Climate Change: Science and Issues

[Alan Klein]

Glad we agree on that one Alan

But how about "a host of other rules limiting mercury, soot, smog and other discharges from coal operations."  You were rightfully upset when Volkswagen polluted your clean air, but it's OK for the coal industry to do the same (and worse)? 

I'm not in favor of polluting the air or water.  I breathe and drink too.  I spend $100 a year on carbon filters for my home drinking water, use natural gas to heat instead of oil, and have an electric "fake" fireplace.  I use the finest and most expensive mesh air filters in my HVAC system to sweep pollen, dust, and other particulates out of the house. I'm not that familiar with the changes the EPA wants to make.  But I understand the Supreme Court shot down Obama's unilateral rules as overstepping the law granting his EPA authority.  It's currently in the courts.   Also, Obama's EPA declared CO2 a pollutant so he could implement Climate Change rules and sign up with Paris. As Ray will surely remind us, CO2 is not a pollutant. In any case, what Obama did in joining Paris is a violation of our Constitution. The Senate must approve all foreign treaties.  Had they done so, Trump couldn't pull out of Paris without Senate approval.   

It seems counter-productive to be more concerned with what happens with America's coal fired electric plants than China's.  Paris gave China a pass and does not have to meet any standards until 2030.  In addition, they will be building 800 new coal fire electric plants throughout the world over the next ten years to add to pollution and CO2.  800!  That's about 3 plants every two weeks!  So you appear less concerned about the pollution China is adding to the world at the same time that America is reducing its coal-fired electric production, currently at 30% of the plants from 50% only a few years ago.

I think the overriding issue is that Obama went too far in regulating all American businesses, not only energy.  His regulations and tax concepts put the rest of the world and special interests in America ahead of keeping our economy lean and charging.  Of course Europeans like that because it keeps them more competitive.    That's why they hate Trump for pulling out of Paris, dropping TPP, NATO 2%, etc.  He puts America first.  He ran on reducing regulations and won the election.  The pendulum swings both ways.  If he goes too far the other way, the electorate will pull the country back.

[pegelli]

I'm not in favor of polluting the air or water.  I breathe and drink too.  I spend $100 a year on carbon filters for my home drinking water, use natural gas to heat instead of oil, and have an electric "fake" fireplace.  I use the finest and most expensive mesh air filters in my HVAC system to sweep pollen, dust, and other particulates out of the house. I'm not that familiar with the changes the EPA wants to make.  But I understand the Supreme Court shot down Obama's unilateral rules as overstepping the law granting his EPA authority.  It's currently in the courts.   Also, Obama's EPA declared CO2 a pollutant so he could implement Climate Change rules and sign up with Paris. As Ray will surely remind us, CO2 is not a pollutant. In any case, what Obama did in joining Paris is a violation of our Constitution. The Senate must approve all foreign treaties.  Had they done so, Trump couldn't pull out of Paris without Senate approval.   

It seems counter-productive to be more concerned with what happens with America's coal fired electric plants than China's.  Paris gave China a pass and does not have to meet any standards until 2030.  In addition, they will be building 800 new coal fire electric plants throughout the world over the next ten years to add to pollution and CO2.  800!  That's about 3 plants every two weeks!  So you appear less concerned about the pollution China is adding to the world at the same time that America is reducing its coal-fired electric production, currently at 30% of the plants from 50% only a few years ago.

I think the overriding issue is that Obama went too far in regulating all American businesses, not only energy.  His regulations and tax concepts put the rest of the world and special interests in America ahead of keeping our economy lean and charging.  Of course Europeans like that because it keeps them more competitive.    That's why they hate Trump for pulling out of Paris, dropping TPP, NATO 2%, etc.  He puts America first.  He ran on reducing regulations and won the election.  The pendulum swings both ways.  If he goes too far the other way, the electorate will pull the country back.

We're not talking about CO2, China or Obama, we're talking about the contradiction between the current government putting "America First" while at the same time allowing the coal industry to resume to put harmful quantities of mercury, soot, smog and other polluting substances in the environment.
I don't mind "America First", as you say it's what every country does to some extend but these measures look more to me like "Big Money First" and is doing actual harm to the general population and puts them last. I know this has little to do with climate change, but it is a serious matter about environmental pollution in general, where there seems to be a much greater acceptance that emmissions need to go down and not up.

[Alan Klein]

We're not talking about CO2, China or Obama, we're talking about the contradiction between the current government putting "America First" while at the same time allowing the coal industry to resume to put harmful quantities of mercury, soot, smog and other polluting substances in the environment.
I don't mind "America First", as you say it's what every country does to some extend but these measures look more to me like "Big Money First" and is doing actual harm to the general population and puts them last. I know this has little to do with climate change, but it is a serious matter about environmental pollution in general, where there seems to be a much greater acceptance that emmissions need to go down and not up.

I explained it in my last post.  Voters felt that we're being over-regulated, hurting our economy and reducing our freedoms.  Trump ran on reversing that trend which he is doing.  Hopefully he'll keep a balance between a stronger economy and freedoms and our health. If he doesn't, then future presidents and Congress can adjust the rules.   After all, no regulation gives 100% safety.  If they did, we would have to ban cars that kill 40,000 Americans every year.  There's always a tradeoff of freedom and heathy economy vs. safety.  Regulation costs money. Where I live in New Jersey, they will not put in a traffic light at an intersection until the number of accidents and deaths rise above a certain level.  It's just too expensive to put in traffic lights everywhere.  I'm sure it works similarly in your country.   

[pegelli]

Of course America has standards. Do you think we thrrow garbage in the street? California has created emission standards for automobiles for decades that have changed the way cars are manufactured throughout the world. Except for Europea that's cheated for last 10 years.

I explained it in my last post.  Voters felt that we're being over-regulated, hurting our economy and reducing our freedoms.  Trump ran on reversing that trend which he is doing.  Hopefully he'll keep a balance between a stronger economy and freedoms and our health. If he doesn't, then future presidents and Congress can adjust the rules.   After all, no regulation gives 100% safety.  If they did, we would have to ban cars that kill 40,000 Americans every year.  There's always a tradeoff of freedom and heathy economy vs. safety.  Regulation costs money. Where I live in New Jersey, they will not put in a traffic light at an intersection until the number of accidents and deaths rise above a certain level.  It's just too expensive to put in traffic lights everywhere.  I'm sure it works similarly in your country.

So car emmission standards are fine, but the coal industry can start polluting with mercury (and other seriously harmful substances)?
Indeed you need a tradeoff but I seriously question if this is a balanced way of environmental protection.

[Alan Klein]

So car emmission standards are fine, but the coal industry can start polluting with mercury (and other seriously harmful substances)?
Indeed you need a tradeoff but I seriously question if this is a balanced way of environmental protection.

You created a straw man.  We're not starting to pollute with mercury.  Coal has always emitted mercury when it burns. You'd have to shut down all coal use to stop that.  By the way, the amount released has been argued that it doesn't effect health because of the small amounts compared to what the environment naturally produces.  The fact is coal scrubbers and other pollution devices have been added to coal burning plants to reduce pollution to an acceptable amount.  Obviously, it's not as clean as solar or wind?   But stopping its use would create major economic and health issues with Americans and other people in the world who use coal.  How would they provide electricity to their homes, provide heat (in China), produce steel, etc.  America has reduced it's coal used for electic production by 40%.  That will continue under Pruitt and Trump. 

[Alan Klein]

So car emmission standards are fine, but the coal industry can start polluting with mercury (and other seriously harmful substances)?
Indeed you need a tradeoff but I seriously question if this is a balanced way of environmental protection.

While America has reduce it's reliance on coal by 40%, I've yet to hear any complaints from you against the Chinese as they will build 800 coal fired plants in other parts of the world that will pollute  and increase CO2 equal to what they now produce in their own country.  Why are you silent regarding what China will do? 

[pegelli]

America has reduced it's coal used for electic production by 40%.  That will continue under Pruitt and Trump.

It's turning: The US will burn and produce more coal this year than in 2016, the Energy Information Administration said Tuesday.

[pegelli]

Why are you silent regarding what China will do?

There's very few Chinese here on LuLa to have a discussion with on this topic

[Alan Klein]

It's turning: The US will burn and produce more coal this year than in 2016, the Energy Information Administration said Tuesday.

I was referring to electricity production.  Electric plants use to be 50% powered by coal, now it's 30%, or a 40% reduction.  The switchover to natural gas will continue for electricity production.  Coal production overall may be up due to other industry use and exports.  The Chinese are going to need even more coal for those 800 coal fired plants they're building. 

[pegelli]

I was referring to electricity production.  Electric plants use to be 50% powered by coal, now it's 30%, or a 40% reduction.  The switchover to natural gas will continue for electricity production. 

Did you even read the article before commenting? I don't think so since the second paragraph says:
In its first Short-Term Energy Outlook of the year, the EIA estimates electric power sector coal consumption will increase by 6%, or 41 million st, year over year to 720 million st on higher natural gas prices and increased electricity generation. 

The Chinese are going to need even more coal for those 800 coal fired plants they're building. 

And this isn't true either

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The Chinese are going to need even more coal for those 800 coal fired plants they're building. 

Politics aside, this is one of the goals of the Paris agreement: trying to prevent developing countries (e.g. India, African countries, etc.) from fueling their growing energy needs with fossil fuel powered energy (e.g. running on coal from the USA and Australia). Because those developing countries do not have the financial means to be able and skip that old (but relatively cheap in the short term) type of power generation, the participating countries (with now 1 exception) agreed to facilitate the funding and transfer of know-how that will enable those countries to start using renewable energy instead.

And it even makes economic sense for Western countries, it will create a larger wealthy and politically more stable market to sell products to (just like the Marchall plan after WWII did). And it reduces the need to fight the negative effects of climate change in one's home country. So it's a win-win-win situation.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Politics aside, this is one of the goals of the Paris agreement: trying to prevent developing countries (e.g. India, African countries, etc.) from fueling their growing energy needs with fossil fuel powered energy (e.g. running on coal from the USA and Australia). Because those developing countries do not have the financial means to be able and skip that old (but relatively cheap in the short term) type of power generation, the participating countries (with now 1 exception) agreed to facilitate the funding and transfer of know-how that will enable those countries to start using renewable energy instead.

And it even makes economic sense for Western countries, it will create a larger wealthy and politically more stable market to sell products to (just like the Marchall plan after WWII did). And it reduces the need to fight the negative effects of climate change in one's home country. So it's a win-win-win situation.

Cheers,
Bart

That's a noble cause. Then Paris should not have given China a pass to allow them to build 800 coal fired electric plants  over the next ten years in those African and other poor countries around the world.  Meanwhile, Paris is asking America to subsidize green energy in those nations at our expense while China goes on its merry way making trillions building the coal plants that causes global warming.  It's perverse. 

[Alan Klein]

Did you even read the article before commenting? I don't think so since the second paragraph says:
In its first Short-Term Energy Outlook of the year, the EIA estimates electric power sector coal consumption will increase by 6%, or 41 million st, year over year to 720 million st on higher natural gas prices and increased electricity generation. 
And this isn't true either

A minor one year increase in coal use for electricity production means little.  It was caused by a small increase in natural gas prices.  The fact is in America, coal is being replaced by natural gas in electric plants which produces less schmutz. Generally, natural gas prices will continue to decrease due to heavy fracking in America.  So coal will continue to be replaced over the long term. 

Regarding your Chinese table, it has nothing to do with the 800 coal-fired plants.  The table refers to Chinese domestic use of coal and other energy.  Since China will build the 800 plants in other countries around the world, the coal used there will not appear in their domestic use tables but rather in the countries where the plants are located. 

[pegelli]

A minor one year increase in coal use for electricity production means little.  It was caused by a small increase in natural gas prices.  The fact is in America, coal is being replaced by natural gas in electric plants which produces less schmutz. Generally, natural gas prices will continue to decrease due to heavy fracking in America.  So coal will continue to be replaced over the long term.

I'm glad you agreed your statement was incorrect   Also I'm not so sure it's small and only for one year. The price of natural gas will most likely continue to increase (and thereby increase the amount of coal powered electricity generation) as more US fracked gas is capable of being exported and fetching higher prices overseas than locally in the US.

Regarding your Chinese table, it has nothing to do with the 800 coal-fired plants.  The table refers to Chinese domestic use of coal and other energy.  Since China will build the 800 plants in other countries around the world, the coal used there will not appear in their domestic use tables but rather in the countries where the plants are located.

OK, and how many older and less efficient wood and coal fired energy use are these displacing? You keep fretting about the increases and always dismiss the corrosponding reductions, we've told you that many times in this and the poofed threads. Also all the countries where these are built are still part of the Paris agreement (I assume none of the 800 are built in the US ), so you have to look at all these individual country plans to see if there is a problem or not, and if there is a problem these countries will have to take countermeasures or lose support. So I think yelling "What about these 800 plants" is only populist propaganda and far from a serious concern because it's only looking at one aspect and not the total picture.

I can already predict your answer, "China is bamboozling the world and lying about their Coal use and CO2 emissions", my answer to that is that I don't believe that Secondly I'm not Chinese, don't live there and don't have any influence there, so if you really believe they are crooked find a Chinese to talk to, and don't blame me for what you think they are doing wrong.

[Alan Klein]

I'm glad you agreed your statement was incorrect   Also I'm not so sure it's small and only for one year. The price of natural gas will most likely continue to increase (and thereby increase the amount of coal powered electricity generation) as more US fracked gas is capable of being exported and fetching higher prices overseas than locally in the US.
OK, and how many older and less efficient wood and coal fired energy use are these displacing? You keep fretting about the increases and always dismiss the corrosponding reductions, we've told you that many times in this and the poofed threads. Also all the countries where these are built are still part of the Paris agreement (I assume none of the 800 are built in the US ), so you have to look at all these individual country plans to see if there is a problem or not, and if there is a problem these countries will have to take countermeasures or lose support. So I think yelling "What about these 800 plants" is only populist propaganda and far from a serious concern because it's only looking at one aspect and not the total picture.

I can already predict your answer, "China is bamboozling the world and lying about their Coal use and CO2 emissions", my answer to that is that I don't believe that Secondly I'm not Chinese, don't live there and don't have any influence there, so if you really believe they are crooked find a Chinese to talk to, and don't blame me for what you think they are doing wrong.

Pieter, It could well be that there is no way to prove coal will continue to decline in electricity production.  But the chances are it will.  In any case, America has reduced it's use by 40% in ten years.  See the attached chart.  It's pretty dramatic showing how coal has dropped so much in the past ten years as natural gas has filled it's position. That's due to fracking.  Fracking has also created about 4 million barrels of additional oil a day for us.  It's getting us close to oil independence.  That could help prevent us from sticking our nose into the Middle East, something many would approve of.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity_generation_energy_source_lg.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page%3Delectricity_in_the_united_states&h=400&w=582&tbnid=LQM_64AJPkitqM:&tbnh=144&tbnw=211&usg=__tFnsOxHH1pYetBQns_8Y92mcYbw%3D&vet=10ahUKEwjX9qf_guLYAhUCv1MKHXo6CqIQ9QEILTAA..i&docid=WoFHAf9DPlHdkM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX9qf_guLYAhUCv1MKHXo6CqIQ9QEILTAA

Regarding the 800 coal fired electric plants, they are not being installed to get rid of the burning of wood to heat little huts.  The 800 will create larger economies in those African and other poor nations.  That mean more reliance on electricity for production as well as higher standards of living and attendant fuel needs.  The 800 plants will not only replace the wood burning but increase  the CO2 in the world to an amount equal to a lot of what China produces now.  The way the Paris agreement works, all those little countries do not have to do anything to meet any real standards.  So they can increase the CO2 production while the rest of the modern countries like yours and mine, but not China, have to subsidize green with the food money we use for our own tables.  That's Chinese bamboozlement.  Paris bought the Brooklyn Bridge from the Chinese.  Trump may be many things.  But he's not stupid about a bad business deal.  That's why he pulled out.

[pegelli]

The way the Paris agreement works, all those little countries do not have to do anything to meet any real standards.  So they can increase the CO2 production while the rest of the modern countries like yours and mine, but not China, have to subsidize green with the food money we use for our own tables. 

That's not true as far as I understand the Paris agreement. All these countries have to take measures to meet their published greenhouse gas reduction plans and report the progress. If they don't they lose the support from countries that pledged to help.
I understand the US pulled out because they don't want to support other developing countries in this matter. I don't like that decision but can't do anything about it, but using misinformation about the agreement reached to justify pulling out is simply not credible.

[RSL]

It's simply no use arguing about religious doctrine, Alan.

[pegelli]

It's simply no use arguing about religious doctrine, Alan.

Indeed, the religious deniers don't want to hear anything else than their own beliefs 

And b.t.w. understanding the Paris agreements has nothing to do with believing in climate change or not, it's simply a matter of reading and comprehension skills.

[Alan Klein]

That's not true as far as I understand the Paris agreement. All these countries have to take measures to meet their published greenhouse gas reduction plans and report the progress. If they don't they lose the support from countries that pledged to help.
I understand the US pulled out because they don't want to support other developing countries in this matter. I don't like that decision but can't do anything about it, but using misinformation about the agreement reached to justify pulling out is simply not credible.

Trump pulled out because of China.   While they'll be overtaking us soon as the richest country in the world,  Paris requires they don't have do anything until 2030 while we have to feed our families less.   Paris is a bad business deal and won't accomplish anything on any case.

[pegelli]

Trump pulled out because of China.   While they'll be overtaking us soon as the richest country in the world,  Paris requires they don't have do anything until 2030 while we have to feed our families less.   Paris is a bad business deal and won't accomplish anything on any case.

Clenching straws Alan, you're adhering to my prediction from a few posts ago. Continuously repeating China doesn't have to do anything has been debunked many times here but as Russ said it's a religion, so I'll stop to argue against your belief. Amen!