Invite Friends

Topic: Environment

Results in this view: Y-clear Conflict 73% - Convince Me 14% - N-knows Business 14%
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer Keeping in mind that conflict of interest has a very specific definition. Please explain how this appointment could possibly be a "conflict of interest"?
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 5
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Picture?type=square
  • 7
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 24
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
  • 4
Picture?type=square
  • 3
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray Really? Well, let's see if I can explain in terms you will understand. Coal makes big boom on environment. Environment supposed to be clean, but big boom coal says NO. So big boom coal now will make sure that the air will get more big boom coal CO2 in it, making environment very sad.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Ronald Nixon A conflict of interest would be putting someone who believes in and profits from global warming research (LIES) in this position. It's COOLER now than a few days ago. Obama LOST, get over it liberals.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer Gee, thank you for clearing that up, but please, try to stay on topic! We sometimes have to sacrifice some cleanliness in order to have the lights on. Petro energy also makes bad air. We have pollution either way, at least with coal power it's the American coal industry and Americans making a profit (and having jobs) instead of Obama's mid East buddies! Now how about answering the original question, which was: ""Please explain how this appointment of an administration official could possibly be a "conflict of interest""? ???
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray Oh, now the REAL agenda gets exposed. "We sometimes have to sacrifice some cleanliness in order to have the lights on." I'll bet Trump and the rest of the fossil fuel industry is laughing that they get poor saps like you to make excuses for their depredations. I have no interest in pursuing this subject with you any further, enjoy your dirty world, I just hope that you don't have kids that are going to be living with the results of Trump and Co.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Ronald Nixon THe results of TRUMP are that we got RICHER !
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer Larry W. Gray, I don't have ANY agenda, and I'm perfectly willing to discuss costs and benefits of alternate energy options. But seriously, wind and solar power is still unreliable and despite a massive taxpayer investment is only producing a tiny fraction of what we need. I don't know of any actual "clean" energy sources. Nuclear power is is dangerous and not just dirty but "immediately deadly" kind of dirty. At Fukushima there is still 300 tons of contaminated (highly radioactive) water leaking into the Pacific ocean every day. It has been leaking that much since 2011 even though they only admitted it in 2013. The worst part is there is nothing they can do about it. It is too "hot" (fatal dose for humans in less than a minute) or even for robots! I considered making a Godzilla joke but decided it really wasn't funny. Mutated sea creatures have been found in the Pacific NW as well as species that are native to and usually only found in Asia. Our kids having to deal with a mess in the future aside for a moment. This radiation problem could kill us all now in the present including the kids. Fixing THAT, should be our priority. If our oceans die, so do we! We were in this fix long before "Trump & Co." even arrived on the scene. It is completely disingenuous to try and affix blame on them for ANY of it. I think we'll have to "make do with what's available until we discover a truly clean and practical energy source.
I'm very curious, what do would you suggest for an energy source that wouldn't require the end of modern civilization and the return of a 19th century level of existence?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray I'm not sure that only a "tiny fraction" of renewable energy sources are produced in the U.S. These include hydro-electric, biomass, geothermal, wind and solar (not including nuclear) and in 2016 they accounted for 16.9% of U.S. energy production. in 2013, the rest of the world generated 22%, and by 2015 this had increased to 26%. That is because there is much more renewable energy sources used in the rest of the developed world than in the U.S. And putting more emphasis on producing power with CO2 heavy coal, instead of making even more investments in renewables, just makes it that much longer that the U.S. is going to be behind the rest of the developed world in clean energy alternatives. China is far ahead of the U.S., and is mandating zero fossil fuel vehicles being produced in the next few years. It's too bad such retrograde thinking by the Trump administration is making the U.S. fall even further behind the rest of the developed world, when we should be the first. But now polluters are back in the saddle and restrictions on their emissions will be a thing of the past. Make America Great Again?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer Now how about answering the original question you keep ducking? In case you forgot, it was: ""Please explain how this appointment of an administration official could possibly be a "conflict of interest""? It's a pretty simple question!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray A "prominent coal lobbyist" in a senior position in the Environmental Protection Agency is somewhat like putting a fox in control of the hen house. The fact that you can't even see this is an indication of your support of policies like this by Trump and Co. 97% of climate scientists do not agree with Trump's rosy numbers on CO2 pollution in the U.S. But Trump, and people like you, simply deny that human activity is responsible for the climatic challenges now facing the world, and so there is no need to curtail our use of dirty polluting coal.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer People like me? You must mean Americans. The man in discussion is a former coal lobbyist. Why can't he change jobs? It might be handy in the EPA to have someone with knowledge of the coal industry. All knowledge is good. FYI, 97% of climate scientists agree that man contributes to carbon emissions and that may influence climate change. Very few of those same scientists agree on how much that influence actually is. An awful lot of people agree that it might not be worth trillions of dollars investment to try and maybe, possibly adjust the thermostat of the planet down by half a degree in a hundred years! And NO, there really is no use in curtailing coal until there is a superior energy source or fuel available for its replacement. It's not as if the fossil fuels are going to last forever. They are finite resources. I agree that coal is not an ideal fuel source but it is available and relatively inexpensive. Solar and wind aren't getting the job done. Despite huge taxpayer investments in green energy they are only providing a tiny percentage of our power. Petro energy is every bit as dirty as coal and nuclear is not just dirty and dangerous but deadly dirty. Unless they find a way to stop the 300 tons of highly radioactive water that still leak into the pacific every day from the Fukushima Daichi nuclear plant (probably since 2011 but certainly since 2013 when they admitted it) we are in very big trouble RIGHT NOW, never mind in a hundred years!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer The west coast of North America is already seeing drastically elevated levels of radiation in the Pacific and finding mutated sea life as well as multiple species that were formerly believed to be exclusive to Asia. If you are the global environmentalist you make yourself out to be, why have you no apparent concern about the "big immediate problem" in Japan. Coal might indeed make a mess that our grandchildren have to deal with, but it is a comparatively small problem...if our oceans die now, so do we! Meanwhile, coal will have to do until something better becomes available in the future. Unless you can suggest something available in the present! We have serious issues to deal with in the short term before we can focus precious resources on the long term issues. And either way, reverting to a 19th century level of existence is not really a viable solution. Even if the USA enacted costly carbon regulations, large developing Nations like China, India and Brasil wouldn't. Which was exactly the problem with the Paris Accord! I get it that you are totally against Trump and Co.. That's fine to be that way if you want. But, if YOU were president, how would you fix Fukushima and what energy source would you choose to replace coal with? Keeping in mind that turning off the lights, lighting candles and trying to live like Abe Lincoln isn't really going to work. "People like me" would really like to know, and we need to know before dismissing any readily available energy sources ...
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray "The man in the discussion is a former coal lobbyist. Why can't he change jobs?" Are you serious? "Change jobs?" Can a Zebra change it's stripes? "It might be handy in the EPA to have someone with knowledge of the coal industry." There are a lot of people at the EPA that have knowledge of the coal industry, and what it has done to the environment. Yes "people like you," who make excuses for idiots like Trump and a "former coal lobbyist." Since fossil fuels aren't "going to last forever," we might as well use them til they're gone. Is there anything that you can't rationalize? Trump just cut off subsidies for lower income Americans, is that going to be good for the "economy?" He is destroying the ACA and then throwing it to Congress to "fix" his damages, and try to blame the Democrats. I am sick to death with the ignorance of the people who support what Trump does. Or acts like global warming is just a "natural cycle" that we don't have to worry about. Evidently education isn't the forte of most Trump supporters, and those who assist them in their systematic destruction of our fragile environment. Green technologies are where all the future good paying jobs are, but to you, they are a waste of energy. So let's go back to coal and forget that "tiny percentage of our power," that is too expensive to invest in. Great idea, pal.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer That's not what I said at all. And you conflating many other unrelated and emotionally charged issues is not helpful. Lets try to discuss one thing at a time, shall we?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer He is not a Zebra, you are being silly. People can change not that working to represent the coal industry necessarily
made him a bad guy that needs to change. Your attempts to vilify him, and myself and the President are not helpful to the conversation and do NOT strengthen your argument.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray Anyone who agrees with the Trump Administration in regard to Environments Issues deserves to be vilified. The new EPA guy is a joke. Putting a fossil fuels guy into a job dealing with reducing fossil fuel use, would be laughable, if it wasn't so grotesque. If you want to be counted with these folks, knock yourself out. Donald Trump is not my President, I have no use for ignorant, juvenile, narcissistic, lying, misogynistic, suspicious, bad tempered, dangerously impulsive man who has a literal 30 second attention span. He is a running joke internationally. He has degraded the image of the U.S. internationally, and ceded American leadership in technology, etc., to China and other more progressive governments. He tells the wife of a dead American Serviceman that "he knew what he was signing up for." If THIS is your idea of an American President, then we have absolutely nothing in common to discuss.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer Larry, we have already invested many billions in green technology already and it just hasn’t panned out (wind/solar) energy is only producing a fraction of the power we need and a handful of jobs. I know, because I work in that very industry! Most of the green tech companies have taken the people's money only to fail and go out of business later without delivering much in the way of advancement. Do you really expect Americans to give up our way of life and read by candle light? Keeping in mind that even if we did, China, India and Brasil to name a few will continue to increase the use of fossil fuels. Even if we unilaterally returned to a 19th century existence (which we couldn’t possibly), the air and water wouldn't actually get any cleaner. In principle, I’m in agreement with you but as a practical matter, we haven’t been able to pull it off. Seriously, If you think we shouldn't use fossil fuels until until a clean, safe, reliable, inexpensive energy source is discovered and developed, what would you replace fossil fuels with, right now?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray I can't quite figure out if you just don't get it, or what? What would "I" replace fossil fuels with right now? How about Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Mirror fields concentrating their reflections on a tower with liquid salt inside (a friend of mine, a welder, worked on one here in California building the supports for the mirrors), hydrogen powered vehicles, etc. Do you have any idea of how many homes are now equipped with solar panels that produce most, if not all their electrical needs? With household appliances now using less and less energy than ever before. The electricity from solar panels (and that technology is producing ever greater amounts of electricity per panel than they were 10-20 years ago) is stored in batteries, you know, the kind that power cars, and there are a lot of electric cars out there. You"work in that very industry?" And you are that unaware about alternative energy sources? At first, gasoline powered cars were rare and expensive, very, very few people had the money to afford them. Then, as the technology grew, the prices came down and soon Ford was making millions of cars a year. How many "windmill" farms are running in this country right now? There are thousands of them here in California, the hillsides are covered with them, who knows how many there are, generating huge electrical charges that power millions of homes. China is going to only allow electric vehicles within the next few years, they are putting HUGE amounts of money towards this goal, because they are SMART, they know this is the future, and idiots like Trump want to take us back to coal. The U.S., in spite of Trump, is putting a lot of private money into green technologies. Because we have an idiot for a President, we are losing our technical edge, government is slowing research money, we are ceding the tech advances to other countries, like China. That is absurd, it is obscene, the U.S. used to be the tech leader of the world, but not with Trump in charge. You act like green technologies have to produce the vast majority of the power in this country before we should make massive investments in the technology? General Motors has vehicles that run on Hydrogen. Ford built their newest headquarters with green technologies that are using vastly less energy than before. Now we have LED lights that use a fraction of the power of even the CFL bulbs, and those contain mercury. The future is here, and either we go into it full force, or we get left behind, stripping our land bare for new coal deposits. New technologies aren't cheap, but when cars first came out, they weren't either. We don't need new coal fired power plants, like that moron in Washington wants. And you act like the billions and billions of dollars invested in green technologies was a waste of money. Green technologies are the future, it is where the jobs are going to be, good jobs, high paying jobs...not coal miners with lamps on their helmets and black lung disease.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray I don't know where you get this "handful of jobs?" Instead of putting 25 billion dollars into a needless and pointless "border wall," how about we plow that money into research at the top educational and corporate research and development? It takes lots of money to build the future, But what a payoff there is going to be at the end. A cleaner world where ocean reefs, like the Great Barrier Reef in Australia) aren't dying because water temps are up a couple of degrees, yes, they are THAT sensitive. Look at the drought here in California, the freakishly huge hurricanes coming one after another, flooding around the world, water levels rising, This isn't some normal "temperature variations," this is serious stuff. And burning more coal won't help, even a little, it will just make it worse. The coal industry needs to invest in CO2 scrubbers for their factories, it's going to cost money, that is why they are all over that idiot in the White House to protect their profits. We need a President who is forward looking and wise, and we don't have one. He's too busy tweeting about the NFL and generating mass divisions in this country. A large percentage of the people in Puerto Rico STILL don't have power or clean water, and Trump is already telling them that our aid agencies "can't be there forever." He didn't talk like that about Texas and Florida. But Puerto Ricans are mainly brown-skinned people, and Trump doesn't like brown-skinned people. I'm sick to death of his bulls**t, I just wish he would disappear, somewhere, anywhere but here.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer Okay Larry this is complicated enough without conflating other issues. We spend billions each year on illegal aliens. The border wall will start paying for itself almost immediately! Concerning all those alternative energy sources you mention. We have already invested many, many BILLIONS into green energy. I work for a green energy company. While there are some specialized positions available the net gain of jobs is much smaller (much smaller) than the gross loss of jobs for example in the coal industry. There are indeed some green energy jobs, but it can't by any stretch of the imagination be considered any kind of gain, as far as jobs go. It MIGHT, be a gain for the environment IF the green energy sources could produce enough power for what we need. The simple fact is that green energy isn't even keeping up with increased demand, let alone any where near enough to replace fossil fuel energy. It's just not happening. I'm all for education but once again you are conflating issues. There is no current green energy technology that that has any chance whatsoever of actually producing enough energy to replace fossil fuel. Supplementing fossil fuel with green energy is a good thing, but it's already pushing the limits of existing technology. I WANT clean too! But ...we can't just switch off fossil fuel energy until there is something in position to replace it, and there just isn't.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer The choice isn't clean world or dirty world. The choice is lights on, or lights off! I don't know about you, but I don't see well enough to read by candle light!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray "The border wall will start paying for itself almost immediately." Really? You tell me how long it will take to pay off a 25 billion dollar wall? A wall, by the way, that Trump PROMISED that Mexico would pay for. So you think it will completely stop illegal immigration? What about the illegals here now, how much is it going to cost to deport them? And how will those millions of jobs, suddenly gone, be replaced? Illegal immigration has been declining for years, the wall is a hugely expensive boondoggle that will take years to complete, and no one believes that target "expenses" will not grow higher over time to finish the wall. The whole thing is just a sop to the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, Trumpbots, etc., that hate people whose skin is not white. Please tell me how the wall will pay for itself?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray In 2010 there were 3.1 million jobs in the Green Goods and Services market. Private Sector: 2.3 million jobs. Public Sector: 860,000 jobs. According to the BLM: Wind Turbine Service Technicians are the fastest growing positions in the U.S. Between 2017 and 2024 projected growth in these jobs is 108%. Solar and Wind jobs are growing 12 times faster than the rest of the economy. 46% of large firms have hired addl. workers to address issues of sustainability over the past two years. The coast of producing Solar Panels dropped 72% from 2010 to 2015, solar deployment has expanded 10 times from 2010 to 10,727 MW installed annually from 876 MW. And these are just a few examples of the growth of Green Technologies. How many jobs are in the coal industry? and how many more coal jobs will be created in the next 10 years?
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Steven Vanwormer I'm going to make this as clear as I can one last time... ALL the various alternative energy sources combined provide just a tiny bit of our total consumption. ALL the energy sources you mentioned plus others you didn't mention combined, do not produce enough electricity to even keep up with the constantly increasing demand, let alone replace fossil fuels. 10x increase on next to nothing production, is still next to nothing! Don't misinterpret my pointing out the obvious problems I see. I very much want clean, safe, abundant, affordable energy just like everyone else. I am in favor of investing more money into green energy research (much more if they get results). But right now, Right Now...there is no technology or technology industry that is in position to replace fossil fuels on a global scale. I am with the group of Americans that wants to "keep the lights on" till something better becomes available! I hope very much that the energy source I described above becomes available before fossil fuels are depleted. We don't have many options to choose between!
Reply
  • | about 1M ago
Picture?type=square
By Larry W. Gray I'm tired of this conversation. With you it's all-or-nothing. If green technologies don't COMPLETELY replace fossil fuels, then why waste money on them? You would make a good spokesman for the fossil fuel industry. Don't bother responding, I'm done with this topic.
Reply
  • | about 1M ago