This ruling touches close to home:
The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams.
It has been used in Appalachian coal country for 20 years under a cloud of legal and regulatory confusion.
The new rule would allow the practice to continue and expand, providing only that mine operators minimize the debris and cause the least environmental harm, although those terms are not clearly defined and to some extent merely restate existing law.
The Office of Surface Mining in the Interior Department drafted the rule, which will be subject to a 60-day comment period and could be revised, although officials indicated that it was not likely to be changed substantially.
The regulation is the culmination of six and a half years of work by the administration to make it easier for mining companies to dig more coal to meet growing energy demands and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
I am aware of the need to balance energy demands with environmental concerns, but this ruling doesn’t even attempt to do so- it simply paves the way for unrestrained mountaintop removal. The consequences of this are going to be disastrous in my state, both environmentally, and possibly politically for the GOP. While there is a powerful coal lobby, the jobs simply are not there to bring out the vote the way it once used to- so much so that groups like ‘Friends of Coal’ have had to pop up over the past few years to help prop up the political standing of the coal mining industry.
I will leave it to others to explain in further detail the environmental issues related to filling in and polluting miles of streams and rivers, but you can almost guarantee there will be additionally flash-flood disasters as well as many other environmental problems that will most certainly arise. With the growing environmental lobby, the expansion of green technologies in WV, and the reliance on tourism as a main source of state income (note to Washington- exploded mountains ain’t pretty), this “parting gift” to the Coal industry from the Bush administration may be the beginning of the end of a resurgent Republican party in WV and more than likely will be the beginning of a whole new series of environmental disasters.
TenguPhule
Fixed.
Pity there are no mountains of note in Texas.
The Other Steve
Man, that’s a tough one. If we’re going to continue using coal, then I’m more in favor of strip mining or mountain top removal, or whatever you want to call it… then sending guys down a tunnel 1,000 feet under the mountain, only to have it collapse and we spend the next two weeks talking about it on Paula Zahn.
Now I can understand how people don’t really want their mountains torn down, and/or their streams clogged.
There ought to be some compromise on this, I would think.
Granted, all we have in Minnesota is iron mining, and they just dig big ugly holes.
Tim F.
As long as you put a industry-friendly crony in charge of enforcing safety regs, what could possibly go wrong?
AkaDad
If one believes in God, is hell the punishment for destroying God’s creation?
Zifnab
Don’t try to turn around and apologize for the hippie tree-hugging environmentalists, John. We all know where natural disasters come from. Angry Jesus. And we all know what makes Jesus angry. Gay people. And we all know that Massachusetts – hotbed of gay marriage and steamy gay sex – is just a few states north of you guys.
So if you start having flash floods and earthquakes and befouled drinking water, don’t try to pass the buck onto the backs of the hard working men of the Virginia Coal Industry. Put it where it belongs.
Dreggas
See now this will be an admin talking point the “if only they were blowing the tops off of mountains instead of tunnelling into them defense”. This after the MSHA was put under the control of a person well known to be an industry insider with a safety record not much better than that dipshit in Utah.
Not trying to attack you here but I am definitely sensing a pattern with these assholes (if there wasn’t already). First they let a disaster happen, then they right regs friendly to their cronies under ths guise of “well this is better than what happened at X location” and it almost becomes a damned if you do damned if you don’t situation which they proceed to tar you with.
Of course now we get treated to a giant lump of coal on legs jogging through a city with a growing number of people behind it to the tune of a really bad country song. This coupled with “CO2…we call it life” commercials. Every single one of those dumb ass ignorant midwesterners who voted for bush deserve to be flooded out.
myiq2xu
“They paved Paradise, and put in a parking lot.”
If you believe we can trust this administration on environmental issues I have a bridge for sale you would be interested in.
Jake
Wouldn’t it be easier if George just dug a tunnel to the Treasury building (it’s right next door) and told his pals to help themselves?
I’m very sorry to hear about that, WVA is the prettiest state in my neck of the woods (sorry Pennsylvania) and it seems a lot more people hunt to eat. The state just spent a lot to advertise all of the fun outdoors things there are to do there so it will be interesting to see if the governor tries to step in and stop it. In addition, I’ve heard comments from WVAers about previous reclaiming attempts.
These guys were NOT tree hugging libruls, until I asked about the wierd patches of grass on some of the hills. Then they became sort of gun toting tree huggers.
I wonder if there is a policy afoot to open up the NWRA.
AkaDad
I’m a resident of Massachusetts, and although I can’t discuss why, I can verify that we have been specifically targeting Virginia…
myiq2xu
Well that explains all the trouble the GOP has been having lately.
rawshark
Deregulation of industry. They have no other priority. They will say anything to get you to go along with it. You don’t want dead miners do you?
RSA
Wow. Reading the article, it surprised me that the most compelling case against this practice was actually made by an industry spokesman, explaining why he thinks it’s necessary:
Uh, yeah, no shit, Sherlock. Analogously, the nuclear power industry would find it much easier to operate if they didn’t have to worry about sterilizing everyone within several miles of their plants.
Gus
Hey, this will all work itself out, because markets work, dammit!
scarshapedstar
Sure, there’s the filthy lucre, but more mercury in the water = more Republican voters. It’s a twofer!
Jake
You’re still going to get mine fatalities. In fact, if you assume that strip mining = reduced fatalities for coal miners, fatalities of non-coal miners would still be roughly the same as those of coal miniers.
The government has instituted stiffer fines against the owners who don’t maintain the mines, and maybe the added threat of jail time would help. But I don’t think the answer is “Oh, they’re endangering their workers, better let them do it the easier way.”
(Assuming strip is easier/safer, in 2003 there were 15 SM related fatalities yes I’ll stop research geeking now.)
Michael Tedesco
John,
Have you seen what the Clean Coal folks did on the PA Turnpike out near Somerset? Heading West and approaching the imposing image of those five wind turbines they have put up a huge billboard pimping clean coal. Sad really.
Punchy
Meet John Coal, proprietor of Balloon Juice.
demimondian
John Coal? Is he Steely McBeam’s brother?
28 Percent
When Jesus comes back, he’s not going to ask how much potable water we have left.
mrmobi
Well, John, the sad fact is that this administration, and previous ones, are complicit in the systematic rape of the land by coal conglomerates. The difference with the Bush II Monarchy is that he always puts the fox in charge of the henhouse. So when some regulation becomes “inconvenient” for a coal company, the write an “exception.” They do it a lot.
The result? Here are some examples from “The Daily Grist,” an environmental e-newsletter I get:
And why do we put up with this kind of bullshit? Well, we don’t live there, for one.
Mountaintop removal mining is the fastest, cheapest way to extract coal, and we don’t live in Kentucky or West Virginia, so what’s the beef? Seriously, though, what about the law? Well, there are ways around the law:
Anyone seeing a pattern here?
Sorry for the long post, but this issue is so much more complicated than:
There are real and frightening consequences to not having a sustainable energy policy. Not all of them have to do with Islamic terrorism.
mrmobi
By the way, just google “mountaintop removal mining” to get that Daily Grist article. It’s a horrific read, but it helps to understand that real people are paying, in some cases with their lives, for our lack of an energy policy and our current amoral administration.
mrmobi
28, I didn’t even know that ThymeZone’s gardener was gone. You just can’t get reliable help anymore, ya know?
The Other Steve
But did Paula Zahn talk about them for two weeks?
I don’t think so.
Dreggas
Dem administrations are probably just as culpable but that’s not the point of my response. My point is these people in Kentucky keep voting for fucks like McConnell and voted overwhelmingly for W. They are shooting themselves in the foot and while I do have a few ounces of compassion somewhere in me all I can say is they got what they asked for.
Just like the fuckers drowning in the midwest states right now. This is the result of having to have a macho man in the white house that protects the rights of the might be living and keeps them gays from marryin’.
myiq2xu
Is “rape and pillage” an evironmental policy?
mrmobi
C’mon Dreggas, they asked to be flooded out, poisoned and crushed to death?
The poverty rate in Kentucky is at 30%, the same as it was in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. Poor, undereducated people, not surprisingly, are, I think, more susceptible to propaganda than better educated folks, so I guess you are right, they did vote these fuckers in. But do we just abandon them because we need the energy and we don’t want to pay the higher price necessary to do the mining sustainably? Is your argument that they made a mistake with their vote, so fuck them, my electricity bill is high enough? A little more compassion, please.
I understand Mitch McConnell is in for a real fight for his seat this time. I’ll be cheering for his retirement.
mrmobi
YES.
This has been another installment of “Simple answers to questions about the reign of King George W.”
Dreggas
I will gladly root for McConnell to get sacked as well, however these people in Kentucky have done this to themselves since before LBJ even. With their own ignorance and stupidity they isolated themselves into this mess and only now that some are starting to wake up is there a chance to dig themselves out.
While I hate to see people getting shafted and while I it sucks for them it’s their own stupidity that they didn’t vote for someone offering an alternative. Further they have sold their souls to these coal companies because they have become the only gig in town as business’ are driven away due to whatever circumstances.
I am not liberal enough to believe that stupidity should not be painful, even disastrously so, if it means people finally wake up and face the facts. I watch these flood victims on the TeeVee who you can tell, just looking at them they voted for GW so he’d protect them from the librul’s and the bearded bogeymen as well as the gays and all I can do is shake my head. This is the result of voting for these assholes, even the dem ones who side with industries, including oil and coal, over people. This is the result of their policies.
The ones I feel bad for are the ones who didn’t vote for these assholes. As for my electricity bill, this has nothing to do with my electricity bill, not that it isn’t high enough. This has to do with the fact that these people have put in office an administration, as well as congressmen that concoct policies that keep us relying on coal and oil rather than putting their own interests first.
As for their poverty. I’ll tell ya what I grew up in a small town probably not much different than these small communities. I had a choice when I grew up to either work in the factories and tanneries or be a lumberjack, those were considered carreers where I lived. Instead I took a risk, I hopped a greyhound and made it to Los Angeles where I spent time on and off the streets and clawed my way from nothing to a nice apt (soon to be a house) a great income and most if not all creature comforts all of which I did without a college education. I knew life where I was, was a trip to nowhere and I decided to go somewhere.
Yeah it’s not easy to do, there’s always fear and trepidation and yeah it wasn’t easy for me either but because I had faith in myself and knew I could get ahead by working hard I did just that.
Sorry for the diatribe, and sorry mobi, if I don’t have more compassion for the people shooting themselves in the foot. What else did they expect?
UnkyT
I can vouch for that. This is what I see looking out my office window. http://www.trainweb.org/utahrails/mining/kennecott.jpg. Living in Salt Lake City, I am lucky enough to be surrounded by beautiful mountains, with the exception of where one has been ‘removed’. Anyone who has been here can tell you that the picture does not do justice relating the enormous size of this cancer.
Cassidy
So what’s the answer? No one wants nuclear power. No one wants more coal burning, etc. And everyone wants to no longer be dependent on foriegn oil. Something has to give somewhere. Eventually, our energy needs will ahve to be settled while pissing off some group.
srv
Heh, the “environmentalist” crowd gets worked up in a lather when they realize the consequences of anti-nuke hysteria. They really are all dumber than door nails.
Oh, well, enjoy the 150+ “clean” coal plants coming to a neighborhood near you.
Dreggas
Well I for one am not a knee-jerk reactionary who see’s chernobyl or even 3 mile island when I think of Nuclear power. Yes there are waste concerns but we’ve come a long way in regard to dealing with that.
We also should invest in more wind technology backed up by hydro-electric technology not only along rivers but also in the oceans. We should also continue research into hydrogen and potentially the use of human waste for electricity and even potential fuels.
Sadly since we are dominated by oil, coal and other fossil fuel companies as well as an auto industry (which is dying in this country) unwilling to change because it will affect their profits.
LITBMueller
Hey, you can’t blame this on just BushCo. The Dems want to see a big windfall for coal, too. Including Obama. And, Dick Gephardt is a high-paid lobbyist for Peabody Energy.
If there’s anything that unites our two parties, its BIG CASH for BIG INDUSTRY!
But, this is what gets me:
So, in other words, right after the government dumps billions into the research and building of plants, OPEC will lower their prices, and big oil will build a couple of more refineries, the price of oil will go down, and the whole “clean coal” fad will disappear.
Just like, as the article points out, what happened in the 80’s:
We just never learn…
UnkyT
OMG, your absolutely right. If only there were more than 3 ways of producing energy in this world.
John Cole
Actually, some of pretty much do want a shit ton of nuclear power. Count me as one of them.
Although, I am probably also in the minority when I say I want a long term solution to the nuclear waste- something other than chucking it in a mountain in nevada or utah without the voters having a say.
Punchy
Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia…hmmm…what do they all have in common?
Oh yeah, they all voted for Bush. I have not a shred of sympathy for them. They’ll overlook drinking and bathing in contaminated water, blacklung, unsafe mining, and environmental destruction just so long as gays don’t marry.
Sometimes all you can do is marvel at ignorance so profound.
Dreggas
I’m with you here as well. We do need to figure out a long term storage solution that everyone can agree on. Now while the whole Nevada thing was most likely a bad idea, there are a lot of completely undeveloped tracts of desert mountains that are a long way from civilization that we could develop to house nuclear waste.
Ideally, since the waste is still radioactive, we should come up with a means to recycle and reuse it the waste as fuel etc.
We won’t do so until there is some incentive to. Like, say, building more nuclear plants. If we were to switch to nuclear power we’d save a fortune on oil and coal, and cut down on polution.
However, the oil and coal industries know this and thus buy gov’t off so they won’t make the switch all the while using their own “mushroom shaped cloud” scare tactics.
Punchy
Crap, Dreggas said exactly what I just posted, like, 2 hours earlier. Prolly should read all the responses first b4 posting…
John Cole
Then you are an idiot. WV, in particular, has a long relationship with the Democratic party- for my entire life until we elected Arch Moore’s daughter, every Rep. was a Democrat. Every Senator my entire life has been a Democrat. I have never seen a Republican controlled House of Delegates or Senate, and the democrats have controlled it by a WIDE (translation- MASSIVE) margin. We occasionally elect Republican governors, and then promptly unelect them or send them to jail. It is almost tradition at this point.
If you want to know why we may have voted for Bush in 2000, it is not because we are idiots. It is because the fucking Democrats at the state level have CONSISTENTLY failed the state.
So stick that in your pipe and smoke on it.
Punchy
This is so frigging easy. Send it into space. Let Crab Nebula and galaxy E4958W2 deal with the shit.
Cassidy
Sarcasm gets you nowhere. Secondly, the other forms of energy, while viable, are not completely independent of the big 3.
Not saying you are. I’m not an environmental engineer or any other profession that deals with his topic daily.
All I’m geting at is this: solar power, wind power, etc., are great forms of power and fully supported by me, but every thing I’ve seen so far makes them seem like niche solutions. I don’t see a broad solution to problem. Secondly, while a drastic cut in fossil and coal is an option with these energy alternatives, they still require a certain level of traditional energy involvement. Lastly, they are expensive, or at least marked up. I’d love to own a home that utilized environmental energy resources as much as possible, but the mark-up on costs, labor, etc. is not within the realm of your average middle-class family.
Cassidy
It’s kind of disgusting to “listen” to these so called humanitarians saying “fuck you, hope you drown, etc.” just because they voted for a different candidate.
Cassidy
Ironic poster of the day.
Punchy
I don’t give two shits about your Senators or Reps. I don’t care a whit about your state leanings. I specifically and narrowly pointed out that your state voted for Bush in 2004, seemingly against its own interests with respect to mining safety and environmental protections. That’s a 100% factual observation, and I opined that I felt that to be idiotic and short-sighted. I’m sorry your state made a mistake…many of them did.
Punchy
This from a guy who’s said multiple times in multiple threads that we should just leave Iraq and let them slaughter each other, because, well, fuck them, let them deal with their own problems.
You’re the biggest hypocrite I’ve ever seen.
Dreggas
Again that’s because a lot of this hasn’t been tried. Now out here in CA some has been. There was an initiative in L.A. to have all business’ that owned building put solar panels on their roof-tops and power themselves that way and they’ve had a lot of success with it and saved money in doing so.
Could this be effective on a large scale? Probably. Further let’s say we were to start really harnessing wind power. Now granted, to get the bang for one’s buck you need a lot of windmills (there are several windfarms throughout the desert passes here). Say we set it up where farms throughout the midwest were setting up these windmills there would be a wide swath in which to harness the wind. Of course getting them to do so voluntarily might would probably not work out but there could be incentives to doing so.
Again there is also the idea of hydro-electric plants, not just in the form of dams but in other forms as well. One could establish environmentally safe turbines along banks of rivers and such, not unlike what they did right by niagra falls, there they have an intake system where water rushing past after going over the falls comes in and powers the turbines. Not even rocket science on that one.
Again the major hurdles, as with any innovation, are those industries wedded to profits based on old methodologies. They refuse to change and will not change until they get that last drop of oil.
UnkyT
Damn, I kinda like sarcasm.
Who said alternatives are all or nothing?
Maybe this is something we should look into while minimizing the quantity of mountains that we level.
Dreggas
Ya get what ya pay for.
I never said I was a humanitarian. Actually according to my wife, despite my socially liberal attitudes I’m a card carrying asshole and guess what? I’m proud of it. You vote for some dumbshit because you piss yourself that the libruls are coming to make have forced abortions and gay marriages to islamofascist heathens then ya deserve to drown. That is evolution.
Andrew
Here’s a god damn crazy fucking idea: conserve energy instead of creating nuclear waste and burning coal.
The amount of wasted energy I see on a day to day basis is beyond absurdity. And that means we need to price it appropriately, which means a pollution tax.
Dreggas
getting people to conserve beyond buying a few energy efficient appliances is like herding cats. So since that will most likely not be happening any time soon let’s work on doing something about the problem now. Oh and just how would you charge a pollution tax?
rawshark
Democrats that were also elected by you right?
Librarian
It’s significant that they’re doing this now, so late in the administration, after 2006. It’s not only a favor to the coal industry; this is W going out of his way to say “fuck you” to the environmentalists. That what it means.
Cassidy
I don’t claim to be a humnaitarian. What is hypocritical is wailing about the plight of poor Iraqis, then turning around and hoping people die because they dared to have the audacity to vote for someone you don’t like. That’s a very sick set of morals you got there.
Punchy
God damn, they don’t make ’em much fucking dumber than you, do they? Let’s try this again. It’s called personal responsiblity, got it? If you vote for a man who’s got a clear track record of pro-big biz, anti-union (huge in mining circles), then I have NO sympathy for their plight. None. WVians helped get themselves into that mess knowingly and deliberately. Their fault, their mess, their problem. Period. Would I feel bad for those who kill themselves speeding? Those that OD on drugs? Hell no, for the exact same reason.
In stark contrast,the Iraqis did NOT ask the US to come in. Didn’t ask them to blow up homes, cities, allow for rampant looting, and destroying much semblance of their society. WE FUCKED THEM UP, so yes, we owe it to them to clean up the situation.
See the diff? It’s pretty clear.
Dreggas
Um while there is some hypocrisy I don’t recall the Iraqi’s voting for us to come in and turn their country into a clusterfuck.
Cassidy
Nope…no difference at all. One group you shower with compassion, the other you actively call for there deaths, for the simple reason of exercising their constitutional right to vote. You are a hypocrite. Your ethical justifications are disgusting.
Sense hoping for someone’s death is not ethically wrong to you, I hope you get sodomized and murdered. Your views differ from mine, and that’s all the reaosn I need, according to your rationale.
So hoping for someone else’s death is okay, as long as thye voted for the “wrong” person. Starting to sound like a Conservative Christian.
Cassidy
This bears repeating, until Punchy meets his/her untimely end for voting differently from me.
Dreggas
They made their bed now they get to lay in it. And no I do not hope they all die, however they are getting just what they deserve.
Punchy
You’re one sick fuck. I never said this, did this, or imply this. You’ve flipped out buddy…time to reach for those meds.
Thanks for the threat. I’m sure John will love that his blog posters are wishing murder on one another. How quaint.
Punchy
You’re one sick fuck. I never said this, did this, or imply this. You’ve flipped out buddy…time to reach for those meds.
Thanks for the threat. I’m sure John will love that his blog posters are wishing murder on one another. How quaint.
Cassidy
Right…that’s some ethical backflips you just pulled.
Dreggas
Give up the bullshit Cassidy. That you can’t figure out the difference just shows Punchy’s comment was spot on.
Cassidy
It wasn’t a threat. I hjave no interest in harming you, much less sodomizing you. I’m just exercising your way of thinking. It’s very…freeing…to just wish and hope that bad things happen to those that disagree with me.
Cassidy
Enabling the thought processes of someone who hopes people die, just because they voted different than you two. Yeah, you guys are sooooo right….You two sociopaths deserve each other.
Dreggas
and again point out exactly where I said I hoped anyone would die? I did say they got what they deserved but never once wished it upon them.
Andrew
This is something that can happen soon, unlike the construction of power plants. There’s a 20 year lead time for an all new nuclear plant.
Conservation can happen instantly:
Tax carbon output, for starters. At least an across the board equivalent of a $1 a gallon of gas for all energy sources. Tax nuclear waste at an appropriate level to pay for waste disposal (or at least stop subsidizing it). Refund the money immediately in the form of reduced payroll taxes and a bonus flat cash distribution to all Americans.
The reduces the regressive effect of carbon taxes, incentivizes conservation behavior and purchasing of efficient appliances and vehicles.
Dreggas
so basically gas would have another $1 added to it, as a result we’d be over $4 a gallon with the next price increase since here in CA we already pay 2.65. Further, this impacts people on the lower side of the scale of things.
This would also raise the electricity, water and gas bills and the cost of food across the board by $1. These costs, as always would be passed on to the customer. Further this would put many businesses already teetering on the brink out of business.
To offset that with a payroll tax cut and a cash handout would mean that while you and I would benefit (since most likely we pay payroll taxes) businesses would take a hit without a reduction in their taxes which would lead to cuts in employment.
Add to that, the fact that if you are indeed cutting taxes enough to offset a regressive carbon tax across the board then you would have to cut them a lot for one, for two it would balance out so that if I am spending a buck more a gallon in gas, but getting that buck back from the tax cut I can still fill whatever vehicle I drive.
Not trying to really argue here, debate yes argue no.
I would actually propose a larger tax placed on non-fuel efficient cars, non-energy efficient appliances and other items that would lead people, economically, to buy energy efficient vs. non. This would then force companies to switch over to energy efficient products just to keep making a buck.
The tax revenue from these largess taxes could be used to invest further in alternative energy. It will also force GM and Ford etc. to start once again producing fuel efficient vehicles (something they should have learned from after the OPEC embargo back in the 70’s).
Now beyond that, the tax could also be used to invest in figuring out better disposal methods for nuclear waste etc.
Andrew
Half of payroll taxes are directly paid by employers. They would receive the same kind of credit/rebate.
You could do that yes, but any sensible person would start commuting more efficiently and save their money of other things. People who are wasteful and inefficient would subsidize the rest of us.
CAFE standards are just a very inefficient fuel tax.
Furthermore, study of commodity taxation shows that taxes are not entirely paid by the end user. Taxes filter up the supply chain, and so oil companies and producers end up absorbing some of the tax burden. Yes, this means the Saudis and ExxonMobile. Sounds good to me.
Mankiw explains this much better than I do.
Andrew
And we could phase it in over 5 years. 20 cents a year is less than the regular variability in gas prices to begin with. Not increasing the gas tax makes us that much more susceptible to gas price spikes.
Dreggas
I still say put the taxes on the actual inefficiences such as light bulbs, kitchen appliances, TV’s, cars etc. For one thing the appliances and lights tend to last longer which would have the added benefit of less landfill. The increase in taxes on high end SUV’s that guzzle a lot of gas would also have the added benefit of cutting down on wear and tear on our road, interestingly enough some of the larger SUV’s shouldn’t even be on most public streets as they are over the weight limit.
Fuel is taxed not only federally but also at the state level in large measures already. Raising the tax of fuel would do little to make people start behaving more efficiently it would just make them poorer. Everyone thought 3 dollars a gallon would be the limit, they were wrong.
As for those subsidizing the rest of us. I am probably one of the one’s who would end up paying for this since we have to use a van as my wife is in a wheel chair, it’s a mini-van but still not the most efficient, MPG wise.
CAFE standards are a feel good measure, sure they have some impact but not much. The real place to make this work is at the checkout counters and car dealerships, of course this would not have much affect on the leasing industry, the one area most responsible for people having these SUV’s in the first place.
Andrew
Where do you think the costs of CAFE goes?
It’s built into the price of every car. (Of course, SUVs and pickups should be held to the same standards as cars.)
We need to face up to the fact that everyone needs to conserve, not just rich people.
HyperIon
quick comment..there are too many people competing for too few resources. energy is just one instance of this. we americans (who have been living HIGH off the hog for WAY too long) are going to have to figure out how to get by with LESS. i’m not talking just about conservation; i’m talking about using less energy. driving less. flying less. using fewer plastics.
of course a miracle COULD occur. table top fusion. or a safe method of storing nuclear waste (which has been a topic of world-wide research for years). or cheap solar power (also heavily researched). or the second coming of jesus. all about equally likely IMO.
BTW thousands of miners die every year in China…something like 20 every day.
Punchy
Speaking of China, coal, ect., have you seen this pic?
That’s just insane.
TenguPhule
Fixed for accuracy.
TenguPhule
Uh, no we haven’t.
Nuclear Waste is still there building up because none of the tightwads who made it want to pay to figure out how to dispose of it safely. They keep storing it in places never meant for long term storage and praying that Nevada becomes the nuclear dumping hole. Granted, most of the direct material is reduced these days, but the contaminated stuff is a whole nother story.
And sorry about the multis above, my connection is screwing again.
Randolph Fritz
It’s not clear there is a technical solution to nuclear waste disposal; about the best anyone has been able to work out is to bury it in subduction zones, and hope that it isn’t disturbed while it makes a very long journey below the continents. Both politically and technically, this is difficult to implement. The best energy solution we have is a mix of sustainable technologies. One not mentioned so far is to modify our buildings, and design new buildings, to take advantage of ambient solar and geothermal energy; it is in fact possible to do without external sources of energy for nine months out of the year in most places (yes, even very cold and very hot places) and in many places the whole year around. Another not mentioned so far is a return to widespread use of rail transportation, which is far more efficient than air and private automobiles.
There once was a sage, who asked his gardener to plant a tree. When his gardener told him he would not live to eat the tree’s fruit, he replied: “Then there is no time to waste. Plant it today.”
Let’s get started.
Cassidy
Glad you explained. I thought you were getting off on repeating it over and over again.