The Republican War On Science

[Skotty]

Tonight I watched the U.S. Vice Presidential debate. Tom Kaine was annoying with his constant interruptions. I could barely stand to watch. I don't like some of the items on the Democratic agenda. I do like some of the items on the Republican agenda. But what I found most compelling to me -- shocking even -- was Mike Pence's repeated rhetoric of ending the "war on coal".

If there is a war on coal being perpetrated by the Democratic party, then there is a war on science and a war on the future of humanity being perpetrated by the Republican party. When choosing between coal or the future of humanity, I think the choice is clear.

Climate change is based on science. And science never loses. If Republicans continue to push this anti-science climate change denying agenda, there are only two possible outcomes. Either Republicans lose, or we all do. As long as this is the status quo, it is my duty as a citizen of humanity to help ensure the Republicans lose every time. I'm with her.

Republicans -- if you want to win me back, grow up, respect science, and come up with plans to address the threat of climate change in a way that is consistent with conservative ideology. Being the petulant child who doesn't want to do his chores is not acceptable.

 

[ecarfan]

Well said. Thank you for that very reasonable and rational post. I'm with her as well. It

 

[335eye]

People are smart, especially when politicians are going after their wallets..

Pew: Most Americans Don’t Believe in ‘Scientific Consensus’ on Climate Change

 

[nwdiver]

People are smart, especially when politicians are going after their wallets..

Pew: Most Americans Don’t Believe in ‘Scientific Consensus’ on Climate Change

I'm sure glad we can change reality with public opinion.... oh, wait....

 

[James Anders]

Hillary said she wanted to put coal miners out of business. She didn't qualify it in any way. She didn't have exceptions for clean coal processing. That's what is meant by a war on coal.

 

[nwdiver]

She didn't qualify it in any way. She didn't have exceptions for clean coal processing. That's what is meant by a war on coal.

Anything else would have been an outright lie. It's impossible for Coal with CCS to compete economically with Solar, Wind and Gas. In a few years it will be impossible to compete with storage. Coal is done.

 

[3Victoria]

"clean" coal --- oxymoron.

 

[James Anders]

There are many who would disagree about the viability of clean coal for energy. Furthermore, there's still reasons to mine coal besides just energy creation.

 

[bredi]

When you burn things in a confined area. You die. The earth is a confined area.

 

[ggr]

Hillary said she wanted to put coal miners out of business. She didn't qualify it in any way. She didn't have exceptions for clean coal processing. That's what is meant by a war on coal.

There is no such thing as "clean coal" at the moment. Sequestering the CO2 is even more expensive than replacing it with solar/wind, so if the argument is about the cost of renewables, coal still loses.

 

[ggr]

There are many who would disagree about the viability of clean coal for energy. Furthermore, there's still reasons to mine coal besides just energy creation.

There are? Please enlighten me. Oil, yes... plastics and road beds and lubricants. But coal?

 

[Off Shore]

There are? Please enlighten me. Oil, yes... plastics and road beds and lubricants. But coal?

Christmas stockings.

 

[Incredulocious]

Hillary said she wanted to put coal miners out of business. She didn't qualify it in any way. She didn't have exceptions for clean coal processing. That's what is meant by a war on coal.

What she said:

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim (ph)?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.​

 

[Saghost]

There is no such thing as "clean coal" at the moment. Sequestering the CO2 is even more expensive than replacing it with solar/wind, so if the argument is about the cost of renewables, coal still loses.

There certainly is 'clean(er) coal.' Plants like Wabash River are very different from traditional coal fired power plants, with radical reductions in emissions and improvements in efficiency that bring coal pretty much in line with natural gas.

(Gassifier, sulfar extraction, combined cycle turbine rather than just a boiler.)

It's not renewable, and I'm not suggesting we shouldn't replace it with solar and wind and storage when opportunities arise - but it is also nothing like the traditional coal power plants and reduces CO2 per kWh while mostly eliminating other pollutants.

 

[Vitold]

Hillary said she wanted to put coal miners out of business. She didn't qualify it in any way. She didn't have exceptions for clean coal processing. That's what is meant by a war on coal.

There is a cleaner, more expensive way to process coal. However, clean coal is an oxymoron.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

What she said:

<the actual video/>​

So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim (ph)?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.​

How dare you try to refute a meme with your so-called facts!

 

[ggies07]

There is no such thing as "clean coal" at the moment. Sequestering the CO2 is even more expensive than replacing it with solar/wind, so if the argument is about the cost of renewables, coal still loses.

Agreed. Plus this:

World's Largest Carbon-Capture Plant to Open Soon

Oops:

The captured carbon dioxide is pumped 82 miles to the West Ranch oil field in Jackson County, Texas, where drillers inject it into depleted wells, squeezing out the stubborn bits of crude oil that remain after the reservoir is tapped, in a process called enhanced oil recovery (EOR).

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Coal is done and Pence has 0% chance of doing anything other than fading away in a month, so this is all moot. The GOP will get absolutely smoked in the Senate and will be forced into the purge and rebuild that should have taken place in 2010.

As people have noted here plenty of times.....there's a clear as day clean energy conservative platform out there just waiting to be utilized by a political party. I'm actually surprised we're not hearing more anti-fossil rhetoric from our kooky libertarian friends. Nothing more libertarian than decentralizing energy production.

 

[Bheuring]

Vote some one else please Gary Jill please let there be more choices this can't be the best there is

 

[Lloyd]

Not to mention the radioactivity that most are not aware of!!!

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste