Australia, which from a carbon emissions perspective emits a little more than 1% of so called carbon pollution has been told by pacific island nations it must abondon its coal fired power stations and coal mines in order to prevent the effects of climate change.

This has happened at the Pacific Islands Forum, an important meeting of small nations, many of whom suffer the effects of rising waters. No mention of the big contributors, China and the US. No, we destroy our industries so we can be said to have done something which will do nothing to solve their problem, which happens to be that they settled on sand spits which are inundated at high tide. What I say is, we will accept these people when they decide to become refugees and cease clinging to their sinking islands. So, China can build sand islands let China contribute its expertise to build up these places or do the very thing they want us to do, abandon their industries

Relationships are complicated aren't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Relationships are complicated aren't they?

---

It depends whether you want to swim with minnows or sharks

Sharks can sneak up on you and cause a lot of damage.

Indeed, witness the damage at the moment

Exactly what kind of damage are those island nations doing to you?

None, they claim we are doing damage to them when, if AGW is to be believed, the very people who are doing the damage are China and the US. But it is rhetoric, reinforcing the dogma that we have to destroy our economy and beggar our people so a few can continue to live their idylic existence when the answer is apparent as it has been for thousands of years, migrate. We therefore become the bad people, the oppressors, when we spend our aid to help these people

You guys taking migrants after their island flood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You guys taking migrants after their island flood?

---

I'm sure both Kiwi and OZ would take them but no, they want to stay where they are. We are not talking of a large population, it wouldn't even put a dint in our annual intake and I'm sure our agricultural industries could use the labour, we already have labour programs for people of the region.

No it is just more opportunity for the Greenies and the UN lie makers to beat us up

Politics is like that. Politicians never pass on an opportunity to make a point.

with scrubbers and CCS ,coal use should no longer be a major issue

oops wrong topic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

with scrubbers and CCS ,coal use should no longer be a major issue

---

You would think but the initial expense is hard to mitigate, and the waste product has to be CORRECTLY stored and processed and that's expensive. Not a lot of scrubbers being installed, and didn't the dufus nix those requirements for new plants?

nope all he did was reverse the emperor's Clean Power Plan that was having a negligible impact on global temperatures but was job killers for people in the coal states .He is replacing it with

Affordable Clean Energy Rule, or ACE.

The emperor's goal was the reinvent the American energy economy .That isn't on the agenda for ACE This isn't giving coal or any other energy source a license to pollute. ACE

sets the same emissions targets at the Clean Power Plan did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

nope all he did was reverse the emperor's Clean Power Plan that was having a negligible impact on global temperatures but was job killers for people in the coal states .He is replacing it with

Affordable Clean Energy Rule, or ACE.

The emperor's goal was the reinvent the American energy economy .That isn't on the agenda for ACE This isn't giving coal or any other energy source a license to pollute. ACE

sets the same emissions targets at the Clean Power Plan did.

---

ACE is so watered down you may as well have repealed the Obama act and gone with NOTHING. Saved the energy companies billions, but won't help your asthma one bit. Makes it worse, so yeah it is a license to pollute.

restrictions were already in place and had been for a long time before the emperor . Acid rain from coal was eliminated years ago with scrubbers . The only emission left was CO2 . That is addressed in ACE with exactly the same goals as the CPP …...the difference is that it's goal is not to kill the industry . Face facts ;many underdeveloped countries are looking to make their economies 1st world . That requires an abundance of energy. Are you really going to try and convince them that the path we took is not open to them ?

Not at all if they can afford it, and that's up to them, but as I said what we do here is up to us. and we have the technology to greatly scale up our own energy needs with clean energy. The dufus plan cuts the COSTS of meeting targets for plants by eliminating those procedures that Obama put in place, mostly the checks and testing regimes thus making those testers unneeded by the EPA, as well as lengthening the required reporting, that may trigger those procedures.

You end up with more profits, sure but more pollution of land and water since essentially what you have done is return to practices before Obamas regulation, and slowed down the forward progress of developing those alternatives to coal. I know I read the thing, and it's a return to business as usual with industry basically regulating themselves akin to the fox guarding the henhouse. Even if you don't believe in climate change the data shows the global warming, and that's the trend man wants to mitigate, but the dufus plan will add to it for sure.

Yes maybe the Earth cycle is to get warmer, but should man throw gasoline on a fire that's burning? of course not, but he should adapt to the changes proactively until the next ice age starts.

so when are you bicycling to your new grass and mud yurt ?

The ocean has risen and fallen many times in the history of this planet, and I have no sympathy for those who choose to live in the path of the oncoming tide. I welcome the return of Niobraran Sea. Wanna buy some oceanfront land in Tennessee?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ion-of-the.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Specter1

The ocean has risen and fallen many times in the history of this planet, and I have no sympathy for those who choose to live in the path of the oncoming tide. I welcome the return of Niobraran Sea. Wanna buy some oceanfront land in Tennessee?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ion-of-the.png

---

No, I'm staying away from ocean front land, view is nice, but there are other draw backs

Quote:

---

Not at all if they can afford it, and that's up to them, but as I said what we do here is up to us. and we have the technology to greatly scale up our own energy needs with clean energy.

---

so called clean energy is heavily subsidized . SCOTUS decided that the emperor's rules exceeded the Clean Air Act mandates. So Trump's rules which achieve the same goals without killing the coal industry is the only game in town .Without it there is a regulatory vacuum. The emperor's rules are not coming back . Coal is losing in the market to natural gas .However ,the industry is investing in clean coal technology with the goal of reducing the cost to implement .The emperor's rule would've stopped that investment .

Quote:

---

The ocean has risen and fallen many times in the history of this planet

---

and the climate has changed from cold to hot and back many times. Only the cold periods were existential threats . Warming periods were eras of explosion of life. Look at humans . During the middle ages ,humans were almost as tall as they are today . But by the 1700s humans had lost

2.5 inches of height during the Little Ice Age. It took until the mid-20th century for humans to grow back to where they were in the 1400s
https://news.osu.edu/men-from-early-...-modern-people

Tom you are speaking reality, a message noone wants to hear

Yep. "Clean energy" is largely a pipe dream. Hydro works, but those resources have been just about maxed out. Solar and wind are not dependable enough other than in a very few areas, and even then not 100% reliable. No one wants a nuke reactor in their back yard. So it comes down to figuring out how to use fossil fuels in a cleaner fashion. That is going to take a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yep. "Clean energy" is largely a pipe dream. Hydro works, but those resources have been just about maxed out. Solar and wind are not dependable enough other than in a very few areas, and even then not 100% reliable. No one wants a nuke reactor in their back yard. So it comes down to figuring out how to use fossil fuels in a cleaner fashion. That is going to take a while.

---

I can somewhat agree, but have to add the real problem is costs, and limited resources to mitigate those costs. It always comes down to that and while the SCOTUS decision Tom sites saved the coal industry billions, it does nothing but shift those costs to consumers, and not just in energy costs, but the human costs in health as well. Just my opinion, but the EPA under this dufus is a scandal ridden joke, who shills for the industry and not only doesn't address the problem, but adds to it.

Short term profits for long term problems is not a solution.

If increasing costs is the really big concern, then solar and wind are not the answers. They are much less cost-effective than natural gas.

Depends on the region as you say, and your long term plan. You can get a tax break from solar panels on your house, but won't see a monetary return on the investment for years. It makes more sense to invest in wind and solar as a longer term strategy to supplement your primary sources, but it's like any investment, a trade off between short term investments to get a longer term solution. I always use the example of my state. Having big oil reserves, but also investing in wind farms of which we have a lot of those as well as gas and solar. Works for us here but every region has it's own challenges.

Might even help some kids asthma.

Quote:

---

You can get a tax break from solar panels on your house,

---

That does not decrease costs, it only transfers the cost to someone else and ultimately means a fed government even deeper in debt than it is now.

Solar and wind both have the problem of reliability. That means you must have "stand by" capabilities with conventional plants, all of which runs up the cost even higher.

Didn't say it's not complicated, but when the wind is blowing, or the sun is out, or the water flows, you loose less coal, or less whatever your primary energy is. See it as a back up, or supplement for now, but like anything else, if you can't afford the investment then you slog along and pay your bills and hope there is no emergency, or can expect no return later.

The other factor in this equation, and the main one is does the coal fired plant that supplies your region with power want to invest in alternative energy? Or alternative ways to deal with the waste products that are POISON to humans? It represents a cost to them either way, that they pass to consumers to keep their bottom lines viable.

Quote:

---

Didn't say it's not complicated, but when the wind is blowing, or the sun is out, or the water flows, you loose less coal, or less whatever your primary energy is. See it as a back up, or supplement for now,

---

Yes, that is true, but the problem is that you are having to pay for TWO kinds of power plants (for instance natural gas and solar) when one of them is really not needed just from the perspective of producing enough power. So we can do as you have suggested, but electrical bills will be going up a lot as a result of building so much surplus capacity. And while you and I can afford that, it is tough on poor people. And no, the 23 tril in debt fed government cannot pay their bills for them.

That may be true, but it's a decision power companies make, not you or I, based on their own data, which is based on feasibility, and profitability as indeed a windfarm where there is none is hardly feasible. Consumers pay for it but if it's profitable the power companies will do it. If they don't have to install scrubbers or any other technology to safeguard your air, water, or soil they wont. If they don't have to clean up their messes, they won't. That part is simple.

Texas can afford to invest in windfarms to cut the costs of using coal, MS maybe doesn't have the wind or sun that we have so it isn't feasible, but you have natural gas as a SUPPLEMENT. They sure don't feel responsible for your kids, or your grandkids, or even YOUR asthma though because they didn't install a scrubber to the power plant, nor will they pay for bottled water after your water source is fouled.

You pay for that yourself so enjoy your lights they provide you.

Quote:

---

That may be true, but it's a decision power companies make, not you or I, based on their own data, which is based on feasibility, and profitability as indeed a windfarm where there is none is hardly feasible. Consumers pay for it but if it's profitable the power companies will do it. If they don't have to install scrubbers or any other technology to safeguard your air, water, or soil they wont. If they don't have to clean up their messes, they won't. That part is simple.

Texas can afford to invest in windfarms to cut the costs of using coal, MS maybe doesn't have the wind or sun that we have so it isn't feasible, but you have natural gas as a SUPPLEMENT. They sure don't feel responsible for your kids, or your grandkids, or even YOUR asthma though because they didn't install a scrubber to the power plant, nor will they pay for bottled water after your water source is fouled.

---

No one would invest in solar or wind if not for fed subsidies. And in the meantime, the fed debt grows ever higher and higher.

Quote:

---

but the human costs in health as well.

---

that's because you buy into the SCOTUS nonsense that C02 is a pollutant that the EPA can regulate . You are living in the past Face the facts ,you kill the coal industry in the US the rest of the world will still use it as a energy source . It is in everyone's interest to continue to develop CCT . You are not concerned about the price to the consumer . Let's say it results in higher costs . Then there is your incentive to have your green energy compete in the market . (btw the only chance so called green energy is competitive is with heavy subsidies so who are you fooling ? )

Coal is subsidized too, so what?

Quote:

---

Coal is subsidized too, so what?

---

How is coal subsidized??

How is coal subsidized? LMGTFY. Saves me a lot of typing?

Quote:

---

How is coal subsidized? LMGTFY. Saves me a lot of typing?

---

In other words, you have no idea. However, perhaps we could agree that the government remove all subsidies from the energy sector. That would be one small step to reducing the budget deficit.

I looked it up, why can't you? Come on my friend, why do I have to do all the work, and likely you will blast me for it or dismiss the data or accuse me of making stuff up. You don't like my facts go get your own so I can do some blasting around here and YOU can do the ducking! If you want to that is.

Quote:

---

I looked it up, why can't you? Come on my friend, why do I have to do all the work, and likely you will blast me for it or dismiss the data or accuse me of making stuff up.

---

You made the allegation, so you need to back it up. I try to never ask other people to verify what I say is true. I think that's my job.

It was no allegation, just a statement of fact, easily verified.

Quote:

---

It was no allegation, just a statement of fact, easily verified.

---

Yeah. So easy you can't do it.