6 ms·

I hate to be blunt on this topic, but it's necessary to make my point. Montana needs to adapt to the 21st century. Their mining towns are barely 100 years old,

by 1970-01-01 3y ago

I hate to be blunt on this topic, but it's necessary to make my point. Montana needs to adapt to the 21st century. Their mining towns are barely 100 years old, and have little history. As coal jobs gradually fade away, the community can either adapt to renewables and tech, or die out. We simply cannot sustain the burning of more coal for our children's future. Yes, please think of the children on this, and maybe only this instance.

thrwayaistartup 3y ago
Yes, that's the problem with US political-economics right now. You've (failed to?) identify the "political" part of "political-economics".
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  I don't see a null decision as political, but I think you get the point. It's OK for the tows to die, as the alternative is worse for literally everyone.
asynchronous 3y ago
I don’t think Montana’s stance on coal jobs is ruining your future children’s world in any directly measurable way - but please, keep speculating on other state’s internal politics.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Future archeologists will wonder at the evidence they see in tree rings and ice cores: "These morons burned coal when they had renewable energy sources?"
  - asynchronous 3y ago
    I love how no one actually addressed my comment which was we have a literal S-tier energy source pretty much anywhere we want it, at the expense of a small amount of radioactive waste, and yet we stick our heads in the sand and let the solar panel door-to-door salesmen convince us not to use it. You’re joking if you don’t include nuclear energy into the green new deal.
- oblio 3y ago
  Wouldn't Montana have disproportionate influence on US politics, due to the way the US Senate works? As well as presidential elections.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Yes, but it isn't that extreme. They only have 2 senators out of 100.
    - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
      Two senators, each of which represent about 550,000 people, compared to (on the other end of the scale) California's two senators, who each represent about 20,000,000 people. That's a 36x imbalance, which is pretty disproportionate. Every person from a state with lower population than the median is overrepresented in the Senate, every state with higher than median is underrepresented.
      - jandrewrogers 3y ago
        It is a good thing that the Senate represents the States then, and not the people. There wouldn't be much point in having two houses of legislature if they both represented the same entities.
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  So this is the exact opposite view of the Montana supreme court. The GP post. The children won the lawsuit.. Coal is absolutely and directly ruining their future. This is no longer an argument.
  - the-printer 3y ago
    Appealing to the decision of Montana’s Supreme Court does little to refute whether coal production in their state produces an imminent danger to your children. If you are a Montanan then excuse me.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Ah yes, CO2 famously stops at state borders, it's very nice like that.
      - the-printer 3y ago
        This isn't about the facetious point that you're trying to make. It's about whether one state's specific judicial decision at all concerns what takes place beyond its borders.
    - 1970-01-01 3y ago
      I don't understand this refute at all. Coal cannot stay confined to Montana's borders in any real sense. The coal is mined to export, and it is then burned in coal plants, which are very bad.
      - the-printer 3y ago
        asynchronous's comment was about whether coal jobs in Montana yield any measurable risks to your children, wherever you are. Referring to Montana's judicial decisions as if they are edicts that span beyond its borders is a weak counterargument.
        1970-01-01 3y ago
ryandrake 3y ago
Yea, you're getting at a very unpopular reality that, if spoken would sink anyone's political career, so politicians will never say it: Many of these little towns probably just shouldn't exist. Nobody wants to admit that a community has failed. Go for a stroll through the Rust Belt or any other economically devastated area. People still live there, despite the misery! You drive through, and it's just old houses and the occasional Walmart vampirically sucking out what little wealth remains. There's no real industry anywhere. You wonder what do all these people living here do for a living? Instead of trying to prop up obsolete mining communities with hopeless economic support, it would be better to 1. focus on retraining/re-skilling and 2. send fully-subsidized moving vans to help people physically get away from the misery.
- developerDan 3y ago
  > You wonder what do all these people living here do for a living? Most of those people either a) commute a long distance to scrape by and lose a significant chunk of their earnings on gas because they own a 30 year old hoopty of a truck or b) live off of welfare. That’s how a lot of these small communities continue to exist. People can’t afford to move out and obviously don’t want to commit suicide (nor should they). Having come from a small town, I don’t think these people will move even if it’s paid for. Many rural folk have these warped views of more populace towns and cities because of the warped political rhetoric and constant bombardment of negative news coverage. It’s an extremely difficult problem that I don’t personally believe has a solution because you have to have willing participation (some will, but most won’t).
  - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
    > People can’t afford to move out Why not? There are good-paying jobs in financially functional towns and cities reasonably close by. The people who grow up in those towns can afford to live there. Sure, they're not going to be able to upsize without a mortgage by selling the 1400 sqft 100-year-old house on a lot in a decaying ghost town. But most people don't start out with an already-paid-for home.
    - 3y ago
fasthands9 3y ago
>As coal jobs gradually fade away, the community can either adapt to renewables and tech, or die out. This is very easy to say if you don't live there. There is no reason to think that a town that exists because it has a coal deposit is going to be a logical place for any business to put a clean energy plant of some sort. If you are going to be for phasing out coal very quickly then you have to be willing to bite the bullet and accept that certain regions of the country are just going to be completely effed over.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  > accept that certain regions of the country are just going to be completely effed over. Pieces of countryside do not suffer. People are potentially more mobile than that.
  - fasthands9 3y ago
    Sure. It's fine to tell people to move. I have moved a lot of times in my life so I'm not personally offended. But most people do not move and do not want to move and I think people on here underestimate the political difficulty of telling people they will have to sell their house for close to nothing and move to life an adequate life.
    - galangalalgol 3y ago
      People in those towns have family connections going back centuries in some cases. They wouldn't even take a buyout, because they know everyone and it would be like losing family. If you haven't exper it, it doesn't seem like a valuable thing to worry about losing, but it is the world they know, and we shouldn't be surprised if many of them fight to keep it, potentially in a literal fashion. I don't know what the answer is, but buyouts and financed moves will be seen as authoritarian, while ending subsidies and just letting places fail might be seen as a faceless market force, even if itbis worse for those involved
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rcme 3y ago
I’ll be blunt. Montana has self-determinism, which is one of the key principals of our form of government. They don’t need to do anything they don’t want to do. Life is about compromise. If you want something from them, you need to be willing to give something up.
c_o_n_v_e_x 3y ago
>Montana needs to adapt to the 21st century https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-needs-more-diverse-solar-panel-supply-chains-to-ensure-a-secure-transition-to-net-zero-emissions https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-needs-more-diverse-solar-... "China’s share in all the key manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80% today, according to the report, and for key elements including polysilicon and wafers, this is set to rise to more than 95% in the coming years, based on current manufacturing capacity under construction." Given the current state of US-Chinese politics, coal is seeming like a very 21st century solution for the US.

thrwayaistartup 3y ago

Yes, that's the problem with US political-economics right now. You've (failed to?) identify the "political" part of "political-economics".

1970-01-01 3y ago
I don't see a null decision as political, but I think you get the point. It's OK for the tows to die, as the alternative is worse for literally everyone.

asynchronous 3y ago

I don’t think Montana’s stance on coal jobs is ruining your future children’s world in any directly measurable way - but please, keep speculating on other state’s internal politics.

Zigurd 3y ago
Future archeologists will wonder at the evidence they see in tree rings and ice cores: "These morons burned coal when they had renewable energy sources?"
- asynchronous 3y ago
  I love how no one actually addressed my comment which was we have a literal S-tier energy source pretty much anywhere we want it, at the expense of a small amount of radioactive waste, and yet we stick our heads in the sand and let the solar panel door-to-door salesmen convince us not to use it. You’re joking if you don’t include nuclear energy into the green new deal.
oblio 3y ago
Wouldn't Montana have disproportionate influence on US politics, due to the way the US Senate works? As well as presidential elections.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Yes, but it isn't that extreme. They only have 2 senators out of 100.
  - LeifCarrotson 3y ago
    Two senators, each of which represent about 550,000 people, compared to (on the other end of the scale) California's two senators, who each represent about 20,000,000 people. That's a 36x imbalance, which is pretty disproportionate. Every person from a state with lower population than the median is overrepresented in the Senate, every state with higher than median is underrepresented.
    - jandrewrogers 3y ago
      It is a good thing that the Senate represents the States then, and not the people. There wouldn't be much point in having two houses of legislature if they both represented the same entities.
1970-01-01 3y ago
So this is the exact opposite view of the Montana supreme court. The GP post. The children won the lawsuit.. Coal is absolutely and directly ruining their future. This is no longer an argument.
- the-printer 3y ago
  Appealing to the decision of Montana’s Supreme Court does little to refute whether coal production in their state produces an imminent danger to your children. If you are a Montanan then excuse me.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Ah yes, CO2 famously stops at state borders, it's very nice like that.
    - the-printer 3y ago
      This isn't about the facetious point that you're trying to make. It's about whether one state's specific judicial decision at all concerns what takes place beyond its borders.
  - 1970-01-01 3y ago
    I don't understand this refute at all. Coal cannot stay confined to Montana's borders in any real sense. The coal is mined to export, and it is then burned in coal plants, which are very bad.
    - the-printer 3y ago
      asynchronous's comment was about whether coal jobs in Montana yield any measurable risks to your children, wherever you are. Referring to Montana's judicial decisions as if they are edicts that span beyond its borders is a weak counterargument.
      - 1970-01-01 3y ago

ryandrake 3y ago

Yea, you're getting at a very unpopular reality that, if spoken would sink anyone's political career, so politicians will never say it: Many of these little towns probably just shouldn't exist. Nobody wants to admit that a community has failed. Go for a stroll through the Rust Belt or any other economically devastated area. People still live there, despite the misery! You drive through, and it's just old houses and the occasional Walmart vampirically sucking out what little wealth remains. There's no real industry anywhere. You wonder what do all these people living here do for a living? Instead of trying to prop up obsolete mining communities with hopeless economic support, it would be better to 1. focus on retraining/re-skilling and 2. send fully-subsidized moving vans to help people physically get away from the misery.

developerDan 3y ago
> You wonder what do all these people living here do for a living? Most of those people either a) commute a long distance to scrape by and lose a significant chunk of their earnings on gas because they own a 30 year old hoopty of a truck or b) live off of welfare. That’s how a lot of these small communities continue to exist. People can’t afford to move out and obviously don’t want to commit suicide (nor should they). Having come from a small town, I don’t think these people will move even if it’s paid for. Many rural folk have these warped views of more populace towns and cities because of the warped political rhetoric and constant bombardment of negative news coverage. It’s an extremely difficult problem that I don’t personally believe has a solution because you have to have willing participation (some will, but most won’t).
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
  > People can’t afford to move out Why not? There are good-paying jobs in financially functional towns and cities reasonably close by. The people who grow up in those towns can afford to live there. Sure, they're not going to be able to upsize without a mortgage by selling the 1400 sqft 100-year-old house on a lot in a decaying ghost town. But most people don't start out with an already-paid-for home.
  - 3y ago

fasthands9 3y ago

>As coal jobs gradually fade away, the community can either adapt to renewables and tech, or die out. This is very easy to say if you don't live there. There is no reason to think that a town that exists because it has a coal deposit is going to be a logical place for any business to put a clean energy plant of some sort. If you are going to be for phasing out coal very quickly then you have to be willing to bite the bullet and accept that certain regions of the country are just going to be completely effed over.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> accept that certain regions of the country are just going to be completely effed over. Pieces of countryside do not suffer. People are potentially more mobile than that.
- fasthands9 3y ago
  Sure. It's fine to tell people to move. I have moved a lot of times in my life so I'm not personally offended. But most people do not move and do not want to move and I think people on here underestimate the political difficulty of telling people they will have to sell their house for close to nothing and move to life an adequate life.
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    People in those towns have family connections going back centuries in some cases. They wouldn't even take a buyout, because they know everyone and it would be like losing family. If you haven't exper it, it doesn't seem like a valuable thing to worry about losing, but it is the world they know, and we shouldn't be surprised if many of them fight to keep it, potentially in a literal fashion. I don't know what the answer is, but buyouts and financed moves will be seen as authoritarian, while ending subsidies and just letting places fail might be seen as a faceless market force, even if itbis worse for those involved
    - bobthepanda 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rcme 3y ago

I’ll be blunt. Montana has self-determinism, which is one of the key principals of our form of government. They don’t need to do anything they don’t want to do. Life is about compromise. If you want something from them, you need to be willing to give something up.

c_o_n_v_e_x 3y ago

>Montana needs to adapt to the 21st century https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-needs-more-diverse-solar-panel-supply-chains-to-ensure-a-secure-transition-to-net-zero-emissions https://www.iea.org/news/the-world-needs-more-diverse-solar-... "China’s share in all the key manufacturing stages of solar panels exceeds 80% today, according to the report, and for key elements including polysilicon and wafers, this is set to rise to more than 95% in the coming years, based on current manufacturing capacity under construction." Given the current state of US-Chinese politics, coal is seeming like a very 21st century solution for the US.