DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Burning Koalas

Got it. you need both

Just so we are clear - this means you are in favor of rolling back environmental protections, allowing coal companies to dump waste in our waterways and the Coal Industry will come roaring back?

Or you are for rolling back environmental protections, allowing coal companies to dump waste in our waterways and the Coal Industry will remain dead.

And finally despite all he facts to the contrary - and all the other cheaper energy sources - you still solely blame Obama for the entirety of the coal industry failing - based on 2015 legislation.

I don't want to misunderstand your position.

Yuk yuk.. hey GM are you related to or have you ever been or known a coal miner?

What I am against is Obama trying his best to destroy the coal industry. What I am for is letting the market decide what type of fuel and energy sources we use.

If I asked questions like you I would have asked you.

Are you against polluting our underground water supplies with fracking? Or are you against rolling back environmental laws like Bush did that allow the polluting of our water?

My grandparents on both sides of the family were Coal miners. My father was a coal miner, and I use to own 1/3 of a coal mine and worked there myself.

You didn't answer my questions. Again blamed Obama for something that he had a small - limited impact on. Well done.

As for Fracking - no I am not in favor of polluting water supplies by fracking. I'd like more transparency on the chemicals involved, the volume of water involved and greater research on the impact. Thanks for trying to change the subject but.

Yet I posted irrefutable evidence that almost every other major energy source has become cheaper than coal over time. That coal is now one of the most expensive forms of energy a new power plant could use.

That's why coal isn't coming back. The market dictates it. People are going to build power plants that give them the cheapest power for their customers. That's how capitalism works. I guess that's Obama's fault too. He was just too much of a capitalist.

I notice you ignored responding to the facts about present energy costs from coal compared to natural gas, solar and wind.

Look bro you know I love ya, and I respect you so I will answer your question again even though I already answer it before in this thread.

Why is coal one of the most expensive forms of energy?

Finally, even if the proposed regulation is approved, and increasingly green utility execs somehow agreed to work toward building a coal-fired plant, a fast-tracked permitting process could take eight to 10 years to complete. Add in the inevitable litigation brought by hordes of environmental industry lawyers, and any permitting process would easily pass a decade. That date would put the start of construction well past the reach of even a potential second Trump term. With rumblings of a “New Green Deal” floating through Congress, utilities can ill-afford to spend a decade or more struggling to obtain permits for generation facilities that very easily could face oblivion from the next administration’s phone and pen.





If Obama had passed laws that would bankrupt a company for using GAS as a power source, or solar as a power source, or wind as a power source and charged them a fortune if they did guess what? Nobody would be building them either. Please tell me you can at least understand that.



and I noticed that you ignore anything that has to do with me being right about him driving up the cost of using coal.

Look I know what I am taking about. I owned a coal mine. I was a coal miner, I sold coal directly from the mine to the power plants. I dealt with all the government regulations. I know what I am talking about.

Small limited impact ROTFLMFAO That's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer had a small limited impact in the death of 17 people.

Your welcome. It will make you look better after your being so wrong on the subject we have been butting our heads about

I certainly believe you know what you're talking about from one side of the debate without looking at both sides. While not knowing the industry the way you do, I do have relatives that own property that was being mined.

Even some of them admit that the advancements in lowering the cost of other forms of energy played a big factor here. The fact that that wind, solar and natural gas have all become far more economical due to both production and technology are certainly a part of the equation.

I'm not a huge proponent of natural gas, however, the huge increase in natural gas production drove the cost much lower. I'm not saying that you don't have a point. What I'm saying is there is a lot more involved than the singular point you are trying to make.

Thanks for the smile and laugh. I disagree but hey ho. I'm still baffled what happened between 2006 and 2015 .... the article details the 2015 decision to make new coal plants too expensive. But then the article talks about the decline since 2006 without giving any insight or reason for the start of the demise in 2006. (That's the year Obama took office right )

and I am saying IF gas, wind, and solar are more reliable and cheaper then the market will dictate that we use them. The government should not be forcing US Citizens to use what THEY want.

Like I said I have no problem with us using another source of fuel if that's what the people want. I do still have a problem with it being shoved down our throats and people buying into the total BS that Obama was pushing on this subject.



and what I am saying is many folks around here have shoved their heads in the sand and refuse to hear and admit the truth on the point I am making.

IMO What happened between 2006 and 2015 is that many folks in this country started acting like chicken little and blaming the good old USA for the worlds pollution problems. While the rest of the world just continues to pollute like there is no tomorrow. everybody wants the USA to suffer for it.

Let me ask you, how many Americans actually care what fuel their power plant is using as long as they're getting their electric power?

I don't think at least 90% of Americans care what the fuel is that produces their power or feel anything is being crammed down their throats.

I just signed up to a program which buys my power from green sources. Added about $4 to the last couple of month’s bills. Worth it to know I’m doing what I can within the grid. Would love to have solar on my roof but I have really tall trees around my house.
https://www.portlandgeneral.com/residential/power-choices/renewable-power/green-source

I would venture to guess that the vast majority of Americans have no idea which energy source their power company uses to supply their power. Some of us do care and are very self aware. I applaud you for doing your due diligence. Sadly I do not have such an option.

I am glad you asked. Every elder american and younger American who is on a fixed income. So many people in this country struggle just to get by every month yet you don't seem to have a problem with our own government causing their utility bills to go up 20,30 or 40 bucks a month. Which they can't afford to pay. You and other seem to have forgotten about folks who are struggling to survive from day to day. You seem to worry more about great, great, great grandkids while ignoring the elderly folks who can't afford to pay for meds, groceries, heat, electric, etc, etc. You worry about WHAT IF 200, 400 or 600 years from now while totally ignoring those who are dying today.



I think close to 90 percent of folks on fixed incomes worry about the cost or their utilities 365 days a year.

Yet when shown how much cheaper other sources of energy have become, when showing natural gas is much cheaper than coal because of its mass production, you still wish to inflict the increased price of coal on them.

You still can't face the fact that the massive increase in the fracking of natural gas makes it cheaper no matter what you do.

You're never going to get it.

It's you who doesn't get it bro.

What would the cost of coal be without all the regulations and restrictions Obama put on it????? I mean it was way, way cheaper before his regulations so just how much cheaper is gas really??????????

Bud, it was already as cheap or cheaper in 2008. Production has blown up since 2008 making it even cheaper now.

Does the fact that natural gas was just as cheap or cheaper in 2008, long before Obama regulations mean anything to you? Also wind was even cheaper in 2008.

ACEEE notes, for instance, that in 2008 coal cost between 7 and 14 cents per kWh; natural gas cost between 7 and 10 cents per kWh; and wind between 4 and 9 cents per kWh. In terms of new nuclear, some estimates put its price at 15 cents per kWh, or more.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20090...el-holds-steady

Hopefully after seeing that coal wasn't cheaper even before Obama was elected president you'll open your mind to the other possibilities. But somehow I doubt it.

So! Koalas' Man!

Restrictions, policy? The only thing being restricted is biodiversity on planet earth.

Remember how we looked at slavery, segregation? We will look at biodiversity in the same light, if humanity is not held accountable.

Somehow Koalas being burned in a forest fire brings mentions of segregation and slavery, and, biodiversity,

I don't know what biodiversity is, but, man, this is a crazy world.

Here ya go.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=biodiversity

I don't know what a Koala is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koala

Obama's reach is far and strong apparently.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-anyone-thought

Damn him !

You’re proud of that? Pfft.

I'm impressed with China's efforts. Number 1 in coal, and number 1 in alternative sources.

Am I proud of any of those countries..... nope.

Send that chit to Obama ... he'll shut them down with his amazing powers. He may even travel back in time and your post will disappear !

Trump announces the US will join 1 trillion tree initiative


President Trump on Tuesday announced the United States will join the One Trillion Trees Initiative launched at the World Economic Forum as world leaders seek to combat climate change.

Trump made the announcement during an address to global business leaders gathered for the annual event in Davos, Switzerland.

"We're committed to conserving he majesty of God’s creation and the natural beauty of our world," Trump said, adding that the U.S. "will continue to show strong leadership in restoring, growing and better managing our trees and our forests.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...tree-initiative

trump talking out both sides of his mouth again. Old growth can’t be ‘replanted’. It’s old growth for a reason. They’re massive carbon stores that saplings can’t replace.

https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019...national-forest

Juneau, AK — The Trump administration today announced plans to gut long-standing protections against logging and road-building in the Tongass National Forest, a cherished old-growth temperate rainforest in Southeast Alaska and homelands of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people. A coalition that includes Alaska Native people and Alaska-based and national organizations opposes the U.S. Forest Service plan, which comes weeks after revelations that President Trump exerted pressure to allow new clear-cuts in the Tongass.
The agency’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), expected to be published by the end of this week, would repeal Roadless Rule protections across more than nine million acres of the Tongass, dangerously weakening this national standard by enabling logging interests to bulldoze roads and clear-cut trees in areas of the Tongass that have been off-limits for decades.

In Alaska, which experienced unprecedented heat waves this summer, the Tongass serves as a buffer against climate change and as a refuge for salmon, birds, and other wildlife. Much like the Amazon rainforest, the Tongass’ stands of ancient trees are champions at absorbing greenhouse gas emissions, storing approximately 8 percent of the total carbon in all national forests of the lower 48 states.

Logging the Tongass would threaten the health of Alaskan salmon by polluting rivers and streams, and by removing trees that help regulate water temperature. Current Roadless Rule protections also extend to cultural and sacred sites of great importance to Alaska Native people, who rely upon the Tongass for spiritual and subsistence practices.

The landmark 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects more than 58 million acres of roadless national forest lands across the country. Weakening this policy in Alaska will harm local and indigenous communities, Southeast Alaska’s economy, salmon fisheries, and wildlife. The Tongass, America’s largest and wildest national forest, draws outdoor adventurers, boaters, birders, hunters, and anglers. An intact Tongass supports a robust Southeast Alaskan economy through tourism, commercial and sport fishing, and small businesses. Its old-growth trees provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat for myriad species including wild Pacific salmon, Alexander Archipelago wolves, and Sitka black-tailed deer.

More than 1.5 million Americans voiced support for the Roadless Rule during the original rulemaking process, which followed decades of clear-cutting that had a destructive and lasting impact on the Tongass.

The rule continues to receive overwhelming support in Alaska and across the nation. Recent polling shows that 61 percent of voters nationwide oppose exempting large parts of the Tongass from the protections of the Roadless Rule. In Southeast Alaska, 60 percent support keeping the Roadless Rule in place, more than twice as many as those who support a Tongass exemption. Two different polls were conducted; by Tulchin Research and Lake Research.

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS WERE RELEASED IN RESPONSE TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT:

“We must holistically analyze the root causes of habitat destruction in the Tongass National Forest along with its directed social injustices, while quickly seeking solutions to the very real climate crisis today that is hugely impacting all the life on the lands we depend upon, including ours. We are the voices for the protection of the 2001 Roadless Rule. It must be coded into law for its own protection from industrial exploitation,” said Wanda Culp, Tlingit Activist, Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) Tongass Regional Coordinator

“The world’s largest remaining intact temperate rainforest containing vital old-growth trees is under attack because of efforts to undo the Roadless Rule. The Tongass Rainforest of Alaska — the traditional homelands of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian Peoples — has been called ‘the nation’s climate forest’ due to its unsurpassed ability to sequester carbon and mitigate climate impacts. For decades, industrial-scale logging has been destroying this precious ecosystem and disrupting the life-ways of the region’s Indigenous peoples and local communities. We stand with Indigenous peoples, Southeast Alaskans, and allies nationally and internationally to say no to further old-growth logging, and yes to maintaining the current Roadless Rule. Our national forests are essential lungs of the Earth,” said Osprey Orielle Lake, Executive Director, Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN)

“Relinquishing over nine million acres of protected national forest to feed the mouths of an industry that exports our old-growth forests overseas and provides free roads for mining development is not the future of Alaska for Alaskans,” said Natalie Dawson, executive director for Audubon Alaska. “It disregards decades of hard work by Alaskans to protect our remaining forests and salmon-rich waters for sustainable industries that actually exist and rely on healthy, intact forests, and their supported fish, birds, and other wildlife. This is the diversity that will drive the future of Alaska’s economy.”

“The push for an Alaska-specific roadless rule has always been just pretext for continuing to subsidize Southeast Alaska’s old-growth timber industry, and it will do so at the expense of recreation and fishing, Native communities, and wildlife,” said Andy Moderow, Alaska director at Alaska Wilderness League. “Moving forward with an Alaska-specific rule is wrong for the Tongass and wrong for Southeast Alaska. There are better ways to ‘meaningfully address local economic and development concerns’ than asking taxpayers to foot the bill for another hefty subsidy to Alaska’s timber industry, like addressing maintenance backlogs and permitting issues that will benefit the region’s booming tourism and recreation sectors, or stream restoration that will boost Southeast’s billion-dollar fishing industry and support the region’s wildlife.”

“The Tongass National Forest stores more carbon removed from the atmosphere than any other national forest in the country. The Roadless Rule has protected the Tongass rainforest for almost two decades,” said Josh Hicks, roadless defense campaign manager at The Wilderness Society. “By seeking to weaken the Roadless Rule’s protections, the Forest Service is prioritizing one forest use — harmful logging — over mitigating climate change, protecting wildlife habitat, and offering unmatched sight-seeing and recreation opportunities found only in southeast Alaska.”

“Efforts to undermine environmental protection for the Tongass National Forest not only put Alaska’s last vestiges of old-growth forest at risk, but also clear the way for even bigger attacks on forests nationwide. We cannot allow the Trump administration to log away our future and ignore the risks these rollbacks pose to Alaskan communities, forests, and economy,” said Kirin Kennedy, Deputy Legislative Director for lands and wildlife at Sierra Club.

“This is another Trump administration attempt to roll back protections for wildlife and hand over public lands to private interests,” said Patrick Lavin, Alaska policy advisor at Defenders of Wildlife. “The public has overwhelmingly opposed this effort and made clear that the Forest Service should keep watersheds and habitats supporting sustainable resources like salmon intact, not auction them off to timber companies at taxpayer expense.”

“Hundreds of scientists have supported the inclusion of the Tongass National Forest in the National Roadless Conservation Rule due to its extraordinary subsistence wildlife, fisheries, and climate benefits,” said Dominick DellaSala, PhD, president and chief scientist at Geos Institute. “It is Alaska’s first line of climate change defense and deserves full protection under the national Roadless Rule while at the same time the Forest Service implements plans to rapidly transition out of old-growth logging.”

“The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was released today trades on Southeast Alaskans’ vision for our collective future by prolonging and delaying our region’s transition away from a remnant timber industry on life support,” said Meredith Trainor, Executive Director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council . “Nothing about the effort to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the National Roadless Rule makes sense for the future of Southeast Alaska. The proposed alternative contemplated in the DEIS threatens fish habitat and the fisheries they support; undermines tourism by damaging the landscapes our visitors come to see; destroys deep, wild, forested habitat relied upon by species other than our own; and lifts up the crown jewel of the National Forest system, the big old growth trees of the Tongass National Forest, and asserts that they are worth only as much as the lowest bidder is willing to pay.”

“President Trump’s attack on the Tongass National Forest threatens an irreplaceable national treasure,” said Eric Jorgensen, Earthjustice managing attorney in Juneau. “The millions of ancient trees across this temperate rainforest serve as the greatest carbon sanctuary in the U.S. national forest system, helping us all as a counterweight against the climate crisis. This ecologically rich landscape and critical wildlife habitat will be lost forever if industry is allowed to clear-cut our national forest. There is no good reason to roll back protections for the Tongass, and Earthjustice will oppose this attack on the safeguards wisely established by the Roadless Rule.”

“As a global climate crisis demands that we take urgent conservation and climate-mitigation measures, the Trump administration wants to do the opposite — and lay waste to some of our country’s most unspoiled wildlands that absorb massive amounts of carbon,” said Niel Lawrence, Alaska director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “For nearly two decades, the Roadless Rule has successfully shielded these magnificent natural resources, and we won’t allow the Trump administration to destroy the rule — or that progress — in another taxpayer-subsidized handout to its friends in industry.”

“Alaska’s elected officials are selling out their constituents and robbing future generations by trying to strip protections from one of the most pristine old-growth forests in the world,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Alaska is already reeling from the effects of climate change. Clearcutting remaining old-growth trees in the Tongass National Forest would release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and make things worse. This disastrous plan would smother vital wild salmon streams with sediment and irreparably harm subsistence hunters. It’s wrong to put private profits ahead of the health and future of Alaskans.”

Look, I understand your tears when it comes to anything Trump but some of us care more about helping our planet than hating our president.

Not really.

You obviously don’t grasp the carbon sink difference between a field of saplings (good on donny for this initiative. I see the good in it.) and a span of old growth forest. The Tongass should be off limits. trump is causing more harm than good. Much like most of his policies.

car·bon sink
nounECOLOGY
a forest, ocean, or other natural environment viewed in terms of its ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

You obviously don't grasp that with you and the others, Trump Bad even when he does good.

And you don’t see the bad when he does bad. Which is often. More often than the good.... and often the ‘good’ doesn’t counteract the bad. As seen by trump’s desire to plant saplings (Which I gave donny credit for.) while destroying old growth (which is far more damaging than planting saplings is helpful).