Drinking from a fire hose...

[brenthutch 388]

A few more MPGs for the price of people's lives is not a right minded trade, in my book.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

brenthutch

A few more MPGs for the price of people's lives is not a right minded trade, in my book.

And yet somehow you're just fine with coal-fired power plants pumping mercury into the environment.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[brenthutch 388]

GeorgiaDon

***A few more MPGs for the price of people's lives is not a right minded trade, in my book.

And yet somehow you're just fine with coal-fired power plants pumping mercury into the environment.

Don

Yes that is just what power plants do, pump mercury into the environment, affordable electricity is just a byproduct. If mercury is such a devastating problem, why didn't Obama address it in his first term?

Look, I have no problem with coal being phased out and being replaced with cleaner, cheaper natural gas, that is what markets do. I do take issue with government placing undue regulatory burdens on a particular industry, raising energy prices for everyone with no discernible benefit.
I know this may bruise your world view, but coal is real, it produces most of the quality of life boosting electricity in the world, and it will for the next quarter of a century+. Deal with it.

[normiss 622]

So you support both cake perspectives.
Interesting.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Look, I have no problem with coal being phased out and being replaced with cleaner, cheaper natural gas, that is what markets do.

You can't put the word 'cleaner' in there and say that's what markets do. They don't. The only thing the markets do is what's cheaper. If it happens to be cleaner or safer as well, then great, but that's not what is being selected for and it is very rarely what will result. Most often, the cheaper option is the one that is dirtier and more dangerous.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 388]

Not the case with natural gas. It's a win win. Now we just have to open federal lands to fracking, ensuring clean cheap energy well into the next century.

[jakee 1,257]

brenthutch

Not the case with natural gas. It's a win win.

Which is a complete coincidence. Cheap coal has run out, and the next cheapest thing happens to be cleaner than coal was.

Oh hey everyone, regulation is useless because just this once we would have eventually stumbled onto a better alternative anyway. Doesn't everyone feel stupid for forcing coal plants to run filters on their smokestacks for all those years when we'd have stopped burning it by now anyway? What harm could another 50 years of unfettered powerplant exhaust have done anyway?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 388]

I don't think anyone has said that. You are really grasping at straws now.

[Phil1111 913]

jakee

***Not the case with natural gas. It's a win win.

Which is a complete coincidence. Cheap coal has run out, and the next cheapest thing happens to be cleaner than coal was.

Oh hey everyone, regulation is useless because just this once we would have eventually stumbled onto a better alternative anyway. Doesn't everyone feel stupid for forcing coal plants to run filters on their smokestacks for all those years when we'd have stopped burning it by now anyway? What harm could another 50 years of unfettered powerplant exhaust have done anyway?

Actually there is still century's worth of cheap coal supplies. It more a matter that fracking and new drilling technologies has increased the supply of gas many-fold. currently there is insufficient pipelines and gas liquefaction port facilities to bring North American gas to world markets.

"Five U.S. LNG export projects are under construction, including ones in Freeport and Corpus Christi, but many others are awaiting both regulatory approval and corporate decisions on whether to invest billions of dollars during a market downturn."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/A-second-wave-of-Texas-LNG-export-projects-could-8327466.php

"Under a year ago, U.S. LNG exports to Europe seemed unfeasible. Today they are a reality. Demand for gas is expected to grow in the next decade. Prices, if kept around $5 million Btu, allow for US exports and competition with Russia. Europe could gain greatly. An increase in LNG imports could provide a cushion for the next five years, while Europe, in its rush to guarantee its security, invests in pipelines, storage capacity, LNG terminals, and integrating the markets. Europe has a lot to gain from the unfolding of current events. A Trump presidency can push European institutions to begin thinking of an independent future, while the Russian threat can bring all European countries together to diversify supplies of gas and achieve energy security."
https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/the-importance-of-us-lng-exports-to-europe/

These export scenarios would allow the US and EU to squeeze Russia and Gazprom down to the $4/million BTU(for long term contracts) and under price for EU gas imports. In addition remove Russian threats and meddling in the use of gas exports to Europe.

[brenthutch 388]

Exactly! And not just Russia, if we take advantage of our ample energy reserves we will drive down the cost of energy, and put pressure on Iran, Venezuela and other nefarious actors as well. As a side benefit it will help our economy, balance of trade and create thousands of good paying jobs.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Yes that is just what power plants do, pump mercury into the environment, affordable electricity is just a byproduct.

Pumping mercury into the environment is the byproduct, but then you know that I'm sure. Do you really think mercury toxicity is any different if it was dumped deliberately as opposed to as a byproduct? Do you think it makes you look smart to twist things around like that? Here's a hint: it has the opposite effect.

Quote

If mercury is such a devastating problem, why didn't Obama address it in his first term?

1. Proposed rules are not just arbitrary (contrary to the conservative mythology), they are based on actual data to determine the amount of exposure that is "safe" (i.e. no detectable harmful effects). It takes time to do the studies to determine what those mercury levels (or any toxin) are. Also understanding of the harm that is done can change over time as data is generated about sublethal effects due to chronic exposure. That is why regulations may have to be tweaked over time, an exposure level that was thought to be safe, based on short-term studies or obvious effects such as death, may turn out to be unsafe based on chronic exposure or recognition of sublethal effects such as impaired cognitive functioning.

2. Republicans have fought to delay these regulations at every step of the process. It is disingenuous (to say the least) to do everything you can to delay a regulation, then use that delay to argue the government didn't care about the regulation.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,257]

brenthutch

I don't think anyone has said that.

Holy shit you've actually got the nerve to complain about people twisting what you've said? That's amazing

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

brenthutch

Exactly! And not just Russia, if we take advantage of our ample energy reserves we will drive down the cost of energy, and put pressure on Iran, Venezuela and other nefarious actors as well. As a side benefit it will help our economy, balance of trade and create thousands of good paying jobs.

Are you really that ignorant of what has happened to the energy sector in the US over the last two years? Thousands of fracking wells have been shut down, not because of "regulations" but because overproduction drove prices so low it is no longer economical to pump oil except from the most productive wells.

It's astonishing to me how conservatives believe that all we need to reach energy nirvana is to pump every drop of oil out of the ground right now. I suppose it's asking a lot to expect them to realize how supply and demand works when their ordained leader was too stupid to realize that three big casinos in one town were unsustainable. Hey, if one is profitable then three will be three times as profitable, obviously. What a surprise when he found out that when you split the available market in three, no-body gets a big enough slice to survive. same thing with oil, when supply exceeds demand prices collapse. You don't even have to be a Keynesian (or was that Kenyan?) to understand that. Trump's "energy policy" is just a recipe for generating disastrous boom-bust cycles that destroy businesses, people's lives, our communities, and squanders our energy resources for good measure.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 2,426]

Quote

If mercury is such a devastating problem, why didn't Obama address it in his first term?

He did. (I know you don't give a shit, this is for the other people reading.) In 2011 he finalized a regulation that reduced allowable mercury releases from power plants by 90%.

Quote

I do take issue with government placing undue regulatory burdens on a particular industry, raising energy prices for everyone with no discernible benefit.

As do I. However, I don't have a problem with regulations that save American lives and protect the environment by using common-sense approaches. Reducing the amount of potent neurotoxins that a plant is allowed to emit is one of those commonsense approaches.

I note that even staunch conservatives reconsider their views on coal when one is sited near the place they live. I wonder why?

Quote

I know this may bruise your world view, but coal is real, it produces most of the quality of life boosting electricity in the world.

But not in the US. Coal is dying, and that's good for everyone - and the world will follow, as China has begun to. Deal with it.

[brenthutch 388]

I'll deal with it when it happens in thirty years.

[billvon 2,426]

>I'll deal with it when it happens in thirty years.

That's fine. Choosing to stay out of the way while other people with more experience deal with it isn't such a bad choice.

[brenthutch 388]

GeorgiaDon

***Exactly! And not just Russia, if we take advantage of our ample energy reserves we will drive down the cost of energy, and put pressure on Iran, Venezuela and other nefarious actors as well. As a side benefit it will help our economy, balance of trade and create thousands of good paying jobs.

Are you really that ignorant of what has happened to the energy sector in the US over the last two years? Thousands of fracking wells have been shut down, not because of "regulations" but because overproduction drove prices so low it is no longer economical to pump oil except from the most productive wells.

Don
That is true under the current regulatory regime, however, providing access to more fertile production, aka federal lands and a reduced regulatory burden could lower the price point while maintaining reasonable profitability. Also a highly competitive business environment creates efficiencies and weeds out weaker players, which, in the long run is good for us all.

[quade 3]

brenthutch

That is true under the current regulatory regime, however, providing access to more fertile production, aka federal lands and a reduced regulatory burden could lower the price point while maintaining reasonable profitability.

Which benefits few (the people who own the extraction companies) and a cost to all (since all of the citizens own the land).

Seems like a shitty deal for the US.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,426]

Quote

Ford just announced a billion dollar investment here in the US (instead of Mexico) citing the business friendly attitude of the incoming administration.

Cool! Saving American jobs, which of course all good conservatives support.

So why did they invest? Let's see:

==============================
The reason Ford abandoned its plant in Mexico has little to do with Trump
January 4 at 10:08 AM
WaPo

Ford chief executive Mark Fields said Tuesday the automaker was ditching its plans to open a factory in Mexico and instead expanding a Michigan plant, creating 700 more local jobs.

The next wave of workers in Flat Rock will build mostly self-driving and electric cars, including a hybrid Mustang. Unlike manufacturing roles of decades past, though, the jobs will probably require computer literacy and more than a high school degree.

“The era of the electric vehicle is dawning,” Fields told his employees this week, “and we at Ford plan to be a leader in this exciting future.”

. . .

Analysts . . say Ford’s decision stemmed more from its long-term goals than the new administration or devotion to U.S. workers. The company aims to invest $4.5 billion in electric vehicles by 2020. (The company would not comment on the specifics of the 700 new positions.)

"We expect a big change in the next decade on not only the growing affordability,” Fields said, “but also the consumer acceptance of electrified vehicles.”

The Ford engineers, tasked with creating these models, work in Dearborn, Mich. — 20 miles from the Flat Rock assembly plant. Moving production to Mexico would have made their jobs harder, said Brett Smith, an auto analyst at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.

“Keeping a new technology near the engineers is an important thing, at least in the first generation,” he said. “That gives them a lot more control to monitor a system.”
==================

So those evil, horrible, job-killing environmental regulations you are always complaining about? Like the one that requires each US auto manufacturer to produce a small number of EV's? That regulation is what saved those jobs. No EV's - no $4.5 billion investment in new technology that kept jobs here.

[brenthutch 388]

quade

***That is true under the current regulatory regime, however, providing access to more fertile production, aka federal lands and a reduced regulatory burden could lower the price point while maintaining reasonable profitability.

Which benefits few (the people who own the extraction companies) and a cost to all (since all of the citizens own the land).

Seems like a shitty deal for the US.

Lower energy prices benefit all of us. Lower gas and oil prices (brought about as a result of booming domestic production) have done more to increase the standard of living of each and every American, than anything Obama has done. It is worth noting that lower energy prices disproportionately benefit the poor, as a higher percentage of their income goes to gas and utilities than the more affluent among us.

[kallend 1,644]

GeorgiaDon

Trump's "energy policy" is just a recipe for generating disastrous boom-bust cycles that destroy businesses, people's lives, our communities, and squanders our energy resources for good measure.

Don

Yes, but other than creating disastrous boom-bust cycles that destroy businesses, people's lives, our communities, and squandering our energy resources for good measure, what is the problem?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 388]

Read the post right above yours.

[grimmie 177]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/investing/trump-energy-plan-obama-oil-boom/

[brenthutch 388]

From the above article,
"The White House has displayed "hostility" towards the energy industry and made it harder to drill by adding regulations "at an alarming rate."
"The increased production is despite President Obama, not due to President Obama," Eberhart told CNNMoney."

Just think what we could do if we had an administration that was not hostile to American energy independence.

[quade 3]

brenthutch

Just think what we could do if we had an administration that was not hostile to American energy independence.

The Obama administration was. Just not the flavor of you liked.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver