the way our government is trying to make the change.

There is no way the world will stop using coal, so instead of not using it ourselves maybe more research should be done to make it "clean" without making it more expensive. Then others can still use coal but it won't create the pollution it does. Maybe the effort should be put toward the improvement of the industry instead of just turning it off.

I bet the world will stop using coal when public opinion can be manipulated so that the common wisdom becomes one in which some other form of energy is viewed as less expensive/more profitable and easier to use than coal.

I'd also suggest that those displaced workers, with some additional training and/or education can make very productive and appropriate workers in a clean coal research field. To me, their work ethic and experience are resources much too valuable to waste. Folks of their stripe helped make this country great once. Perhaps they, and others can do it again.

To the extent that you, me, they or anyone gets intransigent about change, only means putting unnecessary impediments to make the most of what's going to happen anyway, whether we like it or not. It seems to me that it's better to be part of, have some say in, and enjoy any fruits of that change than to curse the inevitable and let it roll over you.

[Mike90250]

I bet the world will stop using coal when public opinion can be manipulated so that the common wisdom becomes one in which some other form of energy is viewed as less expensive/more profitable and easier to use than coal. .....

That only works when everyone stops using power and says, because it came from coal. Till the consumers change habits, all the newspaper and TV articles mean nothing.

[russ]

OMG, if we stop using coal, we're going to sink the economy. OMG, if we start depolluting car exhaust, we're going to sink the economy. OMG, if we require cars to be more fuel efficient, we're going to sink the economy. Sounds familiar?

Now, not using coal here to export it to China does not help anybody. Richard Muller advocates helping China develop fracking so that it can switch to natural gas to lower its pollution. http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/rich...ironmentalists

Your OMG point is simply regurgitating one of the green lines - meaningless blather - both the far left and far right have a large supply of such nonsensical quotes available.

China would be foolish not to be using fracking where it works - and that is not everywhere. China can not be considered foolish. The US does not have to help them develop it.

Actually it makes more sense from a pollution viewpoint to burn the coal here and work on burning it cleaner while exporting natural gas for China to burn - cleaner by far.

[J.P.M.]

That only works when everyone stops using power and says, because it came from coal. Till the consumers change habits, all the newspaper and TV articles mean nothing.

I think you may have missed my point. People only need to be manipulated into believing something is less expensive than coal. That means everyone, policymakers as well.

Some folks think solar is less expensive than other sources of energy. In some sense, maybe long term, environmentally, or other ways, they may well be at least partially correct. I'd guess more people currently believe coal is less expensive than solar at this time, and they too may very well be correct in terms of initial cost, ease of use, familiarity, and how well it dovetails with existing infrastructure.

The idea that people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear is likely only partially correct. Most of what people see and hear has already been configured in such a way as to make a desired common perception the most probable outcome in terms of public opinion. That's one way public opinion is manipulated. Most anyone who thinks they are above and beyond such influences are the bread & butter of slick sale pitches. I bet we're all susceptible to such things to some degree. I know I am.

If public opinion can successfully be manipulated such that the drawbacks of one energy source can be made to be perceived as immutable facts in society's eye, while public opinion is, at the same time manipulated to cause the attributes of the other to be viewed as desirable, it's game over for one of them. As in: dirty coal - bad ! Clean solar - Good! Or cheap coal - Good! Expensive and different (and therefore ugly) solar - Bad!

People change their habits in large measure because they are manipulated into believing something else than some of their current activity is more beneficial to them or those they care about. Whether those things actually are beneficial or not is largely a matter of perception - and it's the perception that's being manipulated. All the TV, social media, internet, and print media are sources of input and tools to manipulate public opinion and thus change those very perceptions and thus habits (read: buying patterns). Happens all the time. It's called marketing. Or sales. Or politics.

FWIW and slightly, but not entirely tongue in cheek, I've had the idea recently that the latest (30-40 yrs.) solar odyssey society seems to have embarked on may not be so much caused by a bunch of '60's burnouts and fatuous, left wing, self centered environmental folks (I've got one foot in with that bunch, BTW), as it is a tool conjured up and used by a bunch of conservative right wing, establishment types for the purpose of separating the tree huggers from the money their parents left them to squander. If so, maybe some tree huggers are being manipulated some and may not know that the fix is in. Or, maybe it will backfire on the right wingers and solar will take over the world. My money is on a little bit of both, as things regress toward the mean, perhaps as a consequence of social entropy.

[russ]

A serious problem for the US and Europe is that all the restrictions, rules, laws, executive orders and whatever else make it more expensive to operate or buy something. The costs keep adding up but the 3rd world wants their share of the pie - not the sliver of 50 years back or the part portion of today.

I am not really talking about pollution here but the nanny type of safety features that are required on everything today. Some are beneficial but many are more window dressing. Kids did survive 60 years back even though no one had thought of all the bells and whistles that are now "essential" for a crib.

[JCP]

Your OMG point is simply regurgitating one of the green lines - meaningless blather - both the far left and far right have a large supply of such nonsensical quotes available.

China would be foolish not to be using fracking where it works - and that is not everywhere. China can not be considered foolish. The US does not have to help them develop it.

Actually it makes more sense from a pollution viewpoint to burn the coal here and work on burning it cleaner while exporting natural gas for China to burn - cleaner by far.

The cleaner approach is to reduce the overall consumption of coal and replace with your favorite cleaner fuel.

[SunEagle]

The cleaner approach is to reduce the overall consumption of coal and replace with your favorite cleaner fuel.

The sad fact is that the US can't even keep other countries from killing their own people. How can we convince countries to stop using very cheap (although unhealthy) fuel to generate electricity?

We can't be the coal usage police of the world?

[JCP]

The sad fact is that the US can't even keep other countries from killing their own people. How can we convince countries to stop using very cheap (although unhealthy) fuel to generate electricity?

We can't be the coal usage police of the world?

Well, China is waking up to its own pollution problems. Realistically, nothing will change. Nobody will take action. And we'll all collectively wait until it's too late to take drastic corrective actions. Russ doesn't care. He'll probably be gone by then.

[J.P.M.]

The sad fact is that the US can't even keep other countries from killing their own people. How can we convince countries to stop using very cheap (although unhealthy) fuel to generate electricity?

We can't be the coal usage police of the world?

Not any more than the rest of the world can ask the U.S. how it can justify using about 20% or more of the world's energy resources for about 6 % of the world's population while at the same time telling the rest of the world to not use the same resources and methods in the same way that made us collectively and relatively rich, fat, arrogant and (more) stupid. Think like the other side.

[SunEagle]

Not any more than the rest of the world can ask the U.S. how it can justify using about 20% or more of the world's energy resources for about 6 % of the world's population while at the same time telling the rest of the world to not use the same resources and methods in the same way that made us collectively and relatively rich, fat, arrogant and (more) stupid. Think like the other side.

Touche. You are right that we the US tend to expect others to do what we say and not do what we have done to become what we are.

[russ]

Think like the other side.

For the past 36 years I have lived mostly in countries on the "other side" - they are aware of the US position and put up with it if enough freebies come their way. If no freebies are handed out then they lose interest in listening quickly.