|
On August 27 2019 05:56 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2019 00:48 Aveng3r wrote:On August 26 2019 03:38 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive. I would disagree with you to the extent that I think it is fair to pressure China to clean up their act, provided that we are holding up our end of the bargain as well. I hear theres an upcoming presidential candidate who has some ideas Also JimmiC good thread with a lot to talk about, but does the OP really need to be a snippet of your latest back and forth with GH? Well, it can be expected that everybody does as much as is possible for their society and economy. But it's very unfair to go to the countries trying their best t ocatch up to our standard of living and just say that now that we fucked it up and had our 60 years of paradise, they are not allowed in. 1 billion chinese people want computers? Not gonna happen, they are not 100% emission free yet so they are not allowed to increase their energy consumption per capita. Of course it is reasonable to assume that if we are pulling our weight and help the less developed countries to do the same that they will try their best to reach a richer society in a less polluting way. But that requires our effort. We need to invest massively in development projects all over the world to make the transition feasible for countries who can not prioritize climate policies over improving living conditions. And as we are not even able to say that we need to consume less in political discourse without being laughed out of the room, there is no reason to ever talk about any other countries then our own.
Agreed. Doesn't make any sense to me other than the reason mentioned by saocyn. China emits far less greenhouse gas per person than Western countries did at the same stage of economic development.
|
|
|
On August 27 2019 07:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2019 07:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2019 05:56 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 27 2019 00:48 Aveng3r wrote:On August 26 2019 03:38 Broetchenholer wrote:
It's super unfair of the "western" world to now tell china to stop polluting the environment. Sure, China is the biggest polluter with heavy industry and energy production, but we are buying the products the make for cheap so that we can have more efficient industries. The only way for change is going to be limiting our own consumerism by drastically increasing prizes for the worst offenders like meat, cars, electicity. Only if it hurts our bank accounts to eat meat every day, we will stop doing it. And then, when the western world drastically reduces consumerism, we can ask countries like China to do their part as well.
The problem is just that there is absolutely no political will for this discussion, as politicians don't want to suicide their career for necessary changes that can only be started by taking away the toys of the public. And the public will not start freely giving away their toys if they are not forced. And then there is the issue with social equality becoming worse if we just make the toys more expensive. I would disagree with you to the extent that I think it is fair to pressure China to clean up their act, provided that we are holding up our end of the bargain as well. I hear theres an upcoming presidential candidate who has some ideas Also JimmiC good thread with a lot to talk about, but does the OP really need to be a snippet of your latest back and forth with GH? Well, it can be expected that everybody does as much as is possible for their society and economy. But it's very unfair to go to the countries trying their best t ocatch up to our standard of living and just say that now that we fucked it up and had our 60 years of paradise, they are not allowed in. 1 billion chinese people want computers? Not gonna happen, they are not 100% emission free yet so they are not allowed to increase their energy consumption per capita. Of course it is reasonable to assume that if we are pulling our weight and help the less developed countries to do the same that they will try their best to reach a richer society in a less polluting way. But that requires our effort. We need to invest massively in development projects all over the world to make the transition feasible for countries who can not prioritize climate policies over improving living conditions. And as we are not even able to say that we need to consume less in political discourse without being laughed out of the room, there is no reason to ever talk about any other countries then our own. Agreed. Doesn't make any sense to me other than the reason mentioned by saocyn. China emits far less greenhouse gas per person than Western countries did at the same stage of economic development. That just does not make sense. Of course they do technology is way different. And per capita is a terrible measure when comparing two countries of such different wealth unless your solution is just to make most people way poorer and just have a few super wealthy. There is no racism involved, China is bad India is bad, the US is bad, Saudi Arabia is bad, Venezuala and Brazil are bad. China can get singled out because of its size and amount of people. It is simply factual that they could do, and should do much better. And because of the amount of people they have they also have the ability to make one of the biggest impacts positively or negatively. With you theory that the US needs a socialist revolution to stop the climate crisis, you should also be calling on China to have a socialist revolution. Because they are worse.
You know a worse way to measure? Total without consideration for population or wealth, which is your preference.
Also, By 2020, every Chinese coal plant will be more efficient than every US coal plant so... US has far more wealth to allocate per person to reduce their carbon footprint and simply chooses not to.
China's wealth distribution is comparable or better than the US btw. I do support Chinese socialists though since you mentioned it. Capitalist influence has been growing in China and that's bad for everyone.
Vox covers why the US is the worse actor here:
To this day, it remains a central conservative argument against climate action: China is the real problem and it isn’t doing anything...
In support of this position, conservatives point to the fact that dozens of coal plants have either recently been built or are in the planning or construction phases in China. This, they say, gives the lie to the country’s promises.
It can be difficult for the average news consumer to sort out this dispute. The Chinese government is notoriously opaque, the situation is developing rapidly, and most of what reaches US media is shallow he-said, she-said coverage.
Happily, the Center for American Progress is on the case. It recently sent a team of researchers to China to investigate its energy markets, analyze regulatory and plant construction data, and interview Chinese coal miners and coal plant operators. It sought to answer a simple question: What is China doing about coal?
The result is a report — authored by Melanie Hart, Luke Bassett, and Blaine Johnson — that offers the clearest picture yet of the big picture on coal in China. And a closer look, it turns out, utterly destroys the conservative argument. Far from sitting back and coasting while the US acts, China is waging an aggressive, multi-front campaign to clean up coal before eventually phasing it out — reducing emissions from existing plants, mothballing older plants, and raising standards for new plants. Unlike the US, it is on track to exceed its Paris carbon reduction commitments.
China is acting far more intentionally and aggressively than the US — investing more, building more, testing and experimenting more. If the US remains on its current path, by 2030 China will be the uncontested technological and economic leader on climate change.
In short, while the US dithers along in a cosmically stupid dispute over whether science is real, China is tackling climate change with all guns blazing. The US, not China, is the laggard in this relationship.
www.vox.com
|
|
|
On August 27 2019 10:09 JimmiC wrote:
That is not my preference, my preference is to look at the entire picture which includes CO2 emissions, waste management practices, government policy, so on.
You keep making this like you think I'm saying China is bad and the US is good that is not the case. China is horrible and the US is not much better. But it is better because of the wealth.
It's not better though?
I would love it if China really becomes the technological and economic leader on climate change. That would be amazing. I have nothing against China doing well, I want everyone to do better.
They are on that path and the west isn't was the point?
I don't believe that China was truly socialist just a dictatorship marketing it as socialism. But for someone like you who does believe they are
No one thinks China is socialist? They are a mixed economy with aspects of central planning, public ownership (in the black unlike many western nations btw),local democratic governance, private ownership/capitalism etc... I get the impression you're not very familiar with China so when you ask:
can you answer me why you keep telling me how better the Chinese are doing and how many amazing gains they are getting, but that they are going more capitalist and that's bad.
If things are getting better than isn't capitalism working?
You do so because you are genuinely oblivious and not just being facetious. The simple answer is correlation isn't causation.
A more detailed answer would require a general understanding of the systems at play (of which I'm no expert) in China, but basically; as you and everyone is familiar with, the gridlock of US congress and arguing over whether climate change is even real is a result of the normalization of corruption through campaign finance and the revolving door of lobbyists and public office.
Without that capitalist gridlock like in the US congress, China can and has taken a vastly superior approach to climate change. First recognizing it's real, man made, and must be dealt with. Then making a deliberate and unparalleled effort to address it.
The US, is worse because despite knowing since at least the 70's they've been doing the opposite of what they needed and buying politicians to keep it that way.
EDIT: Koch's are a good example of the "well I'll die rich and before the shit hits anyway" crowd most responsible in the US for all that and it's extensively documented and no one is going to be held accountable because the corruption is just how US capitalism does business.
|
|
|
On August 27 2019 22:25 JimmiC wrote:
It is not capitalist gridlock. It democratic grid lock. I get it now, this whole time I thought it was Capitalism you were against but it is democratic systems you don't like.
You might be the first person, including Republicans to suggest that campaign finance isn't the source of why things like universal background checks can't get passed despite ~90% public support (this also contradicts when you yourself said that).
The rest is a random rant on China that's equally misguided.
|
|
|
|
|
"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation."
You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables?
It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 27 2019 23:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2019 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation." You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables? It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues. Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal?
It might be?
The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7].
www.ucsusa.org
|
|
|
On August 27 2019 23:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2019 23:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2019 23:14 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2019 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation." You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables? It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues. Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal? It might be? The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7]. www.ucsusa.org It is not. Also from your site. Show nested quote +Natural gas is a fossil fuel, though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gasShow nested quote +
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/3-big-myths-about-natural-gas-and-our-climateIf some one is telling you that Natural gas is clean energy and as good as Solar or wind tell them to get out of town. If someone tells you that Coal is better than Natural gas, tell them to get out of town. Both statements are horribly inaccurate. Look a lot of Semi's are transitioning from Diesel to Natural Gas this is a hella good thing. It will be way better when they switch from Natural gas to electricity. Sadly the amount of Batteries it requires and how we power them makes it not make sense yet. Some people say Natural Gas is a bridge technology we should invest in until renewable's are better and priced better. I disagree it is better to invest in the future now and that will help bring the price down. BUT if some one said I am either going to buy a fleet of Diesel semi's or natural gas semi's, I'd say get the natural gas one.
oi, that literally says " from its combustion" which would be a fine measurement if it magically went from the ground to being used. Leakage often isn't calculated and when it is it's almost always underestimated.
Hopefully no one listens to you/your recommendations on diesel semis (or much else frankly).
Natural gas Semi's are a bad idea and bad investment because they are " conclusively detrimental"
Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.
What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate.
www.pbs.org
|
|
|
On August 28 2019 00:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2019 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2019 23:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2019 23:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2019 23:14 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2019 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation." You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables? It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues. Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal? It might be? The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7]. www.ucsusa.org It is not. Also from your site. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/3-big-myths-about-natural-gas-and-our-climateIf some one is telling you that Natural gas is clean energy and as good as Solar or wind tell them to get out of town. If someone tells you that Coal is better than Natural gas, tell them to get out of town. Both statements are horribly inaccurate. Look a lot of Semi's are transitioning from Diesel to Natural Gas this is a hella good thing. It will be way better when they switch from Natural gas to electricity. Sadly the amount of Batteries it requires and how we power them makes it not make sense yet. Some people say Natural Gas is a bridge technology we should invest in until renewable's are better and priced better. I disagree it is better to invest in the future now and that will help bring the price down. BUT if some one said I am either going to buy a fleet of Diesel semi's or natural gas semi's, I'd say get the natural gas one.
oi, that literally says " from its combustion" which would be a fine measurement if it magically went from the ground to being used. Leakage often isn't calculated and when it is it's almost always underestimated. Hopefully no one listens to you/your recommendations on diesel semis (or much else frankly). Natural gas Semi's are a bad idea and bad investment because they are " conclusively detrimental" Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.
What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate. www.pbs.org The study I posted is more recent than the one you just posted about. No where in that article does it suggest that we should switch to coal. Because coal tech is basically as good as it can get and natural gas can get a lot cleaner. We should be building all renewable energy at this point. But if you really think Coal is better than natural gas you are crazy. At the very worst Natural Gas is as bad because of leaks. But leaks can be found and can be fixed. Coal is just coal and is shitty and will always be shitty. Have you seen what the coal mines in Russia are like? https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/And yes I have read this, and I see how the government says they must look into more renewable energy, and before you start talking about their massive dam producing hydro, you might want to look into more whether that one is really good for the planet or the Chinese people. It is not all bad, just more bad than good, I really didn't think I would get into a "coal is better than natural gas" argument with someone who has such big climate change fears he is willing to throw the entire world into war.
It's complicated like I suggested, but my point was China's use of coal (and significant improvement on it over US coal) is the only viable option they have to meet incredibly modest per capita requirements while modernizing/industrializing/urbanizing.
I don't think "coal is better than natural gas", which like most (all?) of the arguments you project onto me, I didn't say.
Considering how scrambled your argument has been and you're already doing the thing from the OP you took out again I think we're done.
|
|
|
On August 28 2019 00:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2019 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 28 2019 00:13 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2019 23:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2019 23:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2019 23:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 27 2019 23:14 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2019 23:01 GreenHorizons wrote:"In an ideal world, this energy could be provided through 100% renewable energy: in such a world, CO2 emissions could be an avoidable consequence of development. However, currently we would expect that some of this energy access will have to come from fossil fuel consumption (although potentially with a higher mix of renewables than older industrial economies). Therefore, although the global challenge is to reduce emissions, some growth in per capita emissions from the world's poorest countries remains a sign of progress in terms of changing living conditions and poverty alleviation." You realize the article/report I cited which is from CAP (a neoliberal, not left wing, operation) basically outlined how China is definitively outpacing the US historically and for the next decade culminating in them being an uncontested global leader on renewables? It also mentioned how the US is using natural gas whereas China doesn't have that option. Although natural gas significantly increases methane emissions (worse than CO2) and fracking brings another load of issues. Are you saying that Natural gas is worse than coal? It might be? The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane, primary component of natural gas that is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period and 86 times stronger over 20 years [3]. Preliminary studies and field measurements show that these so-called “fugitive” methane emissions range from 1 to 9 percent of total life cycle emissions [4].
Whether natural gas has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than coal and oil depends on the assumed leakage rate, the global warming potential of methane over different time frames, the energy conversion efficiency, and other factors [5]. One recent study found that methane losses must be kept below 3.2 percent for natural gas power plants to have lower life cycle emissions than new coal plants over short time frames of 20 years or fewer [6]. And if burning natural gas in vehicles is to deliver even marginal benefits, methane losses must be kept below 1 percent and 1.6 percent compared with diesel fuel and gasoline, respectively. Technologies are available to reduce much of the leaking methane, but deploying such technology would require new policies and investments [7]. www.ucsusa.org It is not. Also from your site. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas
We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy. Cleaner than coal? Sure – but that’s not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/3-big-myths-about-natural-gas-and-our-climateIf some one is telling you that Natural gas is clean energy and as good as Solar or wind tell them to get out of town. If someone tells you that Coal is better than Natural gas, tell them to get out of town. Both statements are horribly inaccurate. Look a lot of Semi's are transitioning from Diesel to Natural Gas this is a hella good thing. It will be way better when they switch from Natural gas to electricity. Sadly the amount of Batteries it requires and how we power them makes it not make sense yet. Some people say Natural Gas is a bridge technology we should invest in until renewable's are better and priced better. I disagree it is better to invest in the future now and that will help bring the price down. BUT if some one said I am either going to buy a fleet of Diesel semi's or natural gas semi's, I'd say get the natural gas one.
oi, that literally says " from its combustion" which would be a fine measurement if it magically went from the ground to being used. Leakage often isn't calculated and when it is it's almost always underestimated. Hopefully no one listens to you/your recommendations on diesel semis (or much else frankly). Natural gas Semi's are a bad idea and bad investment because they are " conclusively detrimental" Also, at a methane leakage rate of 2.3 percent, many other uses of natural gas besides generating electricity are conclusively detrimental for the climate. For example, EDF found that replacing the diesel used in most trucks or the gasoline consumed by most cars with natural gas would require a leakage rate of less than 1.4 percent before there would be any immediate climate benefit.
What’s more, some scientists believe that the leakage rate could be even higher than this new estimate. www.pbs.org The study I posted is more recent than the one you just posted about. No where in that article does it suggest that we should switch to coal. Because coal tech is basically as good as it can get and natural gas can get a lot cleaner. We should be building all renewable energy at this point. But if you really think Coal is better than natural gas you are crazy. At the very worst Natural Gas is as bad because of leaks. But leaks can be found and can be fixed. Coal is just coal and is shitty and will always be shitty. Have you seen what the coal mines in Russia are like? https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/And yes I have read this, and I see how the government says they must look into more renewable energy, and before you start talking about their massive dam producing hydro, you might want to look into more whether that one is really good for the planet or the Chinese people. It is not all bad, just more bad than good, I really didn't think I would get into a "coal is better than natural gas" argument with someone who has such big climate change fears he is willing to throw the entire world into war. It's complicated like I suggested, but my point was China's use of coal (and significant improvement on it over US coal) is the only viable option they have to meet incredibly modest per capita requirements while modernizing/industrializing/urbanizing. I don't think "coal is better than natural gas", which like most (all?) of the arguments you project onto me, I didn't say. Considering how scrambled your argument has been and you're already doing the thing from the OP you took out again I think we're done. I was asked to take it out, so I did. LOL no conspiracy.
jfc, no one said that, I was just noting it's not there. If I was implying anything, it's just that it was/is a lackluster OP
Glad you are not pro-coal, odd that you think NG is worse than coal, or don't think that, who knows.
Anyone who bothered to read my posts? Obviously not pro coal and think it's unclear and situational as to whether NG is better regarding climate change. It's better when it comes to other particulates though.
When you say China's coal is better then Americans coal are you including the entire lifecycle which means including taking where China is getting their coal from and where the Americans are?
I'm talking about how you're wrong that US coal is anywhere near the best it could be.
If you do you will find out again that the US and China are both awful and instead of defending China and attacking the US practices you should be attacking both practices. Apologizing for China does no good.
I'm only pointing out China isn't the worst despite your repeated assertion (though you seem to have backed off it at this point) it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
