eastside wrote: futuremodal wrote:Not sure what your reference to Vanuatu has to do with anything. How would anti-coal legislation affect them? As far as I know, they don't have a coal industry there.That's a joke on my part. I guess I should have put a smiley in there since it wasn't obvious enough. The Vanuatus are a group of low-lying corral atolls in the Pacific Ocean which are a popular tourist destination and are threatened by inundation by rising sea levels, presumably caused by global warming. Recently a group from there was in Washington to pressure Congress to get a move on to control CO2 emissions. If they go under there won't be any business for tour operators. That's one of the few industries obviously affected, and which will be obliterated, by the way, by global warming that I'm aware of!
futuremodal wrote:Not sure what your reference to Vanuatu has to do with anything. How would anti-coal legislation affect them? As far as I know, they don't have a coal industry there.
Not sure what your reference to Vanuatu has to do with anything. How would anti-coal legislation affect them? As far as I know, they don't have a coal industry there.
That's a joke on my part. I guess I should have put a smiley in there since it wasn't obvious enough. The Vanuatus are a group of low-lying corral atolls in the Pacific Ocean which are a popular tourist destination and are threatened by inundation by rising sea levels, presumably caused by global warming. Recently a group from there was in Washington to pressure Congress to get a move on to control CO2 emissions. If they go under there won't be any business for tour operators. That's one of the few industries obviously affected, and which will be obliterated, by the way, by global warming that I'm aware of!
No, it was obvious, just that this ongoing concern about Vanuatu disappearing under rising seas is one of the poster children for exemplifying this GW nonsense. If you've read Michael Crichton's excellent novel "State of Fear", you'll remember that the plot revolved around Vanuatu suing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide so that their little paradise won't disappear under the sea. But once the case comes to pre-trial, the researchers discover that the GW claims are nonsense and wouldn't stand up in court, so the GW proponents turn to the creation of man-made disasters to get a public outcry for GW solutions.
Methinks these Vanuatuians are really trying to get some compensatory cash from the US taxpayers under the guise that our CO2 emissions might cause their island to go under. It's a global scam, this GW idiocy.
rf16a wrote: I have about had enough of these chicken little, "the sky is falling" environmentalists and their "man is causing global warming" hoax.Lets get this straight once and for all. The Earth has warmed and cooled over its lifetime all on its own, long before humans existed. Human beings can not cause it and can not stop it.This global warming frenzy is the latest thing being used by the socialist/communist anti USA, anti capitalist, anti industrialist movement.What we need to do is to search for and use any energy resource that exists. If there is oil anywhere, drill for it and use it! Use our coal resources, use solar, wind, nuclear, whatever. Let the free market and facts, not socialist propaganda decide the issue.
I have about had enough of these chicken little, "the sky is falling" environmentalists and their "man is causing global warming" hoax.
Lets get this straight once and for all. The Earth has warmed and cooled over its lifetime all on its own, long before humans existed. Human beings can not cause it and can not stop it.
This global warming frenzy is the latest thing being used by the socialist/communist anti USA, anti capitalist, anti industrialist movement.
What we need to do is to search for and use any energy resource that exists. If there is oil anywhere, drill for it and use it! Use our coal resources, use solar, wind, nuclear, whatever. Let the free market and facts, not socialist propaganda decide the issue.
Heh.
I dont pay attention to the Global Warming. If the seas rose and submerged cities then it will be a testament to the failure of Government in any society.
Heck a Quasar might open fire some light years away in space and roast this planet and it will all be natural causes. I like to see them legislate that! LOL.
But I do pay attention to the availible power we get and ours is generated by Coal with some nuclear power. I dont have a problem with that. Im waiting for solar to get a little bit cheaper before installing them to reduce my dependance on a Power Grid that is becoming a tool of politics rather than Utility.
The way I see it is many companies claim to be Electric Utilities and shuffle bills monthly into mailings and use the income to cover imported power because these so called utilities dont have a generator to thier name anywhere on thier territory.
futuremodal wrote: eastside wrote: futuremodal wrote: The two industries that will suffer the most from global warming fraud, in addition to the coal folks, are the railroads and the auto industry. That's a pretty sweeping generalization there. Mind documenting the source of those assertions? It's not obvious to me who the two biggest losers after coal will be, even that there will be big losers. How about oil, or tour operators to Vanuatu? I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming. Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation. Coal represents 40% of railroad ton/miles. Take that away, and you have massive railroad bankruptcies. If you think for a moment that railroads *win* with a supposed increase in passenger rail/transit/et al, you're smoking something. Hauling coal makes money, hauling people makes headaches.The US auto industry is already losing due to this global warming craze. The only way US automakers can compete with lower cost producers in Japan et al is to make big vehicles with big markups. If those new CAFE standards hold true and those California zero emissions mandates become the standard (both are a result of this global warming fraud), the only types of vehicles that will be allowed are the smaller less profitable models, and the US auto industry will cease to exist. Mind telling us how you think the US auto industry might *win* as you allege?Oil is a commodity in short supply, thus reducing the rate of demand via these fix-it schemes only reduces the rate of gradual price increase. Oil companies will make money no matter what. The real losers vis-a-vis anti-oil legislation is the US consumer.
eastside wrote: futuremodal wrote: The two industries that will suffer the most from global warming fraud, in addition to the coal folks, are the railroads and the auto industry. That's a pretty sweeping generalization there. Mind documenting the source of those assertions? It's not obvious to me who the two biggest losers after coal will be, even that there will be big losers. How about oil, or tour operators to Vanuatu? I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming. Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation.
futuremodal wrote: The two industries that will suffer the most from global warming fraud, in addition to the coal folks, are the railroads and the auto industry.
The two industries that will suffer the most from global warming fraud, in addition to the coal folks, are the railroads and the auto industry.
That's a pretty sweeping generalization there. Mind documenting the source of those assertions? It's not obvious to me who the two biggest losers after coal will be, even that there will be big losers. How about oil, or tour operators to Vanuatu? I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming. Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation.
Coal represents 40% of railroad ton/miles. Take that away, and you have massive railroad bankruptcies. If you think for a moment that railroads *win* with a supposed increase in passenger rail/transit/et al, you're smoking something. Hauling coal makes money, hauling people makes headaches.
The US auto industry is already losing due to this global warming craze. The only way US automakers can compete with lower cost producers in Japan et al is to make big vehicles with big markups. If those new CAFE standards hold true and those California zero emissions mandates become the standard (both are a result of this global warming fraud), the only types of vehicles that will be allowed are the smaller less profitable models, and the US auto industry will cease to exist.
Mind telling us how you think the US auto industry might *win* as you allege?
Oil is a commodity in short supply, thus reducing the rate of demand via these fix-it schemes only reduces the rate of gradual price increase. Oil companies will make money no matter what. The real losers vis-a-vis anti-oil legislation is the US consumer.
That's not responding to the question. You say that rails and autos will be the worst hit of all industries after coal. To be convincing you have to establish that there aren't other industries which will be worse affected. Not being convinced, I'm merely supplying counter-examples and counter-reasoning to show that they may not be the worst affected. As far as I know, no one has published a study showing the possible quatitative effects of global warming down to the industry level -- which would be a scholarly feat.
Bucyrus wrote: eastside wrote: I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming. Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation. I agree that the efficiency aspect of rail makes it green, and thus helps it come out a winner. Light rail in particular is so green it walks on water. The negative impact of the green movement on rail is the loss of traffic of the things we are told to give up, like coal, and our abundant lifestyle. But why do you suggest autos? I cannot think of anything that has a bigger bulls eye on it, and is considered less green than the private automobile.
eastside wrote: I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming. Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation.
I'd say it's even possible that rails and autos could eventually come out winners from global warming. Rails -- passenger, commuter, and freight -- especially have good reputations as being ecologically superior modes of transportation.
I agree that the efficiency aspect of rail makes it green, and thus helps it come out a winner. Light rail in particular is so green it walks on water. The negative impact of the green movement on rail is the loss of traffic of the things we are told to give up, like coal, and our abundant lifestyle. But why do you suggest autos? I cannot think of anything that has a bigger bulls eye on it, and is considered less green than the private automobile.
Sure if cars go to fuel cells, they won't be producing CO2. Remember I'm merely saying it's not so obvious to me that either rails or the auto industry will be the worst hit of all. I'm not saying they won't suffer ill-effects. I'd like to know how he's measuring the impact of global warming on industry, whether it's by net income, sales, market capitalization, number of companies in the industry, percentage of GNP, etc. If you go by sales, then the retail sales industry, which dwarfs autos and rails, would more likely be a bigger loser, but then, I don't know how you could directly measure the effect of global warming on that or any other industry. Call me a skeptic.
What State has THE highest Electric rates in the continental 48 states???
I have news for you, it's CONNECTICUT
Who would ever want to put there industry in that state.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
eastside wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Regarding the coal industry, the individual power companies have begun utilizing recent very large rate increases by the railroads for their IRR calculations for new power plant construction. The size of many of the recent rate increases has taken the power generation industry by surprise, as the cost of transporting coal, in particular Powder River Basin coal, now exceeds the cost of the coal itself by 2-3x. The transportation cost of coal is becoming the single most important factor in evaluating the potential of new power plants and their locations, and even though most power rates are still cost-based, the sharp rise in transportation costs, coupled with rapid changes in transportation costs, have made it difficult at best to justify to investors and lenders a long term investment based upon unpredictable and rapid cost changes.One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal. The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal. Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners. However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.NY Times Story
MichaelSol wrote: Regarding the coal industry, the individual power companies have begun utilizing recent very large rate increases by the railroads for their IRR calculations for new power plant construction. The size of many of the recent rate increases has taken the power generation industry by surprise, as the cost of transporting coal, in particular Powder River Basin coal, now exceeds the cost of the coal itself by 2-3x. The transportation cost of coal is becoming the single most important factor in evaluating the potential of new power plants and their locations, and even though most power rates are still cost-based, the sharp rise in transportation costs, coupled with rapid changes in transportation costs, have made it difficult at best to justify to investors and lenders a long term investment based upon unpredictable and rapid cost changes.
Regarding the coal industry, the individual power companies have begun utilizing recent very large rate increases by the railroads for their IRR calculations for new power plant construction. The size of many of the recent rate increases has taken the power generation industry by surprise, as the cost of transporting coal, in particular Powder River Basin coal, now exceeds the cost of the coal itself by 2-3x. The transportation cost of coal is becoming the single most important factor in evaluating the potential of new power plants and their locations, and even though most power rates are still cost-based, the sharp rise in transportation costs, coupled with rapid changes in transportation costs, have made it difficult at best to justify to investors and lenders a long term investment based upon unpredictable and rapid cost changes.
One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal. The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal. Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners. However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.
NY Times Story
futuremodal wrote: Eastside, you're not getting it.
Eastside, you're not getting it.
Not getting what? I'd say you haven't read the Times article. What I wrote isn't my opinion, it's simply a summary of what's in the NY Times article. So you can infer nothing from it.
It's the combination of sharp increases in rail rates for coal, plus the political idiocy of demonizing carbon-based fuelstocks, that will kill the coal-fired generation sector. Certainly, the railroads are explicity responsible for the former, and they share an implicit responsibility for the lack of support for those who are trying to expose the global warming fraudmongers for what they are.
The two industries that will suffer the most from global warming fraud, in addition to the coal folks, are the railroads and the auto industry. Utilities will simply gravitate toward nuclear and natural gas, with token acceptance of so-called "renewables". Remember, most utilities are regulated, with guaranteed 10% markups more or less, and they will simply take advantage of higher cost energy generation to increase their gross revenues (Hey, which is better - 10% markup of $28/Mwh power which results in $2.80 of profit per Mwh, or a 10% markup of $60/Mwh power which results in $6.00/Mwh of profit? Memo to utilities - just keep quiet about global warming fraud and reap the benefits!) Thus, it is incumbent among coal haulers and petroleum users to stand up and grow a spine in the face of this seemingly omnipotent scam.
inch53 wrote: Didn't all the political parties scream for increase use of coal, to help lower our dependence on imported fuels a year ago?
Didn't all the political parties scream for increase use of coal, to help lower our dependence on imported fuels a year ago?
One did, but the other one considers all fossile fuels to be "unsustainable." Their solution is to add taxes that raise the price on all energy in order to force us to conserve. And in the process, they get more revenue to expand the government to better shape our lives into a more progressive vision. It's a win-win propostion (for them).
blhanel wrote: eastside wrote:One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal. The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal. Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners. However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.NY Times StoryThat idea has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum before. The problem with siting the generating plant at the source of the coal is that it also requires copious amounts of water, something that is scarce in Wyoming and the Four Corners.
eastside wrote:One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal. The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal. Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners. However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.NY Times Story
That idea has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum before. The problem with siting the generating plant at the source of the coal is that it also requires copious amounts of water, something that is scarce in Wyoming and the Four Corners.
Of all the issues it discusses, the article doesn't mention that availability of water as a problem. In this case, also stated in the article, the power plants are to be sited on the San Juan River. So either the Navajos figure there's enough water or they haven't availed themselves to infinite wisdom of this forum. It does say, however, that potential water pollution is an issue.
Heavily taxing the use of coal doesn't surprise me at all, the one fuel we have plenty of and now we can't use it.
Lets see how this lays out; the government taxes coal; miner owners don't really care, they pass the cost to the power generators. The power generators don't really care, just pass the cost off to the consumers. Consumers do care and scream n holler about increased cost. So, congress holds investigations to find out why the cost are so high, that go nowhere, because the government making a killing from the taxes to fund the tax breaks for power companies and coal producers for improvements and research for cleaner alternatives, that go really nowhere.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
Well, They can expand the Casinos to accumulate the Financing and pipe the water in from somewhere.
Or unite with other Soveriegn Indian Nations in this Country and site a new COOP Nuclear Plant that does the most benefit to the Nations.
COOP Power, Nuke style. Especially when sited somewhere with water and free from USA's influence except as a Foreign Power.
I dont know about other folks, but it is my experience that if you are inside a Soveriegn Indian Nation, the laws of the United States no longer applies to you, only Tribal Law for that location. Eventually I think with the new-found capital these Nations are enjoying from a Casino and other profitable ventures they may someday be forming such a Nation with united States if you will within our own USA.
Generally Im treated as a Foreigner and that is ok.. unless I try to shop lift a pack of gum from one of the Indian stores. (No Im not talking about the Kwik Mart neither)
Let's talk some more about Coop Nuclear power shall we?
Finally to the poster who pointed to France with her Nuclear Power and TGV's I offer a statement that this US of A is incapable of such achievements within our own time except for one isolated corridor filled with watered down Acelas.
Follow the French???
80% of Franch electric power is Nuclear -- 80%. In a country that has the Alps for water power.
No wonder the TGVs are all electric.
futuremodal wrote:Because, as we all know, global warming is caused by Earth man's carbon footprint. It is consensus science. It is irrefutable. The debate is over, and anyone who dares refute this *fact* is a global warming denier, punishable by Nuremburg-style war crimes trials.
Considering the shameful state of science education in America, does this really surprise you?
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
I keep thinking of that ancient malediction, "May you live in interesting times."
I was the radiation safety officer at one point for the Air Force Base in Comox, BC. As part of my training, we toured the Darlington Nuclear facility in southern Ontario that was about half-built at the time. It was a real eye opener, but what opened my eyes most was what I learned about nuclear radiation and detection, including shielding and mitigation. I am a fairly bright fellow, all things considered, and I came away thoroughly convinced that nuclear energy, whether palatable or not, was going to be our energy provider on a global scale over the foreseeable future. I do feel bad, now that it seems to be coming about, that it is doing so at the expense of understanding and knowledge. Folks are being sold a bill of goods, as unethical a process as I have seen from those who should have taken the time to launch and support a decent and good cause.
Soap box is now put away.
MichaelSol wrote:Regarding the coal industry, the individual power companies have begun utilizing recent very large rate increases by the railroads for their IRR calculations for new power plant construction. The size of many of the recent rate increases has taken the power generation industry by surprise, as the cost of transporting coal, in particular Powder River Basin coal, now exceeds the cost of the coal itself by 2-3x. The transportation cost of coal is becoming the single most important factor in evaluating the potential of new power plants and their locations, and even though most power rates are still cost-based, the sharp rise in transportation costs, coupled with rapid changes in transportation costs, have made it difficult at best to justify to investors and lenders a long term investment based upon unpredictable and rapid cost changes.
futuremodal wrote: snagletooth wrote: MP173 wrote: My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.edoops, I thought you were paraphrasing, talking about the invisible "they sayer's". we have the ability to build very safe npp's, it just takes along time and a lot of money. And that's after you get past the NIMBY crowd that demands cleaner fuels, but refuse the best choice we have right now. By the time they wake up to it, it'll be to late to build enough fast enough without making inferior, thereby dangerous, npp's.my, I'll get off the and let someone else have it for a while, for the line is long. Actually, Snag has hit this nail right on the head. Nuclear has become the dark horse darling of the energy biz almost overnight, and knowing how these things evolve it will take some time for the tin foil hat left to respond with the anti-nuke NIMBYism. Once plans for aggregate nuclear plant construction becomes the norm, the eco-nuts will mount their counter attacks.FYI - That nuke plant proposal in Southern Idaho has moved very rapidly toward having it's first spadefull of dirt being turned over. They now have the backing of some very prominent financial institutions, something the coal plant proposers couldn't muster!Meanwhile, the railroads will ponder what might have been..................
snagletooth wrote: MP173 wrote: My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.edoops, I thought you were paraphrasing, talking about the invisible "they sayer's". we have the ability to build very safe npp's, it just takes along time and a lot of money. And that's after you get past the NIMBY crowd that demands cleaner fuels, but refuse the best choice we have right now. By the time they wake up to it, it'll be to late to build enough fast enough without making inferior, thereby dangerous, npp's.my, I'll get off the and let someone else have it for a while, for the line is long.
MP173 wrote: My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.ed
My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.
Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.
ed
my, I'll get off the and let someone else have it for a while, for the line is long.
Actually, Snag has hit this nail right on the head. Nuclear has become the dark horse darling of the energy biz almost overnight, and knowing how these things evolve it will take some time for the tin foil hat left to respond with the anti-nuke NIMBYism. Once plans for aggregate nuclear plant construction becomes the norm, the eco-nuts will mount their counter attacks.
FYI - That nuke plant proposal in Southern Idaho has moved very rapidly toward having it's first spadefull of dirt being turned over. They now have the backing of some very prominent financial institutions, something the coal plant proposers couldn't muster!
Meanwhile, the railroads will ponder what might have been..................
Wow, my head hurts... hey everybody, I had this strange dream where F-M and I might have been on the same page about something and...(Thunk!)
Just kidding here, FM.
Well it's good to see the people of Southern Idaho see the big picture.
TimChgo9 wrote: "Populist ignorance"......Well, I suppose I can agree with that.... combine that with "political reality", and there you go. The pressure, good or bad, is on. "Global Warming" is gaining alot of political traction whether we like it or not, and "big business" is responding to it. The people who are proffering the Global Warming theory are also those who wield considerable power, and businesses recognize this. It's not a "fringe" movement anymore, it is solidly in the mainstream. According to the science I have read, the "human cause" of so climate change is so much horse hockey, but, the fact remains, that it is becoming accepted by many people. If anything more and more people are developing a "something must be done, regardless" kind of attitude, and that attitude is what the proponents of global warming are couting on. There is a lot of political pressure out there, especially when prominent Hollywood types are on the bandwagon and these people carrry alot of weight with the younger crowd, who are the main force behind the "something needs to change" mentality. This younger crowd is going to be voting age soon, or are already there, and the politicians need to court this group to maintain their position. When you combine the steady stream of "Global warming" and "Green is Good" messages coming out of Hollywood, and in popular culture, as well as in our public schools, aimed at possibly the most powerful voting bloc that is of age, or coming of age, with politicians who desire to remain in office, and be popular you wind up with a cause that real or imagined, is going to drive not only legislation, but political thought as well. Add to that, businesses that want to stay in buisness are going to be proactive, and are going to do what they have to to avoid being taxed out of existence. So, if that means buying "hybrid" vehicles, egaging in "eco friendly" manufacturing processes, and adopting "green" energy use policies, the businesses will do it. Will it cost? Most likely, but some businesses may decide that the cost of making changes may outweigh the extra taxes, and fees that a future Congress may legislate, or, the potential boycott, and demonization of their product/business if they don't embrace "eco friendly" policies. Can that happen? Of course it can, the apparatus is already in place. Just look at any national election, and the smear ads candidates run against each other, or worse, the ones that some "special interest" groups air as well. All it takes is those people who create those ads to turn their skills toward making, or breaking a business, and you will have an atmosphere where businesses will stay in business, not based on their service, or product, but their perceived "goodness" or "evil" depending on how "eco friendly" they are. So, there we are, the political reality of the situation. As the movement gains more and more traction, especially among the young, things will change, and it may not be for the better. There is a persistent desire among the "greenies" to think that all we have to do is stop using oil, coal, and chemicals, and we will be in a Utopia of a clean envirnoment. The economic ramifications seem to be beyond them. You can call it BS, or propaganda, or label it the Left's way of usurping our rights, and forcing socialist type legislation or whatever, the fact remains that "Global Warming" or whatever the cause is here to stay, at least for the immediate future.
"Populist ignorance"......
Well, I suppose I can agree with that.... combine that with "political reality", and there you go. The pressure, good or bad, is on. "Global Warming" is gaining alot of political traction whether we like it or not, and "big business" is responding to it. The people who are proffering the Global Warming theory are also those who wield considerable power, and businesses recognize this. It's not a "fringe" movement anymore, it is solidly in the mainstream. According to the science I have read, the "human cause" of so climate change is so much horse hockey, but, the fact remains, that it is becoming accepted by many people. If anything more and more people are developing a "something must be done, regardless" kind of attitude, and that attitude is what the proponents of global warming are couting on. There is a lot of political pressure out there, especially when prominent Hollywood types are on the bandwagon and these people carrry alot of weight with the younger crowd, who are the main force behind the "something needs to change" mentality. This younger crowd is going to be voting age soon, or are already there, and the politicians need to court this group to maintain their position. When you combine the steady stream of "Global warming" and "Green is Good" messages coming out of Hollywood, and in popular culture, as well as in our public schools, aimed at possibly the most powerful voting bloc that is of age, or coming of age, with politicians who desire to remain in office, and be popular you wind up with a cause that real or imagined, is going to drive not only legislation, but political thought as well. Add to that, businesses that want to stay in buisness are going to be proactive, and are going to do what they have to to avoid being taxed out of existence. So, if that means buying "hybrid" vehicles, egaging in "eco friendly" manufacturing processes, and adopting "green" energy use policies, the businesses will do it. Will it cost? Most likely, but some businesses may decide that the cost of making changes may outweigh the extra taxes, and fees that a future Congress may legislate, or, the potential boycott, and demonization of their product/business if they don't embrace "eco friendly" policies. Can that happen? Of course it can, the apparatus is already in place. Just look at any national election, and the smear ads candidates run against each other, or worse, the ones that some "special interest" groups air as well. All it takes is those people who create those ads to turn their skills toward making, or breaking a business, and you will have an atmosphere where businesses will stay in business, not based on their service, or product, but their perceived "goodness" or "evil" depending on how "eco friendly" they are.
So, there we are, the political reality of the situation. As the movement gains more and more traction, especially among the young, things will change, and it may not be for the better. There is a persistent desire among the "greenies" to think that all we have to do is stop using oil, coal, and chemicals, and we will be in a Utopia of a clean envirnoment. The economic ramifications seem to be beyond them.
You can call it BS, or propaganda, or label it the Left's way of usurping our rights, and forcing socialist type legislation or whatever, the fact remains that "Global Warming" or whatever the cause is here to stay, at least for the immediate future.
You've nailed it, as far as I can see.
The problem with populist global warming paranoia is that it affects all of us. Coal fired power plants are bad be cause they release CO2. So, we take our only cheap, local, plentiful source of electricity and make it so difficult to develope that no one wants to build. This is a great plan on paper except that the harm we are doing to ourselves in the process far outweighs the risks proclaimed in unproven science. (If anyone actually claims as Al Gore, that the debate over global warming is done, then they need to start reading the actual science. Coincidentally, Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist.)
I believe that coal fired power plants will be plundered by the government under the guise of a carbon tax much the way gasoline is taxed today. Everyone hates the thought of using coal, but everyone hates the thought of being without AC on 100 degree days even more (Imagine the sweat rings on Bar-bra Streisand..........) So, why not enact a 'carbon tax' to show the simple-minded that you really care about the enviroment but still allow coal to be burned? We don't like gas (it pollutes) but instead of banning it outright the government taxes it so much that the government makes three times as much money off of it then the oil company. And somehow there are idiots who blame the oil companies for high gas prices........
I could see the same thing happen to coal. Instead of banning coal outright (wouldn't that be the most beneficial for the enviroment?) let's just pretend to care by taxing the hell out of coal while continuing to allow it as a fuel. It will provide one more important source of revenue for a government that continues to be all things to all people and bankrupt itself in the process. And then, in a moment of pure genius, we'll convince people that it is actually the coal mining companies that are making obscene profits on the backs of the disadvantaged and the envronment. Yep. Sounds like America.
The Wall Street Journal doesn't have all of their facts right. A coal-fired power plant using a new technology known as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is in the midst of the permitting process for construction in Bowie, Arizona, as we speak.
MichaelSol wrote: MP173 wrote: Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.Neptune: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtmlTriton (a moon): http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtmlJupiter: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVAMars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stmPluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
MP173 wrote: Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.
Neptune: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml
Triton (a moon): http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
Jupiter: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Mars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
Pluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
Thanks for posting these, Michael. Saved me at least a couple of hours worth of work to get all the necessary links!
Ed, it shouldn't suprise you that you haven't heard about this in the MSM. Such information would blow the doors off the presumed Presidency of Mx. Hillary Clinton and her presumed running mate Obama Barrack. Best to keep this info under wraps until after the 2008 elections!
My anywhoooo......
PS - "Mx" denotes gender neutrality, or at least gender uncertainty!
Murphy Siding wrote: MP173 wrote: Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.edAnd more importantly, what are their citizens doing about it?
MP173 wrote: Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.ed
What, you never saw "War of the Worlds"?
The Martians are coming, and man oh man are they pissed off! Why? Because we caused their global warming, now they're coming to take over our planet!
Because, as we all know, global warming is caused by Earth man's carbon footprint. It is consensus science. It is irrefutable. The debate is over, and anyone who dares refute this *fact* is a global warming denier, punishable by Nuremburg-style war crimes trials.
I for one welcome our new Martian Overlords. They can't be any worse than the current 14% approval rated Democrat-controlled Congress?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Interestingly, different explanations are offered in different cases, notwithstanding their common relationship to the sun.
The electric power industry also notes that the STB has proven at best lethargic in dealing with rate issues, the STB most recently proposing, in the view of the industry, that it has no jurisdiction at all over such rates. See, "Interpretation of the Term "Contract" in 49 U.S.C. 10709", STB Ex Parte No. 669, in particular, "Comments of the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Association", June 4, 2007.
While I have expressed my opinions about the "shoot in the foot" theory of the railroad industry in the past on other rate matters, this may well be another example that affects a broader community of victims.
Best regards ....
MP173 wrote: Further, "coal has come under fire because it is a big source of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, in a time when climate change has become a hot - button political issue."So, it appears the DME extention might not be quite as viable as it was a short time ago.Comments?ed
Further, "coal has come under fire because it is a big source of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, in a time when climate change has become a hot - button political issue."
So, it appears the DME extention might not be quite as viable as it was a short time ago.
Comments?
I think this issue of coal versus green is the heart and soul of the Rochester coalition.
TimChgo9 wrote:The pressure, good or bad, is on. "Global Warming" is gaining alot of political traction whether we like it or not, and "big business" is responding to it. The people who are proffering the Global Warming theory are also those who wield considerable power, and businesses recognize this.
The pressure, good or bad, is on. "Global Warming" is gaining alot of political traction whether we like it or not, and "big business" is responding to it. The people who are proffering the Global Warming theory are also those who wield considerable power, and businesses recognize this.
what none of these people that suport this global warming issue tell you is...that natural prosseses such as a volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the air in a day then the US dose in a year...
csx engineer
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.