Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
WIP

Current Carbon Dioxide Emission Highest Ever in Earth History

Recommended Posts

The high cost of electricity has probably been a factor in car manufacturers to start having their cars built overseas. Cadillac does it, GM overall does it. And you can bet car parts for many new cars are made overseas. Why? the cost of fuel and electricity is too much and cutting into their profits.

On the other hand, BMW is expanding its Moses Lake Washington carbon fiber plant to become the largest in the world because of clean, cheap hydro electric power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to the Obama hypocracy......lets look at his claim to reduce the use of coal in the generation of electricity by 30% by 2030. Notice that he did not say that the US would mine 30 % less coal? The coal that they used to use for electrical generation is going to go where? Overseas of course - and be burned in plants with no scrubbers. And what will the electrical generating plants use instead? Natural gas from fracking of course! So Obama's bold claim amounts to the unabated pollution of coal - along with an accelerated use of fracking. And why aren't the eco-nuts screaming at this fraud of a President? And how about that transition to natural gas? It will happen on its own - because it makes business sense! What a complete fraud Obama is. As Harper says - we've been there, done that.

Meanwhile - US money is trying to shut down Canada's energy sector - Oil and Gas, pipelines, and fracking. It's time we kicked the US in the ass. Get mad Canadians. Get mad at the eco-dupes that are stifling our economy - regardless of how many safeguards are put in place.

Edited by Keepitsimple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to the Obama hypocracy......lets look at his claim to reduce the use of coal in the generation of electricity by 30% by 2030. Notice that he did not say that the US would mine 30 % less coal? The coal that they used to use for electrical generation is going to go where? Overseas of course - and be burned in plants with no scrubbers. And what will the electrical generating plants use instead? Natural gas from fracking of course! So Obama's bold claim amounts to the unabated pollution of coal - along with an accelerated use of fracking. And why aren't the eco-nuts screaming at this fraud of a President? And how about that transition to natural gas? It will happen on its own - because it makes business sense! What a complete fraud Obama is. As Harper says - we've been there, done that.

Meanwhile - US money is trying to shut down Canada's energy sector - Oil and Gas, pipelines, and fracking. It's time we kicked the US in the ass. Get mad Canadians. Get mad at the eco-dupes that are stifling our economy - regardless of how many safeguards are put in place.

Simple, make up your mind! You claim "business sense" on it's own is...will... drive a transition to natural gas in the U.S.. This only goes so far as the coal versus natural gas price gap, which has again shifted back towards increasing natural gas prices... and the levels of excess capacity that was/is still present within existing natural gas plants. Yet you seem to be calling for Obama to do something to intervene in Big Coal moving to export... or, what?... you want Obama to step in and force Big Coal not to mine more/as much??? What kind of a conservative "free marketer" are you! Again, make up your mind!

point in fact is that less coal is being mined, obviously driven by the shift to natural gas (again, see that price gap between coal and natural gas). Point in fact, less coal will be mined in relation to those coal plants that shut down... and they have begun to do so.

in a thread on CO2 emissions you appear a tad confused about the use of the term "scrubbers". With regard to existing coal plants, scrubbers in the traditional context, relate to SO2 (and NO2) emissions. Today within the U.S., coal plants without SO2 scrubbers account for a majority of U.S. SO2 emissions... U.S. coal plants with scrubbers generated 58% of the total electricity generated from coal in 2010, while producing only 27% of total SO2 emissions. Coal-fired power plants have already been closing in the U.S.. U.S. Department Of Energy data indicate the number has fallen from 633 in 2002 to 557 in 2012 and it expects 60 gigawatts of coal-fired power — one-fifth of total U.S. coal capacity in 2012 — will retire by 2020. One of the reasons some of the coal plants will shutter, have been closing (more likely the smaller ones), is they won't be able to cost-justify the significant cost to integrate SO2 scrubbing... of course, this is within the overall mix of impacts that also includes that natural gas-coal price gap. So, again, the Obama admin regulations will (also) drive the closure of "some" coal plants directly given the requirement to reduce SO2 (and NO2) emissions. And... you want Obama to do... more, Simple??? What more?

of course, the same cost-justification will exist for those plants choosing to abide by the new regulations concerning CO2 emissions... as for those "CO2 scrubbers" (i.e., tied to so-called carbon capture/storing) care to state just how many U.S. coal plants have been retrofitted for this todate... or Canadian coal plants for that matter? C'mon, offer up a number... as in... nada, zip, zilch - or what? If you're calling out the U.S. target coal export countries for some presumed lack of "scrubbers", you need to first define your context (CO2 or SO2/NO2) and speak to what countries you're presuming upon.

as for your statement, "As Harper says - we've been there, done that", currently being flogged by Harper Conservatives (and supporters) in a false attempt to claim Obama is simply "catching up to Canada", don't eat that Elmer, that there is B.S.! Canada has a significantly reduced reliance on coal for electrical generation - only ~10% of electricity is generated by coal burning. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it expects coal, which now provides 37% of U.S. electricity — down from 52% in 2000 — will still provide 30% of U.S. power by 2030. More pointedly: that Harper Conservative regulation does not apply to existing units built before July 2015... until they reach the end of their economic life; typically, ~ 50 years of operation. In that regard, any coal plant built in Canada after 1985, gets to run for a full half century without being impacted by the Harper Conservative introduced GHG limits... one of the most recent plants in Alberta built in 2011 won't come under regulation until 2061... most pointedly, no coal plants in Canada will begin to be affected until 2020, with more plants being gradually affected as decades pass. So, no Harper... Harper Conservatives... as concerns coal and the latest Obama admin/EPA regulations, Canada has not already gone where the U.S. is going... presuming an Obama executive order (cause that ain't passing in time by either the U.S. Congress (yeah, Republicans!) or another presumptive challenge to the EPA (involving the U.S. Supreme Court, no doubt).

notwithstanding, of course, that Harper Conservatives have done nothing to meet their commitment to a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions, while the U.S. is already, today, more than half-way in meeting that same commitment... even before this latest Obama admin/EPA initiative. More pointedly, Canada's emissions have increased - not been reduced!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple, make up your mind! You claim "business sense" on it's own is...will... drive a transition to natural gas in the U.S.. This only goes so far as the coal versus natural gas price gap, which has again shifted back towards increasing natural gas prices... and the levels of excess capacity that was/is still present within existing natural gas plants. Yet you seem to be calling for Obama to do something to intervene in Big Coal moving to export... or, what?... you want Obama to step in and force Big Coal not to mine more/as much??? What kind of a conservative "free marketer" are you! Again, make up your mind!

Putting on the hat worn by the eco-nuts - yes....they should be screaming for Obama to pass co-legislation to prevent an increase in exporting coal....screaming! After all, the US-based extremists are calling for Canada's oil to stay in the ground - yet they continue to give Obama a free pass on coal - and lip service on fracking. You seem to have taken the naïve position that coal exports will not increase and perhaps decrease. Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting on the hat worn by the eco-nuts - yes....they should be screaming for Obama to pass co-legislation to prevent an increase in exporting coal....screaming! After all, the US-based extremists are calling for Canada's oil to stay in the ground - yet they continue to give Obama a free pass on coal - and lip service on fracking. You seem to have taken the naïve position that coal exports will not increase and perhaps decrease. Good luck with that.

when you use labels like "eco-nuts", just who/what are you referring to - specifically? Do you think you add credence to your statements/claims when you add this labeling/framework... if so, why not ramp it up further and (also) use the Harper Conservative "enemies of the state" labeling... c'mon Simple, get with the Harper Conservative times!

for what's it worth (to you... which would be little to nothing), I could provide you many examples of organizations that most certainly are not giving Obama any passes on coal, let alone fracking. You say a lot... but, per norm, you qualify/substantiate little. For one, perhaps you should put some definition around your statements/claims. I challenged you to put some context around the export countries (in the context of your apparent misunderstanding of "scrubbers" and the wrong association it currently holds to this threads focus on CO2 emissions)... why not extend on that (which you ignored) and carry that forward to actually provide some level of factual accounting for what you're concern troll "worried about" - coal exports!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple, make up your mind! You claim "business sense" on it's own is...will... drive a transition to natural gas in the U.S.. This only goes so far as the coal versus natural gas price gap, which has again shifted back towards increasing natural gas prices... and the levels of excess capacity that was/is still present within existing natural gas plants. Yet you seem to be calling for Obama to do something to intervene in Big Coal moving to export... or, what?... you want Obama to step in and force Big Coal not to mine more/as much??? What kind of a conservative "free marketer" are you! Again, make up your mind!

point in fact is that less coal is being mined, obviously driven by the shift to natural gas (again, see that price gap between coal and natural gas). Point in fact, less coal will be mined in relation to those coal plants that shut down... and they have begun to do so.

All your cut and paste activity can't hide the facts. Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth - spouting that reducing the use of coal in US power plants is a great, noble feat - while knowing that coal exports are at record heights and growing....unabated! You seem to be denying that under Obama, coal exports have returned to levels not seen since the 80's! So much for the war on Climate Change - humanity's greatest challenge! As for your claim that less coal is being mined......well, they must have had one heck of a stockpile to satisfy all these exports!......

Coal exports from the United States in March 2013 totaled 13.6 million short tons, nearly 0.9 million short tons above the previous monthly export peak in June 2012. EIA is projecting a third straight year of more than 100 million short tons of coal exports in 2013, following annual exports in 2011 of 107.3 million short tons and record annual exports in 2012 of 125.7 million short tons.

Increased Asian demand for coal contributed to the record level of coal exports from the United States in March. Of the record export tonnage, 6.3 million short tons were steam coal and 7.4 million short tons were metallurgical coal.

Link: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11751

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All your cut and paste activity can't hide the facts. Obama speaks out of both sides of his mouth - spouting that reducing the use of coal in US power plants is a great, noble feat - while knowing that coal exports are at record heights and growing....unabated! You seem to be denying that under Obama, coal exports have returned to levels not seen since the 80's! So much for the war on Climate Change - humanity's greatest challenge! As for your claim that less coal is being mined......well, they must have had one heck of a stockpile to satisfy all these exports!......

Link: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11751

all your deflection concerning supposed cut/paste can't hide the facts you rarely know what you're talking about, you continually recycle your nonsense and I continually punt your fake-skeptic/denier sources. I've never given the U.S. a free pass on anything concerning emissions and have a long history of detailing the historical U.S. emissions accounts in that regard. But I've also highlighted positive emission reduction initiatives taken by the U.S., whether government or industry initiated. When I perked up about the latest Obama admin/EPA regs proposed, it's not only because they will have a significant U.S. domestic impact..... it's that very domestic impact that helps to tighten the screws towards realizing binding emission agreements through UN COP meetings/treaties; i.e., the U.S. can be seen to be voluntarily imposing regulation on itself.

of course, your own apparent "war on coal", is simply another one of your concern troll plays. If you're so, so, so concerned, why aren't you deriding Harper for allowing Canadian coal exports - Canada exports a significant amount of coal, ~1/3 that of the U.S. (2011 figures). For that matter, why do you continue to give Harper a free pass for the abysmal efforts to meet that 17% reduction commitment he so championed? As I said in an earlier post, the U.S. is well positioned to meet their 17% reduction commitment (even before these latest proposed Obama admin/EPA regs)... while Canada's emissions are actually increasing.

in any case, yes... as I said... U.S. coal production is down:

2quhzmf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waldo - you're bogged down yet again in the minutiae and miss the point (intentionally, I suspect). My posts were specifically to point out the hypocracy of Obama - Canada needs to take no lessons from this erratic, arrogant, smug President.......

Once upon a time, Obama said future generations would remember his ascendance as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

In a Cushing, Oklahoma, speech today, Obama made clear future generations would remember him for something quite different:

I’ve come to Cushing, an oil town — (applause) — because producing more oil and gas here at home has been, and will continue to be, a critical part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. (Applause.)

Now, under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. (Applause.) That’s important to know. Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some.

So we are drilling all over the place — right now….

Link: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/22/450397/obama-worst-speech-ever-weve-added-enough-new-oil-and-gas-pipeline-to-encircle-the-earth/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waldo - you're bogged down yet again in the minutiae and miss the point (intentionally, I suspect). My posts were specifically to point out the hypocracy of Obama - Canada needs to take no lessons from this erratic, arrogant, smug President.......

in terms of this thread, it's focus on CO2 emissions and your most pointed targeting of coal, yes... most certainly, Canada does need to take a lesson from the Obama admin/EPA regs... and I've already detailed that distinction for you; again:

as for your statement, "As Harper says - we've been there, done that", currently being flogged by Harper Conservatives (and supporters) in a false attempt to claim Obama is simply "catching up to Canada", don't eat that Elmer, that there is B.S.! Canada has a significantly reduced reliance on coal for electrical generation - only ~10% of electricity is generated by coal burning. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it expects coal, which now provides 37% of U.S. electricity — down from 52% in 2000 — will still provide 30% of U.S. power by 2030. More pointedly: that Harper Conservative regulation does not apply to existing units built before July 2015... until they reach the end of their economic life; typically, ~ 50 years of operation. In that regard, any coal plant built in Canada after 1985, gets to run for a full half century without being impacted by the Harper Conservative introduced GHG limits... one of the most recent plants in Alberta built in 2011 won't come under regulation until 2061... most pointedly, no coal plants in Canada will begin to be affected until 2020, with more plants being gradually affected as decades pass. So, no Harper... Harper Conservatives... as concerns coal and the latest Obama admin/EPA regulations, Canada has not already gone where the U.S. is going...

as for your repeated claims of "Obama hypocrisy"... and your latest targeting of increased shale production... strictly on a coal versus natural gas energy generation level, what do you attribute a significan part of the following described emission reductions to... just how do you portion out your claimed degrees of hypocrisy?

Clean[er] energy generation sources and energy efficiency improvements have driven U.S. greenhouse gas emissions down nearly 10 percent since 2005, dramatically reversing decades of increases. The U.S. is now more than halfway to reaching President Obama’s goal of a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020.

the same way that I stated the voluntary imposed Obama admin/EPA regs "... helps to tighten the screws towards realizing binding emission agreements through UN COP meetings/treaties; i.e., the U.S. can be seen to be voluntarily imposing regulation on itself."... equally, being able to show actual emission reductions, being able to show that a commitment is being positively actioned (unlike Harper/Canada), that also means something during global emission reduction negotiations.

as for degrees of hypocrisy, where's your call for action by Big Coal... coal companies/corporations... why aren't you calling for it/them to ban coal exports? Simple, your agenda is so transparent!

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...