GOP draft platform declares coal is a clean energy source
41 replies, posted
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPzqHQEhA3I[/media]
[url]http://grist.org/election-2016/republican-platform-declares-coal-is-clean/[/url]
[quote]The Republican platform committee met in Cleveland the week before the Republican National Convention to hammer out the party’s policies in a Trump era. Not to be outdone by Democrats, who approved the party’s strongest platform language yet on climate change this weekend, Republicans have gone as far as possible in the other direction — by endorsing coal as clean.
After a unanimous vote on Monday, the RNC’s draft platform officially declares coal “an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource.”[/quote]
Well I mean when what you have as a reference point on what "clean" entails consists mostly of politicians it's pretty easy to confuse something like coal with things that are actually clean.
and global warming is just a hoax, classy gop
It's amazing what lining people's pockets with money can do.
It just keeps getting stupider.
This is just supervillian level of fucked.
Someone should pull a James Inhofe and bring a lump of coal to congress and stain the floor with soot and ash.
[t]http://sporkinthedrawer.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/01/pittsburgh.jpg[/t]
i dunno, looks fine to me
I forgot who said it, in fact I think it was from a comic strip, but I don't think something like this could be said any better. I'll paraphrase because I forgot the specific wording: "Even if man-made climate change wasn't real, wouldn't it be nice to leave a future for our children where the air is clean, the water is clean, and where we sustain ourselves off of unlimited, renewable energy?"
All I can think of is this
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0UkH81NMTo[/media]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;50708413]All I can think of is this[/QUOTE]
I legitimately couldn't tell if this was satire or not up until the comments about not knowing what wind is and such, lol. Kinda sad that people actually make such ridiculous claims that the first part was actually believable. (Edit: To be clear, part of the reason I didn't realize it's satire immediately is because I didn't know that it's apparently an Onion thing until after scrolling down to read the comment.)
what
the
fuck
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50708451]I legitimately couldn't tell if this was satire or not up until the comments about not knowing what wind is and such, lol. Kinda sad that people actually make such ridiculous claims that the first part was actually believable. (Edit: To be clear, part of the reason I didn't realize it's satire immediately is because I didn't know that it's apparently an Onion thing until after scrolling down to read the comment.)[/QUOTE]
It's legit sad when the Onion could pass off as actual news sometimes
It just keeps getting more and more fucked up. And of course, then you have the idiots who will legitimately believe this nonsense and help perpetuate this rubbish.
It's important to note that coal [I]can[/I] be clean, but it requires advanced emissions processing and a significantly larger investment to the power plant than just pumping the smoke straight out.
I'm 100% for continuing to use coal as a source of power if we can continue to develop new ways to process and reclaim the emissions and keep them out of the air.
Take a read on something like the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNOX_process"]snox treatment process[/URL] to see possibilities. Coal is cheap, that's why it's a good power source. Coal is also very polluting, that's why it's bad. If we can keep the first one and eliminate the second one, then it's a win-win.
People who are against coal 100% of the time are a lot like people who are against nuclear 100% of the time. They're both sources of energy that can be made clean and efficient, but people are so worried because of the stigma behind them that they'll completely reject any alternative viewpoints.
[QUOTE=papkee;50708734]People who are against coal 100% of the time are a lot like people who are against nuclear 100% of the time. They're both sources of energy that can be made clean and efficient, but people are so worried because of the stigma behind them that they'll completely reject any alternative viewpoints.[/QUOTE]
That's a terrible comparison considering that nuclear power is extremely commonly very safe while coal currently is not safe at all in comparison. Coal [I]can[/I] be safe. That doesn't mean that it [I]is[/I] safe. Huge difference.
I dont care what they label as clean as long as nuclear gets supportee
Sources like coal oil and gas can be brought up and shut down within a decade and with passing administrations but once nuclear power goes online, which is an actual clean energy source, it is onoine for at least 30 years whether people like it or not.
The democrats have never to my knowledge supported the advancement or expansion of nuclear energy and instead dance around solar and wind like itll give them energy whenever they want. Republicans support nuclear energy but not for climate change reasons surprisingly, it has to do more with energy independence.
I say let the free market decide (because they are ironically the same people who have ditched coal for cheaper gas)
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50708741]That's a terrible comparison considering that nuclear power is extremely commonly very safe while coal currently is not safe at all in comparison. Coal [I]can[/I] be safe. That doesn't mean that it [I]is[/I] safe. Huge difference.[/QUOTE]
True. You could argue that when nuclear does go bad, it goes bad a hell of a lot worse than coal can. Now I definitely don't support the GOP's decision to label coal as a clean power source either, but I think that completely dismissing coal as an option, as a fair amount of people do, is a very bad decision when the US has a large amount of coal still available for use.
I can see clean coal sitting right alongside natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear as power sources in the near future. Maybe I'm biased because there's a clean coal plant where I live, but I just feel like when people write it off as an obsolete energy source they're making an uninformed decision.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50708772]I say let the free market decide (because they are ironically the same people who have ditched coal for cheaper gas)[/QUOTE]
Letting the free market decide would make nuclear more competitive because solar and wind are subsidized for being clean but nuclear isnt. Coal will always be cheap and its the fastest growing source of energy especially in developing countries.
If you want to reduce carbon emissions letting the market decide isnt the best decision. It will probably lower your electricity bill though.
[QUOTE=papkee;50708792]True. You could argue that when nuclear does go bad, it goes bad a hell of a lot worse than coal can. Now I definitely don't support the GOP's decision to label coal as a clean power source either, but I think that completely dismissing coal as an option, as a fair amount of people do, is a very bad decision when the US has a large amount of coal still available for use.
I can see clean coal sitting right alongside natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear as power sources in the near future. Maybe I'm biased because there's a clean coal plant where I live, but I just feel like when people write it off as an obsolete energy source they're making an uninformed decision.[/QUOTE]
It does go a lot worse when it does go bad but it very rarely does go bad is the thing. Currently coal is far worse on a regular basis since every coal plant produces large amounts of emissions. If current coal plants did improve their emissions so it was actually safe, then sure. That'd definitely be completely viable. The real issue comes with getting those current plants to actually adopt these new emissions methods which is most likely going to be like pulling teeth.
[QUOTE=papkee;50708792]True. You could argue that when nuclear does go bad, it goes bad a hell of a lot worse than coal can. Now I definitely don't support the GOP's decision to label coal as a clean power source either, but I think that completely dismissing coal as an option, as a fair amount of people do, is a very bad decision when the US has a large amount of coal still available for use.
I can see clean coal sitting right alongside natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear as power sources in the near future. Maybe I'm biased because there's a clean coal plant where I live, but I just feel like when people write it off as an obsolete energy source they're making an uninformed decision.[/QUOTE]
To be fair only 3 major accidents have happened in the use of nuclear power, and only in Chernobyl did any workers or members of the public die as a result of the incidents themselves.
Clean coal is an option true but the problem is getting the plants to introduce and adopt the measures needed for such operations, which is unlikely at best unless somebody passes an ordinance or law that requires them to upgrade to the new specifications.
If you're going to burn something in a furnace for electrical power, can it be Republicans?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50708805]Letting the free market decide would make nuclear more competitive because solar and wind are subsidized for being clean but nuclear isnt. Coal will always be cheap and its the fastest growing source of energy especially in developing countries.
If you want to reduce carbon emissions letting the market decide isnt the best decision. It will probably lower your electricity bill though.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing about cutting carbon emissions is that there is actually an extremely reasonable, economically sensible policy that the Republicans could pursue: a revenue-neutral carbon tax levied on polluters, who naturally pass the tax on to customers via increased prices.
We know that for most people, the only way they can reduce their income tax liability is to earn less, which is stupid. With a tax on carbon, there is a viable way of reducing how much carbon tax you pay: buy the products and services which were made/provided with fewer carbon emissions, and therefore are cheaper.
It has the effect of discouraging carbon emissions, good for air quality. It also allows the average person a chance to reduce the tax they directly/indirectly pay. It also has the effect of causing government revenues to naturally go down over time as less carbon is emitted, as opposed to income tax revenues naturally going up constantly because of bracket creep. And Republicans are all about cutting taxes, aren't they?
A practical implementation could be something like a $10 per metric ton carbon tax levied on polluters, made revenue neutral (at least in the short term) by giving each taxpayer something like a refundable, $200 income tax credit every year. Actual figures would obviously be different, but you get the idea.
[QUOTE=sb27;50708995]With a tax on carbon, there is a viable way of reducing how much carbon tax you pay: buy the products and services which were made/provided with fewer carbon emissions, and therefore are cheaper.
It also allows the average person a chance to reduce the tax they directly/indirectly pay.[/QUOTE]
This isn't actually the case. I can't speak for how it is everywhere in the US but all the places I've spent significant time you really have no choice at all what sort of power plant your electricity comes from. Usually there's one single power company in the area and they distribute their power (from all sources) to all the customers in general.
The only options the customer would really have here is doing something like going full solar or setting up personal wind power but the way things are setup right now they'll actually end up being forced to pay more by the government in a lot of places for not going with the local electric company.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50708805]Letting the free market decide would make nuclear more competitive because solar and wind are subsidized for being clean but nuclear isnt. Coal will always be cheap and its the fastest growing source of energy especially in developing countries.
If you want to reduce carbon emissions letting the market decide isnt the best decision. It will probably lower your electricity bill though.[/QUOTE]
I'm just pointing out that there is no war on coal, it killed itself and they are trying to frame it as a victim. Coal plant construction has been stalled in the developed world for years while coal plant operation has gotten more and more expensive, it doesn't justify the expenses at all
Nuclear is hella subsidized and unfortunately in some states (like mine...) they've even convinced regulators to subsidize coal for fuck all reasons
Solar and wind do deserve subsidies because they both have high entry barriers and very long payouts but are very cheap and easy to maintain once installed
[B]For those discussing nuclear vs other energy sources please look here[/B]
[URL]http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6862-comparing-risks.pdf[/URL]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/q5Sjras.png[/IMG]
Every horizontal line downwards mean 10x less likely to occur.
These are frequency-consequence curves (in this case, the consequence is death). Nuclear accidents occur far less than often than other energy sources and have far less immediate fatalities. If you want to calculate it in terms of money lost then by US risk standards each life is worth $5million.
[URL]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/129793961052078081/203206810683965441/Costs_of_Energy_Accidents.pdf[/URL]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pgHeEb9.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TmjdTRX.png[/IMG]
You know doublethink, from George Orwell's 1984? This makes even the novel's examples look sane by comparison. The Republican party is finished. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.
Coal isn't a clean energy source - yes, you can make it "clean", but does that automatically make coal clean everywhere? Does that mean coal is a clean resource if just burned somewhere for electricity?
The thought process of Republican Party is beyond my understanding.
And it's true that coal is an option for USA, but that doesn't mean it should be pushed towards it in an era where you can use Nuclear energy.
everyone and their mother automatically refers to Chernobyl whenever the topic of 'nuclear' is brought up and it's honestly annoying
like it's such a secluded worst case scenario
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.