"Environmental Activism as Carbon Imperialism: Nightmare for the Poor"

Clean coal is a bunch of bull****. It’s like Trump being a fair trade free trader. Like what?

 

Seriously I can understand natural gas. But coal? Coal fired power plants have around 37% thermal efficiency. Combined cycle gas turbine plants have 62% thermal efficiency. It's a drastic differences hence why I'm content with natural gas being a transition phase until the battery technology makes energy storage from renewables viable enough to power large cities.

But new coal plants? **** no.

 

This article is flawed in both local and American-centric Points of View. Locally, they can look at China as the standard bearer for raping their own land and having its people face the environmental consequences.

While China is an economic powerhouse, they can't even drink their own ground water (boiling it makes it as safe as a priest purifying it with blessings) or freely breathe the open air for more than 3/5s of the year. Even now, the **** China spews out is wrecking air quality standards for LA and the West Coast. So whatever India's governing board is doing is not a decision for one man or writer to make. The poor will be affected regardless of how high it can go by letting it rip with their gases.

As a parable for the US, this is bigger load of (sacred) Bull. One hand (good cop) claims it's "inhumane" to promote cleaner American standards upon the poorer "rising" world. The other hand (bad cop) claims it's "unfair" for the US to be handcuffed by Costly Business Killing Regulation (in the trillions!!!) that promotes capping fossil fuels.

This is a play is as old as Zombie Reagan, repeated by Bush and Trump admins, and only promotes paralysis and division while Fossil Majors profit from our indecision.

Obviously the transfer of cleaner tech is needed if we want developing nations to sidestep their Brown phase of industrialization. China has experimented with both as they've transplanted hundreds of millions into new 5-10 yr old cities. Fossil fuels are definitely cheaper but many among China's aging population are saddled with existential dread over the ticking cancer time bomb from their quick and dirty ascent.

So no. It's not Imperialism. It's not Marxism.

It's forcing people to understand market externalities that the West has long discarded and have only now begun to found deep value.

I wish India's industrialization all the best. They haven't been the cleanest of nations, so the thought of them trying while dealing with a billion+ mulitplier effect is far more commendable than some pig faced Limbaugh type (or their paid local lackies) complaining about Freedom Killing and Regulations that prevent him from buying a bigger yacht.

 

Why are you guys talking about clean coal?

 

Quote from article:

 

The Cornhole Alliance is formed by a bunch of pro-fossil fuel fundamentalists funded by....KOCHHHHHHH!!!!!

I read more articles by the author on their website. Very choda-esque logicalisms.

https://qz.com/888424/a-climate-den...others-supports-trumps-choice-to-run-the-epa/

In the middle of a tense confirmation hearing that cast doubt on Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt’s grasp of environmental health—for example, his lack of understanding that there is no safe amount of lead that can be taken into a child’s body—and highlighted his unwillingness to acknowledge the scientific consensus that human activity is the primary driver of climate change—“I believe it is caused by human activity in some manner. I believe the ability to measure with precision is subject to more debate”—Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming produced a letter from “a list of scientists” that endorsed Pruitt for US Environmental Protection Agency chief and praised him to the highest degree.

The letter, which can be read here, comes from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, an evangelical organization with a tangled web of corporate sponsors, including by foundations reportedly funded by the US oil billionaire Koch brothers.

The Cornwall Alliance believes that American environmentalism is a “native evil,” and “one of the greatest threats to society and the church today.” Its founder, Calvin Beisner, holds a PhD in Scottish History and has called environmentalism “the greatest threat to Western civilization,” comparing it to jihad.

The Cornwall Alliance does not disclose its funding, but it is a project of the James Partnership, which reported that half its income in 2012 came through the Donors Trust, a funding group Mother Jones described as the “dark money ATM” of the conservative right. Among its major contributors? Foundations funded and controlled by the Koch brothers, Mother Jones reported.

The Cornwall Alliance letter introduced in the hearing by Barrasso is indeed signed by some people with scientific and advanced degrees, though in attaching their name to it, they are stating that the scientific consensus on climate change is “exaggerated,” as described in the letter.

The letter praises Pruitt for his role as an evangelical Christian and climate denier:

Some radical environmentalists and religious activists oppose Mr. Pruitt because he does not embrace their exaggerated fears of human-induced global warming—fears that go well beyond the empirical evidence crucial to genuine science—or their antipathy to the development of the abundant, reliable, affordable energy indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies out of poverty and the disease and premature death that invariably accompany it.

The website for the Cornwall Alliance also makes no bones about how it feels on climate change, either: “Was July the “Hottest Month on Record”? Who Cares?” reads one banner on the site.


Another: “Sin, Deception, and the Corruption of Science: A Look at the So-Called Climate Crisis”

​

 

This is one of the most hypocritical insidious articles I have read.

Why not go a step further with this?

"Schools and universal education come with hidden cost. Children workers must remain and local grassroot protests and activism must be suppressed."

"Toilets come with hidden costs. Defacating on the streets must remain and local grassroot protests and activism must be suppressed"

This so called activism is not about replacing your plastic bags and straws , it's not about some global warming but about pollution that costs millions of Indians their LIVES.

They are already one of the most polluted countries in the wolrd but yes. Let's suppress local protests for the good of the pockets of some billionaires.

 

The poor are the most highly affected by environmental pollution and climate change. The poor will always eat **** because that's how our societies are run, addressing poverty and quality of life is inherently an afterthought when the end goal and results of our collective economies are to accumulate as much money as possible into the fewest, richest, and most powerful hands, especially in countries like America that promotes a false image of individualism as an excuse to avoid the horrid socialist and communist public programs aimed at addressing poverty.

I wonder how my great-grandchildren will be fairing in a world dealing with exsorbent pollution and climate change if they are poor.

 

Except for George Soros, of course....that rich crafty liberal Jew, bu-WA-HA-HA.

 

Good thing there aren't any hidden costs from non-renewables. The effects of pollution and climate change are always taken into complete accountment with those energy industries.

 

India can do what they want. Same with China. However the opinions of citizens around the world are changing and there will likely be political and economic consequences.

 

Funded by the Koch's is all I need to read.

 

It seems all other countries bow down to china's will. And really other than US who competes with China? Not the EU. If China and India Decide to pollute like crazy its not going to be good for the rest of the world.

 

I hereby therefore do duly nominate @Os Trigonum, Esq, in the estimable category of Worst ****ing D&D Thread Title of 2021

 

Good post. This is a frequent argument made to argue against measures to address climate change. Besides as noted that it doesn't take into account issues of externalities it is mired in the thinking that the development patterns that Western countries took are the only ways to develop and is not much different than some of the massive development projects that were environmentally damaging and of dubious economic benefit that had been pushed before. Technology has greatly increased efficiencies and also made power generation more diverse and decentralized. The idea that developing countries need to build large centralized power plants running on things like coal is as relevant as that they need to lay down a lot of copper phone lines.

 

Just to add this isn't even just about fighting climate change. Over the long term the economics of building a large coal plant isn't good.

After Hurricane Maria I was having a debate with a relative who was saying that the problem with Puerto Rico was that they needed to have more coal plants to make power. His argument was that they could just stockpile coal and burn it as needed. First off Puerto Rico has no coal so any coal brought there has to also be imported just like oil. Second coal cannot just be piled up outside and then burned. Coal has to be dried and ground to a fine powder if it is going be used for power generation. Storing a lot of coal in a tropical climate that is storm prone is going to be a big cost just as storing large quantities of oil is a big cost. On top of that you can't just build a bunch of small coal plants that can provide power locally but have to have transmission wires and other infrastructure to get the power from the coal plant to neighborhoods.

One thing that Puerto Rico does have is a lot of sunshine and wind. I did a quick analysis of small commercially available generators such as Honda gasoline driven generators versus small commercially available solar generators. Both are portable and can power homes or even a small village. While the upfront costs of the solar generator was much higher than the gasoline generator factoring in the cost of gasoline within about a month the savings from the solar generator was paid off. IN the meantime you would always need gasoline for the gasoline generator.

Over the long run not only is pollution less from relying upon a renewable energy source but economically ends saving money and is not reliant upon fuel that would need to be imported and processed for use. Also is not centralized so if infrastructure like transmission lines, pipelines or roads go down can still generate power.

 

Related.