4 ms·

I agree about the global warming. My worry is that continued political pandering and posturing (at least in the US) will result in an effective "stalemate" tha

by jamroom 15y ago

I agree about the global warming. My worry is that continued political pandering and posturing (at least in the US) will result in an effective "stalemate" that prevents anything from being done about it until it becomes undeniable to those who refuse to believe it is happening. As a father of 3 I really want to believe that their future is brighter than ever, but in my gut I worry that we're racing towards a cliff with no brakes...

guelo 15y ago
Obama hasn't mentioned global warming since his 2008 campaign.
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
  I don't know if this is true, but his administration is certainly working on the issue [1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/new-rules-for-new-power-plants.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/new-rules-for-new-...
  - simplefish 15y ago
    Um. I don't mean to be nit-picky, but that proposal isn't going to do anything. Let me explain. The proposal is to prevent new power plants from producing more than 1,000 pounds of CO2e per MW of power produced. Coal is around 1,600 pounds/MW, natural gas is around 800 pounds/MW. So what happens? 1) We build new natural gas plants, and burn all available natural gas at ~800 pounds/MW. Given newly discovered shale gas reserves, this is going to be a fuckton of gas, and hence, CO2e. (Note: This would have happened without the new regulation.) 2) We keep all the old ones around, and burn all available coal at 1,600 pounds/MW. Given known US coal reserves, this is going to be a fuckton of coal, and hence, CO2e. (Note: This would have happened without the new regulation.) All the new regulation does is ensure that all available coal is burned in old plants, instead of being burned in a mix of new and old plants. Since coal produces the same 1,600 pounds/MW either way, this is completely pointless. At best we're delaying the rate that we burn coal (with fewer coal plants, it'll take longer to chew through the coal), but the climate, sorry, couldn't care less about that. Either that carbon is in the ground or in the air, and if it's in the air, it's causing damage. If you want to have some impact on the climate, you need to figure out a path that leaves fossil fuels in the ground unburned. Tinkering with the rules about new power plants doesn't even help.
    - jamesaguilar 15y ago
      I'm not informed enough to say whether this will do anything. I only used it to illustrate that the administration is putting effort into the problem.

by jamroom 15y ago

guelo 15y ago

Obama hasn't mentioned global warming since his 2008 campaign.

jamesaguilar 15y ago
I don't know if this is true, but his administration is certainly working on the issue [1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/new-rules-for-new-power-plants.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/new-rules-for-new-...
- simplefish 15y ago
  Um. I don't mean to be nit-picky, but that proposal isn't going to do anything. Let me explain. The proposal is to prevent new power plants from producing more than 1,000 pounds of CO2e per MW of power produced. Coal is around 1,600 pounds/MW, natural gas is around 800 pounds/MW. So what happens? 1) We build new natural gas plants, and burn all available natural gas at ~800 pounds/MW. Given newly discovered shale gas reserves, this is going to be a fuckton of gas, and hence, CO2e. (Note: This would have happened without the new regulation.) 2) We keep all the old ones around, and burn all available coal at 1,600 pounds/MW. Given known US coal reserves, this is going to be a fuckton of coal, and hence, CO2e. (Note: This would have happened without the new regulation.) All the new regulation does is ensure that all available coal is burned in old plants, instead of being burned in a mix of new and old plants. Since coal produces the same 1,600 pounds/MW either way, this is completely pointless. At best we're delaying the rate that we burn coal (with fewer coal plants, it'll take longer to chew through the coal), but the climate, sorry, couldn't care less about that. Either that carbon is in the ground or in the air, and if it's in the air, it's causing damage. If you want to have some impact on the climate, you need to figure out a path that leaves fossil fuels in the ground unburned. Tinkering with the rules about new power plants doesn't even help.
  - jamesaguilar 15y ago
    I'm not informed enough to say whether this will do anything. I only used it to illustrate that the administration is putting effort into the problem.