Current Events > Why is Donald Trump deliberately destroying the environment?

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/8-highly-inconvenient-facts-for-al-gore-10-years-after-his-infamous-movie
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

ItsYourFault posted...

archaic industries such as coal

Do you know where the plurality of our electricity comes from?

Oh, you partake in society? Guess you can't criticise society then!

No, in what way is coal archaic when it's still the most abundant and most affordable source of electricity we have?

Only way we're getting off fossil fuels is if we embrace nuclear but noooo, environmentalists hate that too.
---

I just left a link buddy :)
---

Caution999 posted...

Some of us believe climate change IS the joke. A scam run by countries like China to get more money from us

Well it is not just China wanting to prevent climate change, it's a national effort.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

ItsYourFault posted...

archaic industries such as coal

Do you know where the plurality of our electricity comes from?

natural gas


---

Darkman124 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

ItsYourFault posted...

archaic industries such as coal

Do you know where the plurality of our electricity comes from?

natural gas

Fair enough. The wiki i guess just has data from 2014

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States

At that time it was the plurality.
---

since 2014 the fracking boom caused natural gas prices to plummet by something like 80%

it will be the dominant force in our energy grid for a very long time imo

if you want to know what's killing coal it isnt "libtrd policy" it's "fracking made it obsolete"

renewables did grow by 15% over the last 3 years but it's just not enough. needs to be much faster
---

M_Live posted...

Caution999 posted...

Some of us believe climate change IS the joke. A scam run by countries like China to get more money from us

Are you like brain dead

He's a Trump gargler, so pretty close.
---

Darkman124 posted...

since 2014 the fracking boom caused natural gas prices to plummet by something like 80%

it will be the dominant force in our energy grid for a very long time imo

if you want to know what's killing coal it isnt "libtrd policy" it's "fracking made it obsolete"

renewables did grow by 15% over the last 3 years but it's just not enough. needs to be much faster

Hey woah there, lets not go confusing conservatives with things likes fact sir. Coal is dying because those no good libruls killed it.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darkman124 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

ItsYourFault posted...

archaic industries such as coal

Do you know where the plurality of our electricity comes from?

natural gas

Fair enough. The wiki i guess just has data from 2014

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States

At that time it was the plurality.

priceisrightfailhorn.com

Darkman124 posted...

since 2014 the fracking boom caused natural gas prices to plummet by something like 80%

it will be the dominant force in our energy grid for a very long time imo

if you want to know what's killing coal it isnt "libtrd policy" it's "fracking made it obsolete"

renewables did grow by 15% over the last 3 years but it's just not enough. needs to be much faster

Or, ya know, nuclear.
---

ItsYourFault posted...

priceisrightfailhorn.com

My point still stands, fyi. How is coal archaic when 1/3 of our electricity comes from it?
---

Caution999 posted...

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/8-highly-inconvenient-facts-for-al-gore-10-years-after-his-infamous-movie

I'm not sure why you're referencing a film made by a politician & activist rather than referencing the actual scientific material. You're presenting a scientific debate through two lenses

1: The lens of Al Gore, who has made a number of dubious statements on the subject in the past, who is not a climatologist.

2: TheBlaze, a highly conservative network with a political bias against the subject ran by a guy who is certifiably insane (Glenn Beck.)

The website itself makes a number of bizarre claims on the face of it while presenting itself in an incredibly biased manner;

-Claiming the sun might be behind the current set of changes despite solar activity progressively trending downwards for decades.
-Using short scale 2015 data from the arctic to say it's "re-freezing" without looking at the last several decades.

Generally, the sourcing in the article is pretty bad, and a lot of things are directed more at Gore & his arguments, but it clearly falters when it comes to talking about climate change itself.
---

It's the same concept as rolling coal, but on the scale of an entire political party.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Caution999 posted...

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/8-highly-inconvenient-facts-for-al-gore-10-years-after-his-infamous-movie

I'm not sure why you're referencing a film made by a politician & activist rather than referencing the actual scientific material. You're presenting a scientific debate through two lenses

1: The lens of Al Gore, who has made a number of dubious statements on the subject in the past, who is not a climatologist.

2: TheBlaze, a highly conservative network with a political bias against the subject ran by a guy who is certifiably insane (Glenn Beck.)

The website itself makes a number of bizarre claims on the face of it while presenting itself in an incredibly biased manner;

-Claiming the sun might be behind the current set of changes despite solar activity progressively trending downwards for decades.
-Using short scale 2015 data from the arctic to say it's "re-freezing" without looking at the last several decades.

Generally, the sourcing in the article is pretty bad, and a lot of things are directed more at Gore & his arguments, but it clearly falters when it comes to talking about climate change itself.

Best part is, Tomi Lahren was fired from TheBlaze just because she holds a pro-choice perspective. Totally no forced skewing there.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Or, ya know, nuclear.

i am all for nuclear but it isn't what is killing coal, and it isn't a long term solution, more intermediate-term

which is fine since the major existential threats are short-term fuel supplies running out and those fuel supplies' climate impact cutting food production enough that war breaks out over the shortages
---

History is full of technologies that have been surpressed because the old relics wanted to keep earning money on their old tech.
Renewable energy got multiple entries.
---

Darkman124 posted...

i am all for nuclear but it isn't what is killing coal, and it isn't a long term solution, more intermediate-term

How is nuclear not a long-term solution

It's MANY times more efficient than solar is
---

The environment is old and doesn't have a job.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darkman124 posted...

i am all for nuclear but it isn't what is killing coal, and it isn't a long term solution, more intermediate-term

How is nuclear not a long-term solution

It's MANY times more efficient than solar is

And what do you propose we do with the waste? Ship it to your house?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darkman124 posted...

i am all for nuclear but it isn't what is killing coal, and it isn't a long term solution, more intermediate-term

How is nuclear not a long-term solution

It's MANY times more efficient than solar is

Yes but what do you do with the waste?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darkman124 posted...

i am all for nuclear but it isn't what is killing coal, and it isn't a long term solution, more intermediate-term

How is nuclear not a long-term solution

It's MANY times more efficient than solar is

fuel supply

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

Current usage is about 63,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.7 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

my meaning of intermediate term is "for the rest of your natural life"

hydrocarbon based fuels have similar remaining fuel supplies, less but not a lot less
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Darkman124 posted...

i am all for nuclear but it isn't what is killing coal, and it isn't a long term solution, more intermediate-term

How is nuclear not a long-term solution

It's MANY times more efficient than solar is

Solar panels have been much more effective lately, but I guess he thinks of the waste that have to be stored for such a long time.
What we need is Molten Salt Reactors.
Much safer and the waste only needs to be stored for 300 years, and you can convert modern nuclear waste into the short-term waste.
---

Foppe posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Darkman124 posted...

i am all for nuclear but it isn't what is killing coal, and it isn't a long term solution, more intermediate-term

How is nuclear not a long-term solution

It's MANY times more efficient than solar is

Solar panels have been much more effective lately, but I guess he thinks of the waste that have to be stored for such a long time.
What we need is Molten Salt Reactors.
Much safer and the waste only needs to be stored for 300 years, and you can convert modern nuclear waste into the short-term waste.

tbh i think there are a lot of entirely viable solutions to the waste issue

our current "solution" is insane and stupid. the waste is stored at the facility that produced it, in an unconcentrated form that takes up vastly more space than necessary

it contributes to the opposition to expanding nuclear.

but i firmly agree that all ecological issues associated with nuclear pale before the risk of a 2+C (lets get real- it will be >4C) temp change if we don't switch off hydrocarbons ASAP.
---

bover_87 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Darkman124 posted...

i am all for nuclear but it isn't what is killing coal, and it isn't a long term solution, more intermediate-term

How is nuclear not a long-term solution

It's MANY times more efficient than solar is

And what do you propose we do with the waste? Ship it to your house?

Store it in a safe place. Just like we do with the waste solar panels generate.

Look up silicon tetrachloride.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Darkman124 posted...

i am all for nuclear but it isn't what is killing coal, and it isn't a long term solution, more intermediate-term

How is nuclear not a long-term solution

It's MANY times more efficient than solar is

fuel supply

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

Current usage is about 63,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.7 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

my meaning of intermediate term is "for the rest of your natural life"

hydrocarbon based fuels have similar remaining fuel supplies, less but not a lot less

When I grew up, I always heard how the oil would run out in the early 2000.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXHTmEUGR7c
Just Saiyan.
---

Foppe posted...

When I grew up, I always heard how the oil would run out in the early 2000.

the more modern theory was peak oil--a point at which global oil production would stop rising

fracking broke that, too

but there just isnt enough hydrocarbon fuel to run the world economy forever, and worse yet, if we don't stop using it NOW, we won't have to worry about electricity because we'll be too busy worrying about food

renewables are where i'd like to be by the time i'm old. i'd love to be 100% renewable tomorrow but that's not happening. nuclear is an excellent bridge to it.
---

To spite his critics.