Clean Air and Coal, and Keystone

[flywise]

Yeah i assume the market will eventually push that third towards natural gas but would like to see the market do it organically. Not be forced by politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said

[skipetex]

Anyway they spin it or say it they will always try to get rid of coal dependancy. Even if we do have enough. Pal to last 100+ years the higher ups want us on gas. Eventually they will wean us off coal fired electricity I just hope they get enough gas or nuclear online before they pull the plug on the rest of us.

[Vermin93]

Well, funny how my reality is based on the EPA's leagal argument to the supreme court in which they lost the decision.

In this case, reality is based on studies of mercury emissions from US coal power plants and decreased levels of mercury contamination in regional fisheries attributed to coal plant closures and the EPA's mercury emission regulations. That you would prefer to dismiss that may be perplexing and disturbing, but it does not surprise me. Unfortunately, too many sportsmen are wrapped up in ideology and fundamentalism to draw reasoned conclusions on environmental issues like mercury contamination of waterways and fisheries. Likewise, listening to conservative politicians discuss environmental stewardship is like listening to liberal politicians insist that our borders are secure.

Instead of seriously considering the scientific evidence of what's actually happened with fish and mercury in the environment (i.e reality), you reference a SCOTUS decision that didn't happen.

Supreme Court rejects case challenging key White House air pollution regulation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5a2b64b682ce

[flywise]

Anyway they spin it or say it they will always try to get rid of coal dependancy. Even if we do have enough. Pal to last 100+ years the higher ups want us on gas. Eventually they will wean us off coal fired electricity I just hope they get enough gas or nuclear online before they pull the plug on the rest of us.

agreed
Probably no doubt coal will be a thing of the past one day. But until a source of energy is abundantly available and profitable it cant go anywhere.
My biggest problem is a lot of energy policy is produced based solely on climate science which is widely known as junk science and is done solely to take cash from the American producer and given to the third world.

[flywise]

In this case, reality is based on studies of mercury emissions from US coal power plants and decreased levels of mercury contamination in regional fisheries attributed to coal plant closures and the EPA's mercury emission regulations. That you would prefer to dismiss that may be perplexing and disturbing, but it does not surprise me. Unfortunately, too many sportsmen are wrapped up in ideology and fundamentalism to draw reasoned conclusions on environmental issues like mercury contamination of waterways and fisheries. Likewise, listening to conservative politicians discuss environmental stewardship is like listening to liberal politicians insist that our borders are secure.

Instead of seriously considering the scientific evidence of what's actually happened with fish and mercury in the environment (i.e reality), you reference a SCOTUS decision that didn't happen.

Supreme Court rejects case challenging key White House air pollution regulation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5a2b64b682ce

oh good lord

[Vermin93]

agreed
Probably no doubt coal will be a thing of the past one day. But until a source of energy is abundantly available and profitable it cant go anywhere.
My biggest problem is a lot of energy policy is produced based solely on climate science which is widely known as junk science and is done solely to take cash from the American producer and given to the third world.

Oh good lord.

Widely known by a small minority of Americans who's ideologically-driven willingness to deny and dismiss the work of America's greatest scientific organizations is mind boggling.

[flywise]

it just keeps getting better

[Landrover]

Yeah i assume the market will eventually push that third towards natural gas but would like to see the market do it organically. Not be forced by politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can agree with that also. We must have energy for our citizens. If we can keep the tolerances of pollution within check I will always agree to let the market decide!

In this case, reality is based on studies of mercury emissions from US coal power plants and decreased levels of mercury contamination in regional fisheries attributed to coal plant closures and the EPA's mercury emission regulations. That you would prefer to dismiss that may be perplexing and disturbing, but it does not surprise me. Unfortunately, too many sportsmen are wrapped up in ideology and fundamentalism to draw reasoned conclusions on environmental issues like mercury contamination of waterways and fisheries. Likewise, listening to conservative politicians discuss environmental stewardship is like listening to liberal politicians insist that our borders are secure.

Instead of seriously considering the scientific evidence of what's actually happened with fish and mercury in the environment (i.e reality), you reference a SCOTUS decision that didn't happen.

Supreme Court rejects case challenging key White House air pollution regulation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5a2b64b682ce

LMAO.........Never thought about it like that but it truly has a ton of merit! As a outdoorsman I will never put animals above humans (not even my pet dog). To say 8 lakes in Okie were damaged with mercury is BAD!!! I live here and care about here first........kinda AMERICA FIRST! Or, only .5 of pollution come from the USA globally is another matter. I believe both implicitly but are two different issues that meet along the bell curve without the bounds of this discussion.

[Vermin93]

So a persons religious beliefs should be the deciding factor in chairmanships? You think it should be that way for all committee chairs?

I believe that a Christian Scientist chairing the House Science, Space and Technology Committee is a hypocrisy and a joke, and I'm certainly not the only one who believes this. Not as bad as an Islamic fundamentalist chairing the Homeland Security Committee, but still nonsensical. Kind of like Iran and Saudi Arabia having a seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

[skipetex]

Most people do not realize the bullet we have dodged already. Since Obama and his EPA hinchmen force the new regs on the power plants there have been 32 closures and that many more on the list for 2016 unless Trump stops it. Last summer was a mild summer for most with this summer expected to be hotter. Three different days last summer in Texas the power grid was within 2 percent of it's capacity. That means if just one power plant would have unexpectedly tripped off most of us would have been in the dark for a time. To most they say oh well I have a generator or we can make it. How many of your wives are going to say the same when they have no hot water or curling irons. Just some thought. The general public doesn't know this and doesn't want to know, they just want to feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[Vermin93]

it just keeps getting better

Waiting for you to post the SCOTUS mercury decision that you hung your hat on.

#prayforourfish

[Lostacresranch]

Clean Air and Coal, and Keystone

I believe that a Christian Scientist chairing the House Science, Space and Technology Committee is a hypocrisy and a joke, and I'm certainly not the only one who believes this. Not as bad as an Islamic fundamentalist chairing the Homeland Security Committee, but still nonsensical. Kind of like Iran and Saudi Arabia having a seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

Why? You don't think a person can chair a committee without a religious bias? That what you are saying. In the matters of science, only an atheist would be allowable?

[Vermin93]

Why? You don't think a person can chair a committee without a religious bias? That what you are saying. In the matters of science, only an atheist would be allowable?

No, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that in the case of the Science, Space and Technology committee, a Christian scientist may very well fit the role. A Christian Scientist does not.

[Lostacresranch]

No, that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that in the case of the Science, Space and Technology committee, a Christian scientist may very well fit the role. A Christian Scientist does not.

Try to explain that. What about a Methodist? That's who ran it under obama. Tell me the difference between a Methodist and a Christian scientist follower. Both believe in god, both believe in Jesus Christ, both believe god can heal the sick, in fact, if you read the tenants of the two without knowing which one you are reading, they are of the same belief. You wanted to make some point about this current chairman because he is in a trump presidency, while it means no more or less than any other "Christian" in that position. Did you lament the last 8 years about this position being held by believers? No? Then why not? Because until now, you didn't care because it was not something you could complain about.

[Vermin93]

Try to explain that. What about a Methodist? That's who ran it under obama. Tell me the difference between a Methodist and a Christian scientist follower. Both believe in god, both believe in Jesus Christ, both believe god can heal the sick, in fact, if you read the tenants of the two without knowing which one you are reading, they are of the same belief. You wanted to make some point about this current chairman because he is in a trump presidency, while it means no more or less than any other "Christian" in that position. Did you lament the last 8 years about this position being held by believers? No? Then why not? Because until now, you didn't care because it was not something you could complain about.

I have lamented it since the day he got the job after the 2012 midterms, although his predecessor wasn't much better.

There is a night and day difference between the UMC and the Christian Scientist church in regard to medical science.

Coincidentally, there is also a night and day difference between the UMC and most political conservatives on the major environmental issues of our time.