|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 21, 2014 20:56:02 GMT
As far back as 2008, then-Sen. Obama declared that under his own plan, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket": dailycaller.com/2013/06/25/obama-admitted-energy-prices-would-skyrocket-under-his-policies/ Whereas he was not able to get his cap-and-trade proposal enacted by Congress, he has effectively done an end run around that by issuing executive orders that have the same effect. And he recently "mandat[ed] a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030 -- despite claims the regulation will cost nearly a quarter-million jobs a year and force plants across the country to close": www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/I agree that sometime in the future--and "20-40 years" may not be an unreasonable guess (although it is still just a guess)--coal-powered plants will become "obsolete." This is the natural order of things. Simply manufacturing high-quality buggy whips, and selling those buggy whips at a reasonable price, was just not enough once the automobile became widely accessible to the middle class, due to Henry Ford's development of the art of mass production, with the attendant decrease in costs associated with the building of an automobile. But I do not think we should require middle-class (and even low-income) Americans to make major sacrifices in the interim, in order to promote some feelgood crusade. You are certainly correct that there is "no line at all" if a country should adopt an open-borders policy. But very few countries do that. Do you suppose there is a reason for this? And why wouldn't hundreds of millions of people (at least!), from all over the world, come to America if there were absolutely no restrictions to immigration? And are you "willing to consider" another point of view? Or do you believe that your Damascus Road Conversion, some years ago, automatically nullifies any need of your ever again doing so? Do you believe that you have now become properly enlightened, and that anyone with another point of view is simply unenlightened (at best) or entirely obstinate (at worst)?
An interesting article from Fox News that is worthy of comment.
Yes, the proposal is for cutting coal fired pollution 30% by 2030 but the coal industry has stated that "clean coal" technology (that isn't clean but better that today's pollution) could be cut 40% currently if that technology was employed. This is unlike the regulation of the automotive industry related to fuel consumption in the 1970's when the regulations were imposed prior to the industry having "off the shelf technology" to use. This is much more rational and gives the industry 15 years to reach a target it could have reached 10 years ago if it wanted to. Basically it's a proposal that says, "Cut coal pollution by 75% of what you say you can do today and we'll give you 15 more years to accomplish that." I don't see that as being unreasonable and it certainly isn't a hostile policy.
Yes, it will cost the coal industry jobs because clean coal technology requires fewer workers. Clean coal technology is far more automated than the current process. We can also note that it will probably turn many "coal jobs" into "natural gas jobs" as some powerplants with convert from coal to natural gas that is less expensive and burns cleaner. While I haven't checked the US Chamber of Commerce (a biased source but I won't shoot the messenger) study it probably refers to future jobs and not current jobs so the job losses are theoretical as opposed to real. Sort of like claiming that Obamacare would reduce future health insurance costs because the increases would be less than if Obamacare didn't exist. We will need more electrical power production so in the long run it should create more jobs (less those lost to technology). Think about this option. What if we authorize new technology nuclear fission plants? It produces clean electricity and would create millions of jobs in the field. Of course increases in the cost of electrical power, often subsidized by taxation already in some locations, is speculative. For example if all coal fired powerplants were replaced tomorrow with natural gas and nuclear fission powerplants the cost of electricity would go down because both produce electricity at less cost than coal.
Ultimately I'd say is that policy should not be based upon job protectionism. For example I'm certainly concerned with the fact that AI and technology is making human labor obsolete over time but I don't advocate stopping AI and technology from making human labor obsolete. We don't stop progress simply to project jobs. That actually sounds like something a "left-winger" would propose and not a conservative.
As for a "no quota" immigration policy it would not lead to hundreds of millions immigrating to the US. The vast majority of people don't want to leave their homeland. People are very reluctant to accept change and much more reluctant to initiate a change and immigrating to another country is a huge change especially for the poor. Some are bold enough to do so if they see an opportunity but when it comes to immigration it would basically be limited by jobs. People are not going to spend the money to immgrate if they don't have a job prospect when they get there. We saw an exodus of Mexicans during the recession because of the lack of work. In fact the new housing construction industry has been short of workers because the Mexican home construction workers that left during the Recession have not returned.
I'm not intransient in my views and I'm always willing to learn. I wouldn't claim I had a "Damascus Road Conversion" because I'd always believed in a natural right of property. I merely came to understand what that actually meant and to the realization that our ownership of property in the US was based upon statutory law and not on the natural right of property. So my belief in the natural right of property has not changed one iota but, instead, I realized that our ownership of property is defined by statutory law that is not based upon the right of property.
It's sort of like understanding that "lawful money" is just a government certified "commodity" such as an American Gold Eagle coin but the actual "money" is the commodity. The gold is the money and the coinage of it is where the specific amount of gold is certified and authorized for official use in the commerce of the nation. The US Constitution it authorizes Congress to "coin money" (not create money) and coining is just a manufacturing process that's being done to the "money" (i.e. gold, silver and copper traditionally). We can still use the "money" (i.e. gold and silver) in commerces if we choose to do so and someone is willing to accept it in exchange for other commodities just like many did in the 19th Century. The use of "money" as opposed to "legal tender" promissory notes (Federal Reserve Notes) and US Coins (American Eagles) in commerce remains 100% legal.
Understanding "Statutory Ownership" as opposed to "Natural Owership" of property is very much like knowing the difference between a Federal Reserve Note and an American Eagle coin. Both are "Legal Tender" but a Federal Reserve Note is NOT Money while an American Eagle Coin IS Money.
I find it quite instructive that you do not find it "unreasonable" that a proposal would cost jobs and cost consumers more money. (Leaving aside, for the moment, the cost of these jobs--some of which, as you have noted, may be recaptured by competing industries--a free-market economy usually rewards consumers with lower prices, through the more-efficient allocation of finite resources. But government intervention, for whatever reason--in this case, amid howls to Save the Planet--tends to have precisely the opposite effect.) Admittedly, I have no way to know for certain just how many people, worldwide, would come to America if it were to institute an open-borders policy; and, frankly, neither do you. But the poorer living conditions throughout just about the entire rest of the word--even in Europe and Japan, for instance, it is my understanding that most people reside in very cramped housing that would make a single American in an efficiency apartment seem like a mansion-dweller, by comparison--would likely attract an enormous number, in my opinion. Your observation that Federal Reserve Notes are "NOT" money (caps in original), but that they are "legal tender," strikes me as the proverbial distinction without a differnce. Whenever I present Federal Reserve Notes for payment--of anything--they are routinely accepted as money. And I would prefer to reside in the real world--not in the theoretical world. It is certainly heartening to hear that you are "not intransigent," and are "always willing to learn." But I am guessing that I have been no more able to change you fundamental views than you have been able to change mine. Am I incorrect in this assessment? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 21, 2014 23:15:09 GMT
I find it quite instructive that you do not find it "unreasonable" that a proposal would cost jobs and cost consumers more money. (Leaving aside, for the moment, the cost of these jobs--some of which, as you have noted, may be recaptured by competing industries--a free-market economy usually rewards consumers with lower prices, through the more-efficient allocation of finite resources. But government intervention, for whatever reason--in this case, amid howls to Save the Planet--tends to have precisely the opposite effect.)
No person or enterprise has a Right to Pollute as pollition violates the Rights of the Person.
When PG&E contaminated the drinking water with hexavalent chromium that lead to serious medical problems and the premature deaths of residents in Hinkley. CA the polution violated their Inalienable Rights.
When the Hooker Chemical Compay buried toxic waste that later leached from the burial site causing birth defects for the residents along Love Canal the pollution violated the residents' Inalienable Rights.
Paper manufacturers prior to the 1990's were using large amount of chlorine that produces dioxins to bleach paper. Dioxins are persistent organic pollutants that are generally recognized among the most toxic human-released pollutants in existence and these toxins were being discharged into our rivers violating the Inalienable Rights of all people.
Coal fired powerplants are dumping thousands of tons of NO2 and SO2 both of which create acid rain destroying our forests, eroding limestone, polluting our rivers, and killing wildlife and that is a violation of the Inalienable Rights of the American People.
We've addressed chemical pollution in all of the above noted cases EXCEPT for coal fired pollution that remains, for the most part, unchecked even though the technology has existed for at least ten years to eliminate up to 40% of it. While we might present a compelling argument based upon the economic needs of society for some limited amount of necessary pollution by industry in some cases we can never present a valid argument for unnecessary pollution by industry.
We can't even claim that converting to clean coal technology would result in any cost increase to customers because the conversion of just a few to natural gas would offset any cost increases by the remaining coal fired powerplants. The estimated "cost increases" are all assuming no change in how electricity is produced but we know that numerous coal fired powerplants have already converted to natural gas which has resulted in job losses in the coal industry. You're actually arguing for higher energy prices using existing coal technology than what might literally occur if we convert to clean coal technology and more coal fired powerplants converted to cleaner natural gas.
As for being reasonable that's based upon the FACT that the coal industry has been advocating clean coal technology for at least ten years and we're going to give them another 15 years to actually use it. That's a 1/4 of a century which is not "rushing" the coal industry in any conceivable manner to do exactly what the coal industry has been telling the American People what they were going to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 21, 2014 23:24:49 GMT
When it comes to legal tender v lawful money I'm fundamentally citing the law. The fact that the law is not being enforced does not change the law.
I beg to differ when it comes to my not being intransigent in my position on anything. In fact I've created a thread to address the differences between statutory ownership and the natural right of ownership of property just to open the conversation. Let us both be open minded in addressing the topic and we will systematically address the issues as I propose in the thread.
worldpf.com/thread/816/satutory-ownership-natural-right-property
I'm addressing it with a step-by-step process so please don't try to jump ahead or change the specifics being addressed post by post in the thread. Like you eventually came to understand and accept my proposal on taxation I expect you might also come to understand my position on the Natural Rights of Property..... or in that thread you'll present an argument based upon logic for which I don't have an answer and I'll openly admit I was wrong.
Fair enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 22, 2014 23:14:59 GMT
violate I find it quite instructive that you do not find it "unreasonable" that a proposal would cost jobs and cost consumers more money. (Leaving aside, for the moment, the cost of these jobs--some of which, as you have noted, may be recaptured by competing industries--a free-market economy usually rewards consumers with lower prices, through the more-efficient allocation of finite resources. But government intervention, for whatever reason--in this case, amid howls to Save the Planet--tends to have precisely the opposite effect.)
No person or enterprise has a Right to Pollute as pollition violates the Rights of the Person.
When PG&E contaminated the drinking water with hexavalent chromium that lead to serious medical problems and the premature deaths of residents in Hinkley. CA the polution violated their Inalienable Rights.
When the Hooker Chemical Compay buried toxic waste that later leached from the burial site causing birth defects for the residents along Love Canal the pollution violated the residents' Inalienable Rights.
Paper manufacturers prior to the 1990's were using large amount of chlorine that produces dioxins to bleach paper. Dioxins are persistent organic pollutants that are generally recognized among the most toxic human-released pollutants in existence and these toxins were being discharged into our rivers violating the Inalienable Rights of all people.
Coal fired powerplants are dumping thousands of tons of NO2 and SO2 both of which create acid rain destroying our forests, eroding limestone, polluting our rivers, and killing wildlife and that is a violation of the Inalienable Rights of the American People.
We've addressed chemical pollution in all of the above noted cases EXCEPT for coal fired pollution that remains, for the most part, unchecked even though the technology has existed for at least ten years to eliminate up to 40% of it. While we might present a compelling argument based upon the economic needs of society for some limited amount of necessary pollution by industry in some cases we can never present a valid argument for unnecessary pollution by industry.
We can't even claim that converting to clean coal technology would result in any cost increase to customers because the conversion of just a few to natural gas would offset any cost increases by the remaining coal fired powerplants. The estimated "cost increases" are all assuming no change in how electricity is produced but we know that numerous coal fired powerplants have already converted to natural gas which has resulted in job losses in the coal industry. You're actually arguing for higher energy prices using existing coal technology than what might literally occur if we convert to clean coal technology and more coal fired powerplants converted to cleaner natural gas.
As for being reasonable that's based upon the FACT that the coal industry has been advocating clean coal technology for at least ten years and we're going to give them another 15 years to actually use it. That's a 1/4 of a century which is not "rushing" the coal industry in any conceivable manner to do exactly what the coal industry has been telling the American People what they were going to do.
It is really not about "rushing" the coal industry; rather, it is about government's making it prohibitively expensive to build new coal plants; and making the electricity generated by coal produced by existing coal plants more expensive. You have introduced some of the most egregious examples of pollution--especially the first two--in an effort to establish that traditional coal plants violate "the Inalienable Rights of the American People." But "the American People" should have some say in the matter. If they would prefer lower prices for residential electricity (as well as lower prices to industry, which tends to pass on higher prices to the consumer), rather than an incremental improvement in environmental considerations, well, that should be their right. But those who believe in the wisdom of some Board of Experts--essentially, an oligarchy--will have none of that. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 23, 2014 11:17:35 GMT
It is really not about "rushing" the coal industry; rather, it is about government's making it prohibitively expensive to build new coal plants; and making the electricity generated by coal produced by existing coal plants more expensive. You have introduced some of the most egregious examples of pollution--especially the first two--in an effort to establish that traditional coal plants violate "the Inalienable Rights of the American People." But "the American People" should have some say in the matter. If they would prefer lower prices for residential electricity (as well as lower prices to industry, which tends to pass on higher prices to the consumer), rather than an incremental improvement in environmental considerations, well, that should be their right. But those who believe in the wisdom of some Board of Experts--essentially, an oligarchy--will have none of that.
The coal industry itself has been promoting the building of "clean coal" electrical powerplants for over a decade and it's illogical to believe that the coal industry would be promoting something that is cost prohibitive. In fact the coal industry doesn't seem to be arguing that building new "clean coal" powerplants is a problem at all but instead is fighting converting existing coal fired powerplants. The actual cost of construction or converting, amortized over the lifetime of the powerplant, is insignificant.
Yes I pointed out egregious examples of pollution but realize that the cases I used were very limited cases of pollution that are dwarfed by the amount of pollution being created by coal fired electrical production. Let's just look at the facts related to the average 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant:
3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. 500 tons of small particles. 220 tons of hydrocarbons. 720 tons of carbon monoxide. 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. 225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Trace elements of uranium.
www.desmogblog.com/coal-power-industry-united-states-facts
In a single year a single coal fired powerplant produces more pollution than PG&E and Hooker Chemical Company produced during their entire lifetime and rivals the toxic pollution created during the history of the paper industry. The only difference is that the pollution from coal is predominately discharged into the atmosphere and is a very slow "killer" of the Earth's ecosystem. So yes, I pointed out egregious violations because the violations by the coal industry are far more egregious than the examples I provided.
Yes, the American People should have "some say" in the matter but they shouldn't have "absolute say" in the matter. We're addressing a simple fact here and that all pollution violates the Rights of the Person but some pollution also benefits the People. There is a balance where, based upon compelling arguments, we can justify the limited infringement upon our Rights as a Person and the laws always reflect that. The caveat is that any such infringement should be to the least extent pragmatically possible to achieve the needs established by the compelling argument.
So yes, we can argue that we need the electricity produced by coal and we can argue that this will require accepting the pollution caused by using coal but the amount of pollution is limited by the technology that exists to economically prevent as much pollution as possible. The coal industry has long argued that "clean coal technology is economically viable" so there is no compelling argument for not using it.
This is something I don't understand. The coal industry for at least the last ten years has repeatedly stated that clean coal technology is economically viable so how can others be arguing it's not? Isn't the coal industry itself the best source of information on what it can and cannot do? It says clean coal technology is economically viable so why don't you and others believe them?
The coal industry has been stating for years that it can economically cut coal pollution by up to 40% using existing technology and we're only asking them to cut it by 30% and give them 15 more years to accomplish this. How can that possibly be unreasonable?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 23, 2014 19:05:53 GMT
It is really not about "rushing" the coal industry; rather, it is about government's making it prohibitively expensive to build new coal plants; and making the electricity generated by coal produced by existing coal plants more expensive. You have introduced some of the most egregious examples of pollution--especially the first two--in an effort to establish that traditional coal plants violate "the Inalienable Rights of the American People." But "the American People" should have some say in the matter. If they would prefer lower prices for residential electricity (as well as lower prices to industry, which tends to pass on higher prices to the consumer), rather than an incremental improvement in environmental considerations, well, that should be their right. But those who believe in the wisdom of some Board of Experts--essentially, an oligarchy--will have none of that.
The coal industry itself has been promoting the building of "clean coal" electrical powerplants for over a decade and it's illogical to believe that the coal industry would be promoting something that is cost prohibitive. In fact the coal industry doesn't seem to be arguing that building new "clean coal" powerplants is a problem at all but instead is fighting converting existing coal fired powerplants. The actual cost of construction or converting, amortized over the lifetime of the powerplant, is insignificant.
Yes I pointed out egregious examples of pollution but realize that the cases I used were very limited cases of pollution that are dwarfed by the amount of pollution being created by coal fired electrical production. Let's just look at the facts related to the average 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant:
3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. 500 tons of small particles. 220 tons of hydrocarbons. 720 tons of carbon monoxide. 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. 225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Trace elements of uranium.
www.desmogblog.com/coal-power-industry-united-states-facts
In a single year a single coal fired powerplant produces more pollution than PG&E and Hooker Chemical Company produced during their entire lifetime and rivals the toxic pollution created during the history of the paper industry. The only difference is that the pollution from coal is predominately discharged into the atmosphere and is a very slow "killer" of the Earth's ecosystem. So yes, I pointed out egregious violations because the violations by the coal industry are far more egregious than the examples I provided.
Yes, the American People should have "some say" in the matter but they shouldn't have "absolute say" in the matter. We're addressing a simple fact here and that all pollution violates the Rights of the Person but some pollution also benefits the People. There is a balance where, based upon compelling arguments, we can justify the limited infringement upon our Rights as a Person and the laws always reflect that. The caveat is that any such infringement should be to the least extent pragmatically possible to achieve the needs established by the compelling argument.
So yes, we can argue that we need the electricity produced by coal and we can argue that this will require accepting the pollution caused by using coal but the amount of pollution is limited by the technology that exists to economically prevent as much pollution as possible. The coal industry has long argued that "clean coal technology is economically viable" so there is no compelling argument for not using it.
This is something I don't understand. The coal industry for at least the last ten years has repeatedly stated that clean coal technology is economically viable so how can others be arguing it's not? Isn't the coal industry itself the best source of information on what it can and cannot do? It says clean coal technology is economically viable so why don't you and others believe them?
The coal industry has been stating for years that it can economically cut coal pollution by up to 40% using existing technology and we're only asking them to cut it by 30% and give them 15 more years to accomplish this. How can that possibly be unreasonable?
I am guessing that the coal industry's definition of "economically viable" would not dovetail precisely with the definition of the term as seen by middle-class Americans (or even lower-middle-class Americans), since the coal industry may, indeed, be able to pass along the higher costs of production--what choice, realistically, would most Americans have, if they do not wish to freeze in the winter and fry in the summer, in addition to giving up their refrigerators and all other modern appliances?--but this would necessarily entail sacrifices. Many Americans would simply turn their thermostats a bit lower in the winter (and bundle up with sweaters), and turn them higher in the summer (or use air conditioning less often--or even not at all). Oh, I do not know if you are aware of it or not; but you have linked to a site that unapologetically extols "New York Times DotEarth, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, and Treehugger, to name a few." In short, a littany of the most left-leaning sources imagineable. It is also a site that cannot (or will not) argue its point of view in a manner that is not dismissive (and utterly contemptuous) of those with whom it disagrees. Hence, those of us who do not embrace global-warming theory--or "climate change," as it is now (euphemistically) called--are brushed aside as mere "deniers" (in an apparent attempt to make us appear just as ridiculous as Holocaust deniers). As to your table of pollutants, I am not at all certain of the numbers cited; but I really cannot dispute them. However, let us just imagine that it were the case--indisputably--that, under current conditions, all pollutants would increase their atmospheric presence by 50 percent every 10 years, soon enough making the Earth entirely uninhabitable by human life. Is that apocalyptic enough for you? I would still make two very important points: (1) America, overall, contributes only a tiny portion to the total; China and India are exponentially bigger polluters; and (2) the American people, in any case, should have the final say as to how much pollution we are willing to accept, as a trade-off for lower energy prices--irrespective of the environmental impact. Some Board of Experts should never be allowed to trump the will of a majority of Americans--as regarding environmental considerations, or anything else. Fair enough? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 24, 2014 14:39:39 GMT
I am guessing that the coal industry's definition of "economically viable" would not dovetail precisely with the definition of the term as seen by middle-class Americans (or even lower-middle-class Americans), since the coal industry may, indeed, be able to pass along the higher costs of production--what choice, realistically, would most Americans have, if they do not wish to freeze in the winter and fry in the summer, in addition to giving up their refrigerators and all other modern appliances?--but this would necessarily entail sacrifices. Many Americans would simply turn their thermostats a bit lower in the winter (and bundle up with sweaters), and turn them higher in the summer (or use air conditioning less often--or even not at all). Oh, I do not know if you are aware of it or not; but you have linked to a site that unapologetically extols "New York Times DotEarth, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, and Treehugger, to name a few." In short, a littany of the most left-leaning sources imagineable. It is also a site that cannot (or will not) argue its point of view in a manner that is not dismissive (and utterly contemptuous) of those with whom it disagrees. Hence, those of us who do not embrace global-warming theory--or "climate change," as it is now (euphemistically) called--are brushed aside as mere "deniers" (in an apparent attempt to make us appear just as ridiculous as Holocaust deniers). As to your table of pollutants, I am not at all certain of the numbers cited; but I really cannot dispute them. However, let us just imagine that it were the case--indisputably--that, under current conditions, all pollutants would increase their atmospheric presence by 50 percent every 10 years, soon enough making the Earth entirely uninhabitable by human life. Is that apocalyptic enough for you? I would still make two very important points: (1) America, overall, contributes only a tiny portion to the total; China and India are exponentially bigger polluters; and (2) the American people, in any case, should have the final say as to how much pollution we are willing to accept, as a trade-off for lower energy prices--irrespective of the environmental impact. Some Board of Experts should never be allowed to trump the will of a majority of Americans--as regarding environmental considerations, or anything else. Fair enough?
In some respects we certainly do agree but I would point out some of my thoughts.
I don't know what the criteria is when the coal industry stated that clean coal technology is economically viable. I do know that estimates of out of pocket costs increases for consumers are mostly political BS. As I've noted is assumes no changes in our sources of electrical production (e.g. the cost of electricity is based upon all sources and simply converting some coal fired powerplants to natural gas would offset any increased costs using coal) and you noted that people could also conserve more negating an increase in the cost per kilowatt-hour if it occurs.
Basically we're both stating the same thing and that is the conversion to clean coal technology can be mitigated by both the electrical industry as well as by the individual so that the "out of pocket costs" don't change.
As you know I'm not overly concerned with the source of information but instead I focus on it's accuracy. The "opposition" generally provides the best information although all information needs to be evaluated. Remember that if you support something you're not likely to "air your dirty laundry" and would tend to cover that up by omission. As we know the very best propaganda is based upon half-truths where information detrimental to your position is omitted.
I can't state that the numbers cited on the amount of pollution are accurate "down to the ton" but they do reflect an overall huge amount of pollution being produced by a very limited industry. I don't think we'd disagree with the general statement "coal produces a massive amount of friggin' pollution" regardless of the exact number.
As for the question on a "Board of Experts" it is a conditional matter. Is the "Board" expressing a position that is supported or unsupported? For example AGW is overwhelmingly established by the scientific community. 100% of all climatologists agree that the earth has been getting warmer over the last 100 years, about 95% cite that current AGW theories have been validated, and only about 5% have stated they require more validation of those theories, and 0% of the scientists state that the rise in global temperatures is definately not caused by AGW. The 5% that are skeptics are only asking for "more proof" of the AGW theories and are not claiming the theories are wrong.
But I've repeatedly stated that the environmental impacts are secondary to the fact that unnecessary pollution should never be allowed. If we have the technological means to economically reduce any pollution then we should do so.
I also discard ANY position that is based upon what another country is doing when it comes to what we should do that is right. When we refer to China or other 3rd World countries violating the rights of people to live in an unspoiled world that has nothing to do with the United States.
We need to do what's right for America regardless of what other countries may or many not do.
We're not all that far apart though.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 25, 2014 0:31:32 GMT
I am guessing that the coal industry's definition of "economically viable" would not dovetail precisely with the definition of the term as seen by middle-class Americans (or even lower-middle-class Americans), since the coal industry may, indeed, be able to pass along the higher costs of production--what choice, realistically, would most Americans have, if they do not wish to freeze in the winter and fry in the summer, in addition to giving up their refrigerators and all other modern appliances?--but this would necessarily entail sacrifices. Many Americans would simply turn their thermostats a bit lower in the winter (and bundle up with sweaters), and turn them higher in the summer (or use air conditioning less often--or even not at all). Oh, I do not know if you are aware of it or not; but you have linked to a site that unapologetically extols "New York Times DotEarth, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, ThinkProgress, and Treehugger, to name a few." In short, a littany of the most left-leaning sources imagineable. It is also a site that cannot (or will not) argue its point of view in a manner that is not dismissive (and utterly contemptuous) of those with whom it disagrees. Hence, those of us who do not embrace global-warming theory--or "climate change," as it is now (euphemistically) called--are brushed aside as mere "deniers" (in an apparent attempt to make us appear just as ridiculous as Holocaust deniers). As to your table of pollutants, I am not at all certain of the numbers cited; but I really cannot dispute them. However, let us just imagine that it were the case--indisputably--that, under current conditions, all pollutants would increase their atmospheric presence by 50 percent every 10 years, soon enough making the Earth entirely uninhabitable by human life. Is that apocalyptic enough for you? I would still make two very important points: (1) America, overall, contributes only a tiny portion to the total; China and India are exponentially bigger polluters; and (2) the American people, in any case, should have the final say as to how much pollution we are willing to accept, as a trade-off for lower energy prices--irrespective of the environmental impact. Some Board of Experts should never be allowed to trump the will of a majority of Americans--as regarding environmental considerations, or anything else. Fair enough?
In some respects we certainly do agree but I would point out some of my thoughts.
I don't know what the criteria is when the coal industry stated that clean coal technology is economically viable. I do know that estimates of out of pocket costs increases for consumers are mostly political BS. As I've noted is assumes no changes in our sources of electrical production (e.g. the cost of electricity is based upon all sources and simply converting some coal fired powerplants to natural gas would offset any increased costs using coal) and you noted that people could also conserve more negating an increase in the cost per kilowatt-hour if it occurs.
Basically we're both stating the same thing and that is the conversion to clean coal technology can be mitigated by both the electrical industry as well as by the individual so that the "out of pocket costs" don't change.
As you know I'm not overly concerned with the source of information but instead I focus on it's accuracy. The "opposition" generally provides the best information although all information needs to be evaluated. Remember that if you support something you're not likely to "air your dirty laundry" and would tend to cover that up by omission. As we know the very best propaganda is based upon half-truths where information detrimental to your position is omitted.
I can't state that the numbers cited on the amount of pollution are accurate "down to the ton" but they do reflect an overall huge amount of pollution being produced by a very limited industry. I don't think we'd disagree with the general statement "coal produces a massive amount of friggin' pollution" regardless of the exact number.
As for the question on a "Board of Experts" it is a conditional matter. Is the "Board" expressing a position that is supported or unsupported? For example AGW is overwhelmingly established by the scientific community. 100% of all climatologists agree that the earth has been getting warmer over the last 100 years, about 95% cite that current AGW theories have been validated, and only about 5% have stated they require more validation of those theories, and 0% of the scientists state that the rise in global temperatures is definately not caused by AGW. The 5% that are skeptics are only asking for "more proof" of the AGW theories and are not claiming the theories are wrong.
But I've repeatedly stated that the environmental impacts are secondary to the fact that unnecessary pollution should never be allowed. If we have the technological means to economically reduce any pollution then we should do so.
I also discard ANY position that is based upon what another country is doing when it comes to what we should do that is right. When we refer to China or other 3rd World countries violating the rights of people to live in an unspoiled world that has nothing to do with the United States.
We need to do what's right for America regardless of what other countries may or many not do.
We're not all that far apart though.
First, I would just say that I would prefer to find points of agreement--as you evidently would also, based upon your last statement, above. There are, however, a few points you have made that deserve some comment: The "conserv[ation]" to which you refer (that sounds so nice!) is really sacrifice on the part of the American consumer. At least, all but the gazillionaires, for whom any increase in costs would surely be negligible. And most Americans are not gazillionaires. And I am not at all certain just what "half-truths" you believe I have been suggesting. As for the Earth's warming "over the last 100 years," that can be rather misleading. It seems to imply a gradual increase in global temperatures from 1914 to 2014. But it is my understanding that average global temperatures have increased not at all over the past 17 years. At one time, no doubt, not just 95 percent, but a full 100 percent of all scientists would have declared that the Earth is the center of the universe. In any case, the current hysteria about "global warming" is not merely an academic exercise, with no practical ramifications; rather , it is all about attempting to mobilize Americans to make personal sacrifices in an attempt to Save the Planet--and perhaps even make massive transfers of wealth from the Western world (and especially America) to Third World countries, in order to help them mitigate those (supposed) bad effects of industrialization upon the environment. You say you want to do "what's right for America," irrespective of the actions of other countries. But industrial emissions do not observe national boundaries. Those emissions from China, India, or Brazil may easily wind up in California, Colorado, or Connecticut. So it necessarily begs the question: How might it be beneficial to Americans to force our own industries to limit emissions if much more egregious polluters do not reciprocate? Or is it merely an exercise in moral preening? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 25, 2014 12:22:20 GMT
First, I would just say that I would prefer to find points of agreement--as you evidently would also, based upon your last statement, above. There are, however, a few points you have made that deserve some comment: The "conserv[ation]" to which you refer (that sounds so nice!) is really sacrifice on the part of the American consumer. At least, all but the gazillionaires, for whom any increase in costs would surely be negligible. And most Americans are not gazillionaires. And I am not at all certain just what "half-truths" you believe I have been suggesting. As for the Earth's warming "over the last 100 years," that can be rather misleading. It seems to imply a gradual increase in global temperatures from 1914 to 2014. But it is my understanding that average global temperatures have increased not at all over the past 17 years. At one time, no doubt, not just 95 percent, but a full 100 percent of all scientists would have declared that the Earth is the center of the universe. In any case, the current hysteria about "global warming" is not merely an academic exercise, with no practical ramifications; rather , it is all about attempting to mobilize Americans to make personal sacrifices in an attempt to Save the Planet--and perhaps even make massive transfers of wealth from the Western world (and especially America) to Third World countries, in order to help them mitigate those (supposed) bad effects of industrialization upon the environment. You say you want to do "what's right for America," irrespective of the actions of other countries. But industrial emissions do not observe national boundaries. Those emissions from China, India, or Brazil may easily wind up in California, Colorado, or Connecticut. So it necessarily begs the question: How might it be beneficial to Americans to force our own industries to limit emissions if much more egregious polluters do not reciprocate? Or is it merely an exercise in moral preening?
A point of interest is that with technology we've actually reduced electrical consumption thereby reducing the out-of-pocket costs. Our appliance and even light bulbs are significantly more energy efficient and this technological improvement allows us to realize a net reduction in electrical energy costs even if we assume the slight increase in the cost of electricity using clean coal technology.
Atmospheric global warming began slowing in 1999 but global warming did not. Scientists were looking for where the heat energy was being stored and they've recently found it. The first place they looked, and the obvious place to look, was the Pacific Ocean but didn't find the evidence they needed. More recently a study of the Atlantic Ocean indicates that the additional heat is being absorbed by the North Atlantic. So the Earth is still heating up just like the AGW climate models predict but since 1999 that increased global temperature has been absorbed by the Atlantic Ocean.
news.yahoo.com/earths-missing-heat-found-182808474.html
Something I believe many miss when we discuss AGW scientific theories is that many believe this is a recent scientific theory but, in fact, it was predicted by science over 150 years ago. Basically we've had 150 years of the AGW theory being confirmed by science with no contradicting scientific evidence. By analogy it's like watching the apple fall from the tree always hitting the ground and never doing anything but hitting the ground for over 150 years is pretty conclusive evidence that gravity exists.
Yes, we need to be concerned about the atmospheric pollution being created by other nations just like we need to be very concerned with deforestation (an equally important factor in AGW) but remember one fact. If an economic powerhouse like the United States can't afford to clean up it's act then how can we expect other nations without the economic strength to do the same. If "American can't afford it" then how can any nation afford it?
None of us want to see our electical bill go up even 1% but we can't actually say we can't afford it. Technology has also reduced our electrical costs so there is an economic balance between the costs of reducing unnecessary pollution and reducing electrical comsumption by the consumer without any reduction in our standard of living. In fact, with improved technology we're actually seeing a net gain economically when it comes to using electricity overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 25, 2014 18:20:56 GMT
First, I would just say that I would prefer to find points of agreement--as you evidently would also, based upon your last statement, above. There are, however, a few points you have made that deserve some comment: The "conserv[ation]" to which you refer (that sounds so nice!) is really sacrifice on the part of the American consumer. At least, all but the gazillionaires, for whom any increase in costs would surely be negligible. And most Americans are not gazillionaires. And I am not at all certain just what "half-truths" you believe I have been suggesting. As for the Earth's warming "over the last 100 years," that can be rather misleading. It seems to imply a gradual increase in global temperatures from 1914 to 2014. But it is my understanding that average global temperatures have increased not at all over the past 17 years. At one time, no doubt, not just 95 percent, but a full 100 percent of all scientists would have declared that the Earth is the center of the universe. In any case, the current hysteria about "global warming" is not merely an academic exercise, with no practical ramifications; rather , it is all about attempting to mobilize Americans to make personal sacrifices in an attempt to Save the Planet--and perhaps even make massive transfers of wealth from the Western world (and especially America) to Third World countries, in order to help them mitigate those (supposed) bad effects of industrialization upon the environment. You say you want to do "what's right for America," irrespective of the actions of other countries. But industrial emissions do not observe national boundaries. Those emissions from China, India, or Brazil may easily wind up in California, Colorado, or Connecticut. So it necessarily begs the question: How might it be beneficial to Americans to force our own industries to limit emissions if much more egregious polluters do not reciprocate? Or is it merely an exercise in moral preening?
A point of interest is that with technology we've actually reduced electrical consumption thereby reducing the out-of-pocket costs. Our appliance and even light bulbs are significantly more energy efficient and this technological improvement allows us to realize a net reduction in electrical energy costs even if we assume the slight increase in the cost of electricity using clean coal technology.
Atmospheric global warming began slowing in 1999 but global warming did not. Scientists were looking for where the heat energy was being stored and they've recently found it. The first place they looked, and the obvious place to look, was the Pacific Ocean but didn't find the evidence they needed. More recently a study of the Atlantic Ocean indicates that the additional heat is being absorbed by the North Atlantic. So the Earth is still heating up just like the AGW climate models predict but since 1999 that increased global temperature has been absorbed by the Atlantic Ocean.
news.yahoo.com/earths-missing-heat-found-182808474.html
Something I believe many miss when we discuss AGW scientific theories is that many believe this is a recent scientific theory but, in fact, it was predicted by science over 150 years ago. Basically we've had 150 years of the AGW theory being confirmed by science with no contradicting scientific evidence. By analogy it's like watching the apple fall from the tree always hitting the ground and never doing anything but hitting the ground for over 150 years is pretty conclusive evidence that gravity exists.
Yes, we need to be concerned about the atmospheric pollution being created by other nations just like we need to be very concerned with deforestation (an equally important factor in AGW) but remember one fact. If an economic powerhouse like the United States can't afford to clean up it's act then how can we expect other nations without the economic strength to do the same. If "American can't afford it" then how can any nation afford it?
None of us want to see our electical bill go up even 1% but we can't actually say we can't afford it. Technology has also reduced our electrical costs so there is an economic balance between the costs of reducing unnecessary pollution and reducing electrical comsumption by the consumer without any reduction in our standard of living. In fact, with improved technology we're actually seeing a net gain economically when it comes to using electricity overall. I really cannot see how you might be able to assert that there is no "reduction in our standard of living" if electric bills rise, even just a little. Yes, some of us might be able to absorb a small increase--you have posited a mere "1%" increase--but many, who are already living on the edge, could not. And I would not wish to see them forced to make sacrifices, in order to accommodate some apocalyptic theory. The Earth is, indeed, now warmer than it was during some earlier eras--for instance, the latest Ice Age--but it is also cooler than it was during other eras. This vacillates. And I would not wish to try to obtain (and then maintain) some "optimum" temperature that might indeed be best for, say, residents living along the shore in New Guinea, but not especially good for farmers in Iowa. And the mere fact that the roots of a theory may be traceable to a much earlier time is quite irrelevant. For instance, even (slightly) earlier than the "150 years ago" that you have cited, Thomas Malthus was making apocalyptic predictions as concerning the matter of (supposedly) impending overpopulation. ("The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man," as he put it.) By the way, the link you provided contains a story that is, indeed, interesting--but hardly conclusive. The study merely "suggests" a conclusion--not my own word, but that of the article's author--and it is "unlikely to settle the scientific debate." (Have you merely found a recent study, then, that appears congenial to your own preconceived view?) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 26, 2014 1:36:35 GMT
I really cannot see how you might be able to assert that there is no "reduction in our standard of living" if electric bills rise, even just a little. Yes, some of us might be able to absorb a small increase--you have posited a mere "1%" increase--but many, who are already living on the edge, could not. And I would not wish to see them forced to make sacrifices, in order to accommodate some apocalyptic theory. The Earth is, indeed, now warmer than it was during some earlier eras--for instance, the latest Ice Age--but it is also cooler than it was during other eras. This vacillates. And I would not wish to try to obtain (and then maintain) some "optimum" temperature that might indeed be best for, say, residents living along the shore in New Guinea, but not especially good for farmers in Iowa. And the mere fact that the roots of a theory may be traceable to a much earlier time is quite irrelevant. For instance, even (slightly) earlier than the "150 years ago" that you have cited, Thomas Malthus was making apocalyptic predictions as concerning the matter of (supposedly) impending overpopulation. ("The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man," as he put it.) By the way, the link you provided contains a story that is, indeed, interesting--but hardly conclusive. The study merely "suggests" a conclusion--not my own word, but that of the article's author--and it is "unlikely to settle the scientific debate." (Have you merely found a recent study, then, that appears congenial to your own preconceived view?)
As I've noted, and you cannot dispute, is that if just a few of the coal fired powerplants convert to natural gas (something they've been doing already) it will offset the avergage cost per KwH that would result from converting to clean coal technology. In fact the mandate to change to clean coal technology will be an incentive to convert to natural gas and could literally reduce actual consumer costs.
Yes, there have been fluctuations in global temperatures but never at the rate of increase we've seen in the last 100 plus years. We've seen an increase that normally takes place over 1,000 years or more.
As you know though my objection isn't based upon global warming or on acid rain but instead is based upon the simple fact it is unnecessary pollution that can't be supported based upon any compelling argument. It is not cost prohibitive to convert according to the coal industry that are the foremost experts on the technology and the costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 27, 2014 1:26:44 GMT
I really cannot see how you might be able to assert that there is no "reduction in our standard of living" if electric bills rise, even just a little. Yes, some of us might be able to absorb a small increase--you have posited a mere "1%" increase--but many, who are already living on the edge, could not. And I would not wish to see them forced to make sacrifices, in order to accommodate some apocalyptic theory. The Earth is, indeed, now warmer than it was during some earlier eras--for instance, the latest Ice Age--but it is also cooler than it was during other eras. This vacillates. And I would not wish to try to obtain (and then maintain) some "optimum" temperature that might indeed be best for, say, residents living along the shore in New Guinea, but not especially good for farmers in Iowa. And the mere fact that the roots of a theory may be traceable to a much earlier time is quite irrelevant. For instance, even (slightly) earlier than the "150 years ago" that you have cited, Thomas Malthus was making apocalyptic predictions as concerning the matter of (supposedly) impending overpopulation. ("The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man," as he put it.) By the way, the link you provided contains a story that is, indeed, interesting--but hardly conclusive. The study merely "suggests" a conclusion--not my own word, but that of the article's author--and it is "unlikely to settle the scientific debate." (Have you merely found a recent study, then, that appears congenial to your own preconceived view?)
As I've noted, and you cannot dispute, is that if just a few of the coal fired powerplants convert to natural gas (something they've been doing already) it will offset the avergage cost per KwH that would result from converting to clean coal technology. In fact the mandate to change to clean coal technology will be an incentive to convert to natural gas and could literally reduce actual consumer costs.
Yes, there have been fluctuations in global temperatures but never at the rate of increase we've seen in the last 100 plus years. We've seen an increase that normally takes place over 1,000 years or more.
As you know though my objection isn't based upon global warming or on acid rain but instead is based upon the simple fact it is unnecessary pollution that can't be supported based upon any compelling argument. It is not cost prohibitive to convert according to the coal industry that are the foremost experts on the technology and the costs.
What is "not cost prohibitive" for some may indeed be cost prohibitive for others, if they can just barely make ends meet now--if even that. A reduction in cost, per kilowatt hour, would therefore be prefereable to a mere "offset" based upon some greater efficiency in the system elsewhere. If the benefits, collectively, of this cost increase outweigh the economic disadvantage of it, consumers should be advised of this fact, so that they may support a small increase in price, as a necessary tradeoff for cleaner air. But if most consumers would prefer a lower price (even marginally), because they simply do not imagine that any incremental benefits in clean air would accrue to themselves (or their loved ones) in a significant amount, then they should be able to make that decision. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 28, 2014 11:50:43 GMT
What is "not cost prohibitive" for some may indeed be cost prohibitive for others, if they can just barely make ends meet now--if even that. A reduction in cost, per kilowatt hour, would therefore be prefereable to a mere "offset" based upon some greater efficiency in the system elsewhere. If the benefits, collectively, of this cost increase outweigh the economic disadvantage of it, consumers should be advised of this fact, so that they may support a small increase in price, as a necessary tradeoff for cleaner air. But if most consumers would prefer a lower price (even marginally), because they simply do not imagine that any incremental benefits in clean air would accrue to themselves (or their loved ones) in a significant amount, then they should be able to make that decision.
As I've noted, and you cannot dispute, if even a small percentage of the coal fired powerplants convert to cheaper electrical production using natural gas (that we have lots of) then there is no cost increase to the consumers when the remaining coal fired powerplants convert to clean coal technology.
What part of "no cost increase" is really necessary is being missed? Many coal fired powerplants have already converted to natural gas and many others would as opposed to coverting to clean coal technology. Market forces would drive the converting to lower cost natural gas as opposed to paying the costs of clean coal technology in many cases.
The argument that consumer prices will increase is political and not factual as market forces would drive many coal fired powerplants to convert to natural gas that provides less expensive electrical energy to consumers. If enough coal fired powerplants covert to natural gas then consumer prices will actually go down and we could probably expect that because converting to natural gas is less expensive than coverting to clean coal technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 28, 2014 23:50:01 GMT
What is "not cost prohibitive" for some may indeed be cost prohibitive for others, if they can just barely make ends meet now--if even that. A reduction in cost, per kilowatt hour, would therefore be prefereable to a mere "offset" based upon some greater efficiency in the system elsewhere. If the benefits, collectively, of this cost increase outweigh the economic disadvantage of it, consumers should be advised of this fact, so that they may support a small increase in price, as a necessary tradeoff for cleaner air. But if most consumers would prefer a lower price (even marginally), because they simply do not imagine that any incremental benefits in clean air would accrue to themselves (or their loved ones) in a significant amount, then they should be able to make that decision.
As I've noted, and you cannot dispute, if even a small percentage of the coal fired powerplants convert to cheaper electrical production using natural gas (that we have lots of) then there is no cost increase to the consumers when the remaining coal fired powerplants convert to clean coal technology.
What part of "no cost increase" is really necessary is being missed? Many coal fired powerplants have already converted to natural gas and many others would as opposed to coverting to clean coal technology. Market forces would drive the converting to lower cost natural gas as opposed to paying the costs of clean coal technology in many cases.
The argument that consumer prices will increase is political and not factual as market forces would drive many coal fired powerplants to convert to natural gas that provides less expensive electrical energy to consumers. If enough coal fired powerplants covert to natural gas then consumer prices will actually go down and we could probably expect that because converting to natural gas is less expensive than coverting to clean coal technology.
If you sincerely believe that "market forces" will cause coal-fired powerplants to "convert to natural gas" because it is "less expensive" than coal, why not just allow these "market forces" to work, instead of having the president issue mandates? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 29, 2014 11:56:21 GMT
If you sincerely believe that "market forces" will cause coal-fired powerplants to "convert to natural gas" because it is "less expensive" than coal, why not just allow these "market forces" to work, instead of having the president issue mandates?
Because the coal fired powerplants are producing unnecessary pollution that violates my Inalienable Rights to clean air, land and water. They do not have a Right to Pollute and any pollution has be be justified. Unnecessary pollution cannot be justified and up to 40% of the pollution from coal cannot be justified based upon statements made by the coal industry repeatedly over the last ten years or more. The coal industry itself has stated that the pollution is unnecessary as it has the technology to eliminate it.
|
|
