The Climate Change Hoax

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Doesn't the removal of Obama's executive order help the coal industry?

Who's going to invest in Coal these days? New plants are unlikely to recoup the cost of building such facilities, and as said before, employment is not to be found in that sector, but in natural gas, and renewable sources (although that might now fall thanks to Trump).

Cheers,
Bart

[PeterAit]

Why should the American tax payer always be the dunce?

If something is really important, as this research is, funding it does not make you a dunce, it makes you responsible.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Not a good sign for the future of nuclear power:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/westinghouse-files-for-bankruptcy-in-a-blow-to-nuclear-power-industry/2017/03/29/4a64b6f2-1338-11e7-833c-503e1f6394c9_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ed40a58da70d

[Alan Klein]

If something is really important, as this research is, funding it does not make you a dunce, it makes you responsible.

What makes us a dunce is how often we pick up the tab and others who said they would contribute, don't.  Like some countries in NATO.  Same things happens in other fields as well.  We're responsible; it's others who aren't.  American taxpayers are broke.  We have our own bills to pay. 

[Alan Klein]

Who's going to invest in Coal these days? New plants are unlikely to recoup the cost of building such facilities, and as said before, employment is not to be found in that sector, but in natural gas, and renewable sources (although that might now fall thanks to Trump).

Cheers,
Bart

As usual, the liberal anti-Trump media turns what Trump did into a negative.  The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry"  That's the news.  It's more political than economic.  A Republican President kept his promise to miners who usually vote Democrat but voted Republican on a promise.  The miners understand the competition from gas.  That's a marketplace issue.  But they won't forget in 2020 he kept his word.  That means a lot to people, especially to "deplorables" in flyover country.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

As usual, the liberal anti-Trump media turns what Trump did into a negative.  The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry"  That's the news.  It's more political than economic.  A Republican President kept his promise to miners who usually vote Democrat but voted Republican on a promise.  The miners understand the competition from gas.  That's a marketplace issue.  But they won't forget in 2020 he kept his word.  That means a lot to people, especially to "deplorables" in flyover country.

Then how many coal-mining jobs did Trump create?

Cheers,
Bart

[Hans Kruse]

As usual, the liberal anti-Trump media turns what Trump did into a negative.  The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry"  That's the news.  It's more political than economic.  A Republican President kept his promise to miners who usually vote Democrat but voted Republican on a promise.  The miners understand the competition from gas.  That's a marketplace issue.  But they won't forget in 2020 he kept his word.  That means a lot to people, especially to "deplorables" in flyover country.

Trump may have kept his word, but those coal miners who thought that it meant employment will be unhappy. So in the end I don't think it will be seen as he kept his word. He praises himself of being a business man. But to me he looks like one of those spreadsheet managers that we sometimes see in companies that make very short term gains but loose the future. I don't think he cares about coal miners at all, he only cares about himself. That's the sad truth for all those who voted for him and thought he would bring a better future.

[Alan Goldhammer]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/29/trump-promised-to-bring-back-coal-jobs-that-promise-will-not-be-kept-experts-say/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_coaljobs-923a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.98ebe8418191  presents what is really going on with coal mining jobs.

[Peter McLennan]

The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry"

That's not a headline, that's a paragraph describing an ideology.

The headline should have been "Trump Doubles Down on the Past."

[Alan Klein]

Then how many coal-mining jobs did Trump create?

Cheers,
Bart
[/quote

Then how many coal-mining jobs did Trump create?

Cheers,
Bart

   If Obama's executive order did not reduce jobs by imposing new regulations on the oil industry by reducing production,  then why did Obama do it?  So the opposite is true too.   Getting rid of the regulation will increase production providing more jobs.   Of course,  other factors like gas competition is going to effect the industry. But you're conflating the two issues to try to make Trump look bad.   We get it.

[Tim Lookingbill]

As usual, the liberal anti-Trump media turns what Trump did into a negative.  The headline should have been, "Trump Fulfills His Election Promise 60 Days into His Term and Reverses Obama's Executive Orders Against the Coal Industry"  That's the news.  It's more political than economic.  A Republican President kept his promise to miners who usually vote Democrat but voted Republican on a promise.  The miners understand the competition from gas.  That's a marketplace issue.  But they won't forget in 2020 he kept his word.  That means a lot to people, especially to "deplorables" in flyover country.

So when the coal miners lose their jobs due to marketplace issues with competing cheaper natural gas, they'll thank Trump just for trying as they go looking for another job that won't exist because they won't move to an area of the country that doesn't rely heavily on one industry, the coal mines?

I think you're making Trump sound more negative. The logic behind what you're saying doesn't make sense. 

[Alan Klein]

So when the coal miners lose their jobs due to marketplace issues with competing cheaper natural gas, they'll thank Trump just for trying as they go looking for another job that won't exist because they won't move to an area of the country that doesn't rely heavily on one industry, the coal mines?

I think you're making Trump sound more negative. The logic behind what you're saying doesn't make sense. 

You must have been advising Hillary.  Regulate the coal industry more so more of their jobs are lost.   Great strategy.

[Peter McLennan]

This link's text says it all:
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/solar-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-in-the-us/

Click on the link and scroll down for a very clear chart.

Executive Summary:

Coal 77K (sh*tty) jobs (and shrinking fast)
Solar (just solar!)  370K jobs (and growing fast)

Coal is inefficient, nasty and OVER.

Trump continues to dupe America. That's what he does best.

[EricV]

I am all in favor of solar power, and I realize it is growing rapidly, unlike other energy sectors.  Still, employing over 40% of the energy workforce to produce less than 1% of the total energy supply is not a statistic to be especially proud of.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I am all in favor of solar power, and I realize it is growing rapidly, unlike other energy sectors.  Still, employing over 40% of the energy workforce to produce less than 1% of the total energy supply is not a statistic to be especially proud of.

I presume that the bulk of those jobs are installation and after a while those jobs will decrease.  The question is whether the tax preference on solar will go away when and if tax reform is done. 

[Alan Klein]

I presume that the bulk of those jobs are installation and after a while those jobs will decrease.  The question is whether the tax preference on solar will go away when and if tax reform is done. 

Rebates should go away.   They distort the marketplace.   Rich people are using rebates paid from taxes of poorer people so they can pay less for electricity then the poorer people pay.   Where's the fairness in that?  I also question all those jobs.   Are they full time?  Are they including electricians who also do other work?   It seems like a big number.

[Peter McLennan]

Rebates should go away.   They distort the marketplace.

Tell that to America's agriculture business and watch what happens.

[Alan Klein]

Tell that to America's agriculture business and watch what happens.

Those should stop too.

[Ray]

I think some of you 'natural climate change' deniers have missed the point. The problem is, how best to adapt to a changing climate which we cannot stop.
In order to adapt and protect ourselves from extreme weather events which have always occurred in the past, regardless of CO2 levels, we need lots of cheap and reliable energy in order to build dams, long-distance water pipes, relocate houses which are situated in flood plains, rebuild houses which were not built as they should have been, to withstand the natural hurricanes or cyclones that have been common occurrences in the area in the past, and if necessary, build dykes along low-lying coastal areas to protect cities.

All forms of energy sources should be on the table. If gas is cheaper and cleaner than coal, then by all means use gas.
What Trump is objecting to are the barriers and additional costs imposed upon the construction of coal-fired power stations, through regulations that demonize that clean and non-polluting gas called CO2, which is of great benefit for the greening of our planet and a great asset for agriculture.

The following article describes the hassles and unnecessary expenses imposed upon the construction of the USA's first Ultra-SuperCritical coal-fired power plant.

http://cornerstonemag.net/setting-the-benchmark-the-worlds-most-efficient-coal-fired-power-plants/

"The 600-MW John W. Turk Jr. power plant in Arkansas holds many distinctions. Completed in December 2012, it was the first USC plant built in the U.S. It also reigns as the country’s most efficient coal-fired power plant with an electrical efficiency of 40% HHV basis (~42% LHV basis). After the project was announced in 2006, American Electric Power’s (AEP) Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO) spent several years trying to secure the necessary permits while fighting legal battles launched as part of national anti-coal campaigns. Under the legal settlement, SWEPCO agreed to retire an older 582-MW coal-fired unit in Texas, secure 400 MW of renewable power, and set aside US$10 million for land conservation and energy efficiency projects. At a final cost of US$1.8 billion to build the plant, the Turk plant also became the most expensive project ever built in Arkansas.

With inexpensive natural gas and proposed carbon standards for new power plants that would require carbon capture for coal-fired units, permitting another HELE plant in the U.S. could be extremely difficult for economic reasons. Thus, despite its efficiency and excellent environmental performance, the Turk plant may be the last HELE plant built in the U.S. for the foreseeable future."

[BobDavid]

No matter what side of the fence one stands on climate change, all can agree that spewing mercury, lead, carcinogens, and other forms of noxious particulate matter into the atmosphere is hazardous to health.

Methane (CH4) is over a magnitude more destructive than CO2. Methane comes from burning off fossil fuels, human and animal waste, landfills, and other sources.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is far worse than methane. It lingers in the atmosphere for at least one hundred years.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS) are several magnitudes worse than methane.

CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCS are known as "greenhouse" gases. The amount of gases that enter the atmosphere have been tracked for decades. Data is data. It appears that data analysis is at the heart of the climate change controversy.

Tons of heavy metals such as mercury and lead are released into the atmosphere every day.

So whether or not one wants to argue about climate change, immediate public health concerns as well as environmental impact (steadily lower pH levels in fresh and salt water bodies) are quantifiable.

I think switching over to other energy sources is a win win regardless of whether climate change is a hoax or not. The economic benefit of transforming energy reliance from fossil fuels to renewables is unfathomable. R &D, new infrasture, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and unforeseeable positions will be created and economies will grow.