GOP draft platform declares coal is a clean energy source
41 replies, posted
I've seen this sort of political ploy before. In countries ravaged by poverty, where the poor make up the vast majority of the population, where the poor are largely illiterate, and lack the basic education to identify these lies for what they are. Behold: this is what the GOP thinks of its voters. This is what Trump thinks of voters: that they're too stupid to check facts, so they'll take all the bullshit they're spewing as gospel truth. Prove em wrong.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50709061]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]
The electricity you personally use is only a fraction of your carbon footprint. Everything you buy can contribute to your carbon footprint. As after all, many products required power and therefore likely produced carbon emissions when they were made. The electricity provider passes the carbon tax onto the product maker through more-expensive electricity, who then passes the tax on to the customer through more-expensive products.
Say you have two identical gadgets. However, Gadget A by Company A was created using a process that required power equivalent to 1/2 of a metric ton of carbon emissions being produced, while Gadget B by Company B was created using a process that required power equivalent to 1/4 of a metric ton of carbon emissions being produced (even if the electricity cost is the same, but Company B's electricity provider uses more renewables). The electricity provider adds eg $5 to the electricity invoice of Company A (passes on the carbon tax), related to Gadget A. The electricity provider however adds only $2.50 to the electricity involve of Compant B, related to Gadget B. Both Company A and B pass on the extra cost to the consumer, and the consumer would choose Gadget B because it was cheaper as less carbon tax was paid for it.
Edit:
But even with your personal electricity, you can reduce how much carbon tax you pay. When you buy a new TV, you may decide to buy one which is more energy-efficient. When you buy light bulbs, you may also buy more energy-efficient ones. You may use electronics less, or have fewer lights on at nighttime. Each of those things ultimately can reduce how much carbon tax you pay. That is how the carbon tax works. It discourages harmful behaviour (harmful being carbon emissions).
[QUOTE=papkee;50708734]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]
Lol no.
[QUOTE]The SNOX process is a process which removes sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates from flue gases. The sulfur is recovered as concentrated sulfuric acid and the nitrogen oxides are reduced to free nitrogen. [/QUOTE]
What about the other stuff? Like CO2 for example? Oh oh I know we can capture it and then have to pay money to store it! There's also the issue of mining metric shit tons of the stuff.
Global warming party politics aside, coal is an energy source yes... though seems kind of stupid at this point for the GOP to hang onto it considering thermal coal is getting squeezed out of the market by natural gas mostly because of cost. Probably little more than an appeal to the (3?) main states where coal is produced, Wyoming West Virginia and Kentucky.
Jeez, the (internal, republican?) system looks like a highschool-organized debate club. yays-or-nays instead of something more reliable and quantifiable like electronic voting? A word document on a projector as your way to convey data onto politicians?
[QUOTE=latin_geek;50709230]Jeez, the (internal, republican?) system looks like a highschool-organized debate club. [b]yays-or-nays instead of something more reliable and quantifiable like electronic voting[/b]? A word document on a projector as your way to convey data onto politicians?[/QUOTE]
Word of advice: to prevent giving yourself an aneurysm, never sit in the gallery during a session of a UK, Canadian, Australian or New Zealand parliament. The majority of votes are done via voice :v:
[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]
Yeah that's a really dumb idea. The thing about the Free Market is that it doesn't give a shit about the long term, and only cares about short term gain (AKA, money). Letting the free market decide would just fuck us in the long run.
The "Free Market" is largely responsible for our utterly irresponsible attitude towards the environment in the last 60-70 years.
[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;50708966]If you're going to burn something in a furnace for electrical power, can it be Republicans?[/QUOTE]
It would be really bad for the environment considering how dirty they are
Coal accounts for over 65% of total energy consumption in China.
[img]http://www.asianews.it/files/img/CINA_-_0611_-_Tasse_inquinamento.jpg[/img]
[thumb]http://www.citymetric.com/sites/default/files/article_2015/03/454414567.jpg[/thumb]
Behold! a country of clean energy!
[QUOTE=papkee;50708734]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]
Let's say we could make coal 100% clean, while also maintaining it as the cheapest energy source; what happens in 1 or 2 centuries when we run out of coal? Oh great, all that effort we put in was for nothing and we have to rush to implement sustainable energy sources anyway. We might as well do it now, while we still have cheap and dirty energy sources as a crutch to make the transition easier.
Somebody do the world a favour and clean these idiots out of politics, they're a tumour on our species.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.