http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/natural-gas-really-better-coal-180949739/
Life in the U.S. is all about regulatory capture and what can I get for my campaign donation. You've got lots of money -- you'll do fine in life.
Author of MIT climate study says Trump got it wrong
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
Life in the U.S. is all about regulatory capture and what can I get for my campaign donation. You've got lots of money -- you'll do fine in life.
hey moron... the origin of the 97% consensus was the survey of 10,000... not the paper you cited.
your paper was about a consensus of a consensus written by a very biased cartoonist and at least one agw nutter scientist/propagandist.
citing the EPA means squat. Trump is restructuring it.
your paper was about a consensus of a consensus written by a very biased cartoonist and at least one agw nutter scientist/propagandist.
citing the EPA means squat. Trump is restructuring it.
I suppose I should mention the missing definition of "best".
I'm still waiting to hear what he has lied about. Somehow, I don't think you'll ever be able to come up with something.
This whole climate change debate is nonsense. CO2 is an inert, non-toxic gas we inhale all the time and is necessary for life to exist. The idea that it's going to blow up the Earth is ridiculous. The only "solution" I've heard from these paranoid loons who subscribe to this nonsense is that we have to go back and live in caves, and that's just not going to happen. Maybe this is why the left is so infatuated with Islam?
Let's just assume everybody wants to live as clean as they can afford.
Definition of "afford"?
fuel is not a major concern, it's always too expensive, never cheap, but at the point where people can afford it without making major changes in lifestyle. For instance there was a period where I live people were paying $800/mo just in gasoline to get to work at $20 or less/hr jobs. CL over $100 today and things start to change. I have yet to see anything, anything at all in the Paris accord which I studied carefully as it scrolled by on the bottom at fox, which addressed cost of fuel, which is why I thought of asking you if there are any comparisons between Paris and healthcare. Isn't the goal that all citizens worldwide can have affordable energy? Something just doesn't add up but it has Obama's misguided thinking all over it. Smells a lot like Obamacare. But I respect your opinion because I know you are not a climate denier.
Some of the costs of most energy sources, perhaps all, are hidden. For example electricity from coal fired plants burning low grade coal and not using scrubbers might seem cheap. The cost of thousands of acres of dead forest and respiratory disease is high. What is the price of good health lost?, or the cost of a lack of competition? Should the cost of energy related war be included, particularly in the case of oil in modern times? True cost, which must take into account cost shifting, is not as easy to compute as it might seem. Our participation in the Paris Accord may result in lower cost energy; not higher. It is not an easy calculation.
An example of a very complicated calculation of energy cost is the cost of thermal energy from burning ethyl alcohol from corn versus ethyl alcohol from sugar cane. Then it is necessary to compare that thermal energy cost with the cost of the same amount of energy from alternatives, gasoline for example. There are myriad hidden costs in these calculations. Experts who have attempted such calculations have concluded that, for the example I gave, the break even cost for energy from corn ethyl alcohol requires a high gasoline price whereas ethyl alcohol from sugar cane requires a much lower price for gasoline to break even. Even in those calculations, hidden costs were omitted for lack of accurate data to allow their inclusion and likely also disagreement on what should be included. .
"Isn't the goal that all citizens worldwide can have affordable energy?"
You questions have underlying complexities and betray a little genuine naivete.
Ask simpler questions please. When you do, keep in mind what Malcolm Muggeridge said, "All human endeavor can be laid to vanity, greed, or instinct." That's as good a guide as I can think of when trying to answer any question that involves human behavior or sentiment.
An example of a very complicated calculation of energy cost is the cost of thermal energy from burning ethyl alcohol from corn versus ethyl alcohol from sugar cane. Then it is necessary to compare that thermal energy cost with the cost of the same amount of energy from alternatives, gasoline for example. There are myriad hidden costs in these calculations. Experts who have attempted such calculations have concluded that, for the example I gave, the break even cost for energy from corn ethyl alcohol requires a high gasoline price whereas ethyl alcohol from sugar cane requires a much lower price for gasoline to break even. Even in those calculations, hidden costs were omitted for lack of accurate data to allow their inclusion and likely also disagreement on what should be included. .
"Isn't the goal that all citizens worldwide can have affordable energy?"
You questions have underlying complexities and betray a little genuine naivete.
Ask simpler questions please. When you do, keep in mind what Malcolm Muggeridge said, "All human endeavor can be laid to vanity, greed, or instinct." That's as good a guide as I can think of when trying to answer any question that involves human behavior or sentiment.
Last edited: