Jump to content
Congratulations to all the employees at Twentymile! This is an impressive accomplishment.
Funny you should mention Beijing; a great example of the failure of central planning. LA, with a far less constrained though far from perfect free market system working, has far better air quality.
Really Neil you can and should do this yourself but if you insist...
Google "world coal reserves"
I chose the 2nd link because it had what looked like an easy to understand pie chart:
Clicked on it to see "The United States leads the world with over 260 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves—28% of total global reserves and 50% more than Russia, which possesses the world's second largest reserves. Despite significant U.S. coal production since the industrial revolution, recoverable domestic coal reserves at current mining levels would last 222 years."
I think your reference said something like 890 million tons left estimated to last 118 years but I'm not going to go and check again because, well, just because. I'll leave it to you to contemplate all the different ways the BBC article information on coal reserves was incorrect. Maybe the next time you see an article in the BBC you'll be a little less inclined to take it at face value.
I think your reference said something like 890 million tons left estimated to last 118 years but I'm not going to go and check again because, well, just because. I'll leave it to you to contemplate all the different ways the BBC article information on coal reserves was incorrect. Hopefully the next time you see an article in the BBC you'll be a little less inclined to take it at face value.
Niel, not that it will make any difference, but in your first link above, the the table showing fossil fuel reserves remaining, at least with with respect to coal, is utter nonsense. And so then by extension, from my perspective anyway, is the statement, "... just burning current reserves of fossil fuels using existing technologies would create enough carbon dioxide "to boil the planet several times over". Your argument is not advanced by referencing this sort of drivel.
Pssst. Shell's gone. They left. Now I'm no expert but it looks to me like they collaborated with environmental groups like CAYV and WCC to effectively raise production standards and environmental compliance costs, and then, left. Now why would they do that? Hmm.
And I remember the 1980's. Wasn't that the prosperous period when taxes were cut, GDP growth was strong and sustained, unemployment fell as 20 million new jobs were created, inflation was reversed and the foundation for the longest peacetime economic expansion we'd seen occurred? The one that carried the nation's economy clear into and through the Clinton administrations? The one that not coincidentally was built under the leadership of the last real conservative we've seen in the office of the President? Yeah. I remember that.
But I will agree with a particular perspective CAYV highlighted during their air quality protection campaign. And that is that we are fortunate to enjoy very clean air right here in Routt County, some of the cleanest in the nation.
Mark and Dan, great points to highlight and end this round of debate on. And Scott, there is another alternative. We can adapt. If we need to. Lots of information out there suggesting adaptation and mitigation strategies are far more cost effective alternatives than trying to eliminate or drastically reduce CO2 emissions. It really is a question of how best to allocate limited resources. As Mark points out, we've got all sorts of challenges to face and like it or not, we need to wisely choose which battles to fight and how agressively (and expensively) to fight them.
And though highly unlikely in my opinion, if things were to get desperate on the climate change front, we could always just... evolve ;).
Case in point: "Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going. Life itself on Earth exists because of the so-called greenhouse effect. But in modern times, as human beings have emitted gases into the air that come from all the things we do, that blanket has grown thicker and it traps more and more heat beneath it, raising the temperature of the planet. It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here."
Ah yes, the fabled fruit greenhouses of Jakarta...
A philosophical question: If a political spokesperson proves - not just leaves the door open to make you question or maybe gives you reason to doubt - but gets up on a world stage and PROVES that he/she has no idea, none at all, about what he/she is talking about, should that spokesperson ever be paid any heed about anything whatsoever?
Bingoh-so-close Dan! Your question almost gets to the crux of the issue. I'm of the opinion that "access to health insurance" is clearly not a right. In response to those who'd argue it is I'd ask, "Says who or according to what?" Do we hold this right to be self evident? That all men should have access to health insurance? Is it a god-given right? Is it a logical outcome of the application of some sort of natural law? Is it a right only for Americans? A right of freedom? A human right? A property right? If it's a right then why should it be limited in any way shape or form and why should different degrees or levels of the right be granted to different people (bronze v. platinum)? Do the unborn have this right? No Dan, it's not a right. It's a nice thought, and one facet of the utopian's unsustainable dream, but in my opinion it's not a right.
I wonder whether you really mean "access to health insurance." I think what you really might be arguing for is the idea that access to health care is a right. And then the question becomes if access to health care is a right, why should anybody, ever, anywhere have to pay for any of their healthcare needs to be met? After all, it's a right! It seems that approach hasn't worked out so well say for example in Great Britain with the NHS. The internet is filled with stories of "subpar" healthcare being provided to people under that system. Unless of course you mean to argue that we all have the right to crappy health care and the duty to our fellow man to put up it.
Jack I know you're not a comrade and that was a cheap shot. Please accept my apology and thanks for writing a letter that fostered some thinking and an informative exchange of ideas. Merry Christmas to all!
Last login: Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.