The Environment

[Kiyoat Husker]

IA State Husker, your dad sounds pretty petty! I'd almost prefer if he was just greedy.

I agree. You can debate greed. You can't reason with crazy. (or hate). I have stopped trying years ago.

He has tried to get me and the other son-in-laws into his operation to help around harvest and planting. He also talks to me about how he is "beating" the government in court. I just smile and nod. I don't try to give him my opinions, but I can't bring myself to be a participant in destroying wetlands and poisoning streams and groundwater. Call me a hypocrite or complacent. Its probably accurate.

 

[RedDenver]

On the flip side, there are one hell of a lot of people in that $35k income range that have lose their jobs or have been hurt financially due to environmental activism. The coal minors are a prime example.

Except that coal mining was hurt mostly by natural gas, not environmental protections. Links:

http://e360.yale.edu/features/why_us_coal_industry_and_its_jobs_are_not_coming_back

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/08/us-coal-industry-decline-natural-gas

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-plan-wont-reverse-coals-decline/

 

[BigRedBuster]

On the flip side, there are one hell of a lot of people in that $35k income range that have lose their jobs or have been hurt financially due to environmental activism. The coal minors are a prime example.

Except that coal mining was hurt mostly by natural gas, not environmental protections. Links:

http://e360.yale.edu/features/why_us_coal_industry_and_its_jobs_are_not_coming_back

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/08/us-coal-industry-decline-natural-gas

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-plan-wont-reverse-coals-decline/

Did I say any of this was rational?

And...that graph doesn't necessarily show that it wasn't affected by environmental issues. NG is cheaper but environmental impact has been a major part of the argument for it for a long time.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

On the flip side, there are one hell of a lot of people in that $35k income range that have lose their jobs or have been hurt financially due to environmental activism. The coal minors are a prime example.

Except that coal mining was hurt mostly by natural gas, not environmental protections. Links:

http://e360.yale.edu/features/why_us_coal_industry_and_its_jobs_are_not_coming_back

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/08/us-coal-industry-decline-natural-gas

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-plan-wont-reverse-coals-decline/

Did I say any of this was rational?

And...that graph doesn't necessarily show that it wasn't affected by environmental issues. NG is cheaper but environmental impact has been a major part of the argument for it for a long time.

If you don't trust the graph, you could try clicking on one of the three articles he linked. Just sayin'.....

 

[BigRedBuster]

Ooookaaaay.....

I clicked on the first one and it has Climate Change and Consumre Demand for Cleaner Energy as reasons why the jobs aren't coming back.

What am I missing?

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

Ooookaaaay.....

I clicked on the first one and it has Climate Change and Consumre Demand for Cleaner Energy as reasons why the jobs aren't coming back.

What am I missing?

Looks like you missed reading most of the article.

The fact is that the impact of the EPA on the demise of the coal industry was vastly overstated, and dismantling the EPA itself, as Trump promised in the March GOP debates ..., or wiping out the offending regulations identified by coal operators, will do little, if anything, to bring the industry back.

Technological advances, which have driven down solar and wind costs and have enabled more gas to be economically extracted, and basic economics — the lower prices charged by competing sources — will prevail over government bureaucrats every time.

Consumer demand for cleaner fuel is a factor, but not the major one. Cheaper natural gas, wind and solar are simply out-competing coal.

From the other articles:

In 2016, natural gas surpassed coal as a source of U.S. electrical power, a shift the EIA concluded was “mainly a market-driven response to lower natural gas prices.”

the entire US coal industry appears headed for a historic transformation – forced mainly by cheap natural gas produced by fracking.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Ooookaaaay.....

I clicked on the first one and it has Climate Change and Consumre Demand for Cleaner Energy as reasons why the jobs aren't coming back.

What am I missing?

Looks like you missed reading most of the article.

The fact is that the impact of the EPA on the demise of the coal industry was vastly overstated, and dismantling the EPA itself, as Trump promised in the March GOP debates ..., or wiping out the offending regulations identified by coal operators, will do little, if anything, to bring the industry back.

Technological advances, which have driven down solar and wind costs and have enabled more gas to be economically extracted, and basic economics — the lower prices charged by competing sources — will prevail over government bureaucrats every time.

Consumer demand for cleaner fuel is a factor, but not the major one. Cheaper natural gas, wind and solar are simply out-competing coal.

From the other articles:

In 2016, natural gas surpassed coal as a source of U.S. electrical power, a shift the EIA concluded was “mainly a market-driven response to lower natural gas prices.”

the entire US coal industry appears headed for a historic transformation – forced mainly by cheap natural gas produced by fracking.

Did you miss this part of my post????

Did I say any of this was rational?

It doesn't matter if it really is the reason it declined. It was VIEWED as the reason it declined making many coal miners fight against climate change believers.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

BRB, you made the statement that miners had "lost their jobs or been hurt financially due to environmental activism".

RedDenver demonstrated that the miner's plight was primarily due to market competition with natural gas from fracking.

Now you are backtracking, and saying you never made the initial claim.

OK. That's your prerogative. I'll butt out.

 

[Fru]

"We need to bring back these Blockbuster stores by cutting regulations!"

"Well the regulations really aren't the issue, it's the fact that Netflix and Hulu offer a better, cheaper more effective product"

"Well, it's viewed that the regulations are the problem and well ya know, I didn't say this was rational"

 

[BigRedBuster]

I have done no such thing. We are talking about the reasons why people who make various levels of income deny climate change and fight against reasonable environmental regulation. What is reality is not necessarily even part of that discussion. What they PERCEIVE as the reason they lost their jobs is what is being discussed.

When I said, "Because the lost their jobs because of environmental activism" it doesn't matter if that's the real reason they lost their jobs.....that's why they THINK they lost their jobs.

That is why people who make 35,000 per year find themselves against environmental regulation.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I will guaren-grand-dam-tee you if you walked into a small town bar in coal country in North Carolina and sat down and talked to ex coal miners and asked them why they lost their jobs, they would say...."Because of those F'ing environmentalists believe we are destroying the world with their made up global warming".

Very few would say...."well, Natural gas is actually cheaper and more efficient to use....but screw that, we need our jobs back".

 

[teachercd]

I have done no such thing. We are talking about the reasons why people who make various levels of income deny climate change and fight against reasonable environmental regulation. What is reality is not necessarily even part of that discussion. What they PERCEIVE as the reason they lost their jobs is what is being discussed.

When I said, "Because the lost their jobs because of environmental activism" it doesn't matter if that's the real reason they lost their jobs.....that's why they THINK they lost their jobs.

That is why people who make 35,000 per year find themselves against environmental regulation.

This is pretty much 100% true. It's like when union car guys lost jobs cause of overseas production...they didn't blame the cheap labor...they blamed the cheap workers (people)...or even the race.

Coal miners that lost jobs aren't blaming natural gas...they blame PEOPLE.

We always blame people. Remember we don't lose recruits to other teams… We lose recruits to boosters that are giving them handouts.

It might not be right but it's what we do.

 

[Mierin]

BRB, wealth will forever and always be involved in these discussions. Those with money have the power to do a lot of good, or a lot of bad, and everything in between.

If 5% of the wealthy are pure evil:

a) They can do a lot of damage

b) They should be stopped from doing that damage

c) The topic of how to stop it will be discussed

As for the evil poor, they're usually dealt with by the police.

 

[Lil' Red]

John Oliver just did a pretty good segment discussing coal:

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

There are plenty of WELL FUNDED special interests ready to help direct that anger from coal miners, too. many Propaganda machines Think Tanks specialize in pseudo-science propaganda:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-seeks-to-influence-200000-teachers/

Twenty-five thousand science teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.

It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO Joseph Bast said in an interview last week. If so, the campaign would reach more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers.

“It’s not science, but it’s dressed up to look like science,” said NCSE executive director Ann Reid. “It’s clearly intended to confuse teachers.”