In The Big Picture, Does Capping Coal Produced Carbon In The Us Make Sense?
Posted by China Sourcing CommentatorDec 7
While producing significant amounts of carbon dioxide, producing electricity using coal is so cheap economically that if it didn’t produce CO2 we wouldn’t be discussing using anything else. Given that India and China, with populations far greater than that of the US, are not going to stop burning coal, how does adding significant overhead to the cost of doing business by restricting coal sourced CO2 and intentionally putting US at a disadvantage make sense?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Stumble Upon
Del.icio.us
Buzz
It doesn’t make sense. Of course the point of the debate is not necessarily to make sense its to convince people that coal is bad, even if it means using a lot of false information.
With a 300-year supply in the United States alone, coal’s growth potential is promising. And many new applications for its use are anticipated. In addition, new “clean coal” technologies will continue to enhance our ability to tap coal reserves while minimizing the effects of its extraction on the environment.
Yes, it does make sense. The US is meant to be a leader, not a follower. Since when did India and China become world superpowers? Let them do as they please. We must step up and take action, rather than sitting around waiting for third world countries to lead us.
No it is insane but in the words of Allan Keys “This is insane… it’s like we’ve elected a bunch of children and adolescents to run our nation.” “We will either stop him or we will cease to exist as a nation.”
The science is clear: GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.
The question is: Does mankind contribute?
I would not chose to debate that here. However, I like what John McCain said about it. He said something like: if we can find a way to create a cleaner environment for future generations and do it in a way that is economically viable, why wouldn’t we do that?
Personally, my position is that we should be doing whatever we can reasonably do to mitigate mankind’s impact to our environment.
There is a global disparity with respect to fuel sources. The Industrial Revolution which largely benefited the Western World would not have been possible with out fossil fuels. The attitude of China and India is that “Now, it’s our turn.” They have abundant fossil resources and are building something like 1 coal plant per week – with regard to greenhouse gas emissions.
But, doing nothing because others are polluting makes no sense at all. It’s the argument that my 12 year old make when I catch him misbehaving: “Everyone else was doing it.”
If there is to be a change in the global energy portfolio, visa vis non-CO2 emitting sources, it would have to start with the Western World. Through leadership and import/export policy we can influence the rest of the world.
To those of you that don’t believe that mankind is impacting global warming: What if you are wrong? What if we are killing the planet? Don’t we have a moral obligation to take action?
This is not a political issue. Not republican/democrat. Not conservative/liberal. Every moral person has the responsibility understand this issue.
Don’t be misled by talking-heads spewing hate.
Don’t fool yourselves. USA is the “Saudi Arabia” of coal. Imagine what the impact to the Middle East would be if stopped using oil. That impact is 10X to coal magnates if we stopped using coal who control both politicians and media in the West. Don’t fool yourself. Do your own due diligence on this.
With the recent ruling by the EPA that greenhouse gasses are harmful to human heath, cap-and-trade or some other legislation is unavoidable.
To set the record straight: I am a card carrying conservative Republican.
My solution? GO NUKES!