I sympathize but here's a dilemma. China and other nations have to use
coal to give their citizens the standard of living they have come to expect and
demand, because solar is not developing fast enough. But coal is destroying
man's habitation. What can we do? The only solution is a global
governance based on some type of socialism. If we maintain narrow national
interest we are doomed. Let's face up to this situation.
The professor should have attended and listened better in chemistry class and
then he would know that is argument against CO2 is flawed. Nuclear subs and the
space station exist with much, much stronger CO2 in the atmosphere with no harm
and much more is needed in our air to be anywhere near as strong as has been in
the past.Come to a Emery County and experience our air, Utah coal is much
cleaner than eastern coal and the power companies have spent millions on their
exhaust systems.It is okay to be concerned but be properly concerned about
the right things.
That’s like telling our kids to “do the right” but then
letting them “do the wrong.” ============ I
was thinking more like telling your kids not to smoke or drink or do drugs,
because it will kill them...and them telling them if they are
already addicted -- not to quit, or if you do quite, do so very, very
slowly --- because withdrawal can be too painful.
@ high school fanIs that why emery county leads our state in
stillborns and babies born with birth defects?
high school fan -You are missing the point.Your nuclear
sub and space stations example do NOT address the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse
gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.Whether we can breathe in a
greater concentration is immaterial.
high school fan -"Come to a Emery County and experience our
air" . . . which is not nearly as affected as much as Colorado,Kansas, and
Missouri is from the coal dust Emery County produces.The wind blows
from the west, and those high stacks allow the emissions from emery county to
float hundreds of miles away to the east before they settle.
Here's another reality: With the new fighting in Iraq, oil prices are now
on the rise again. Whether that oil is from Utah or the Mideast, global
political turmoil impacts our fossil fuel prices. Price of wind at
Spanish Fork or Milford? The same. Come wars in the Mideast, come nuclear
disaster in Japan, come drought and wildfires in Utah -- oil prices skyrocket,
but wind, solar, and geothermal prices stay the same. Why? No fuel
costs. Wind, sun, and hot gases underground aren't commodities that can be
bought or sold; they can't be controlled by political powers (e.g., Putin,
OPEC). With electric vehicles now becoming increasingly available, clean
electricity is becoming a viable alternative to oil. If Utah were
thinking about its future, it would be seizing its solar and geothermal
resources. Instead, we're digging deeper and deeper to get more 19th
century coal that will be taxed when burned, and our utility monopolies will
simply pass those costs onto us, while our neighboring states (e.g., Colorado
and Nevada) move forward into the 21st century with clean, price-stable
hsfan,I'm pretty certain that it's you who would benefit
from the science lesson here. The habitability of a submarine at >400 ppm
of CO2 in the air is wholly irrelevant to the problem of global warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Human combustion of fossil fuels is loading up
the atmosphere with CO2. As the CO2 "blanket" gets thicker, temperatures
globally rise, and that changes the environment about 1,000 faster than any
natural climate change - way too fast for species to naturally adapt. This has
zero to do with life aboard the Space Station.While moving away from
fossil fuels will help a lot with conventional air pollution, that's not
the issue here. It's the rapid global climate change caused by humans
pumping so much CO2 into the air that's beyond the normal carbon cycles of
nature that's being discussed.
RE: high school fan "Utah coal is much cleaner than eastern coal ."
Yes, but only as to sulfur content. In every other respect Utah coal is just as
Nuclear power -- end of discussion.
I'm beginning to wonder if Right-Wing deniers WANT to remain forever depend
on oil, as an excuse to keep starting wars, invading others, and then
NEVER thinking they need to raise taxes to pay for any of it...As
opposed to those of us who want to be energy independent, clean,
renewable, and leaving behind a viable future for our posterity...
"Nuclear power -- end of discussion.""Fukashima --
LDS liberal. There is no viable, clean, renewable energy yet! Windmills kill
birds and are very expensive. Solar is promising but also expensive and the sun
doesn't shine at night. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't change it.
In the meantime, people have to eat and like it or not we ARE dependent on
fossil fuels, if for nothing else our food production! Left wingers would
deprive poor people of food?
My science class taught me that CO2 was necessary for the existence of life,
without it we all die, all humans, all animals, all plants. CO2 is right there
right after oxygen and our current climate does not have as much CO2 as we have
had at times in our past.If you insist something has to change, fine but
find a better culprit than this gas that us necessary for our very existence.As for Maverick, you have the wrong county. Go north a little.
@Thid BarkerVictor, IDLDS liberal. There is no viable, clean,
renewable energy yet! Windmills kill birds and are very expensive. Solar is
promising but also expensive and the sun doesn't shine at night. ======== No viable, clean, renewable energy yet?Where have
you been?Hydro-electric has been viable for over 120 years!Also, please explain why we need to continue to burn fossil fuels when
it's windy and in broad daylight?BTW -- food production is
available only because of the energy from the sun.Therefore -- 100% solar.
"My science class taught me that CO2 was necessary for the existence of
life,"Very true...... but not at just any level. Most elements
are necessary to sustain life, even those that can kill is when exposed to in
improper levels. It is the balance that matters. And with CO2, while at
extreme levels does impair cognitive processing - we are not talking about those
because were not close to those levels. It is CO2s property of ceiling in heat
that is being debated... not the absorption of CO2.Two very
different discussions and should not be confused. Our plant supports life
because of the protective nature of our atmosphere. It keeps this planet at
temperatures that sustain life... and changes in that protective boundary impact
weather patterns and temperature here on the ground. Mans contribution to that
change is what is being wrestled over.
Aleternative energy sources exist and are ample enough to get rid of coal.
There have always been deniers in human history (witch burners, leeching, flat
earth believers, climate change, etc.) and those that cling to coal and dirty
fossil fuels are just more of them. Educate yourself, unless your afraid of
becoming a liberal.
LDS liberal. You know nothing about agriculture. Call me when you see a solar
powered tractor tilling the soil, planting or harvesting the crops we rely on.
Call me when you see wind powered irrigation systems irrigating the crops. Call
me when you see a solar powered truck transporting the crop to the solar powered
processing plants or the food to your grocery store! About
hydro-electric power, rabid environmentalist like you are threatening to breech
dams and stop hydro power! Wake up and think for a change! You have NO
@high school fanHuntington, UTMy science class taught me that CO2
was necessary for the existence of life, without it we all die, all humans, all
animals, all plants. CO2 is right there right after oxygen and our current
climate does not have as much CO2 as we have had at times in our past.====== Then , You must have slept, missed or ignored the
lesson about CO2 being the greehouse gas responsible for the lifeless
temperatures on our next door neighbor and sister planet Venus...Chopping down Forests and trees, asphalting grass and trees, and burning even
more fossil fuels is a recipe for disaster.
Open minded; High temps on Venus are because it is closer to the sun than the
Earth, not because of C02. Go back to school!
@Thid BarkerVictor, IDLDS liberal. You know nothing about
agriculture. Call me when you see a solar powered tractor tilling the soil,
planting or harvesting the crops we rely on. [I may not be a farmer,
but biologically Photosynthesis IS entirely solar related.]------------------- @Thid BarkerVictor, IDOpen minded;
High temps on Venus are because it is closer to the sun than the Earth, not
because of C02. Go back to school!10:00 a.m. June 16, 2014[Venus is closer, but the cloud cover of planet reflects most of the light
back into space. If not for the greehouse gases, and their effect -- even being
closer to the sun, the surface temperature of Venus would only be -60 below
zero.]Science grade F-So, Who needs to go back to
@Thid Barker"Windmills kill birds and are very expensive."Kansas is having so much success with wind power that even the Koch
brothers (headquartered in the state) have failed in their attempts to
strengthen their position relative to wind. "High temps on Venus
are because it is closer to the sun than the Earth, not because of C02."Mercury is closer to the sun but much cooler than Venus. So you're
both only partially right (yes, Venus is closer than Earth, and yes CO2 is a
greenhouse gas) but the main difference that makes Venus that egregiously hot
relative to Mercury is the density of its' atmosphere.
To "LDS Liberal" yes, lets dam up every river. That will kill every
spawning species of fish out there. We can't do that either.What Right-Wing deniers are there? Everybody I hear on the right says that
the climate is changing, just as it has for millions of years. Just as it will
for millions more to come. The only people that want to deny that the climate
changes are the alarmists that demand that the climate remain constant.You should also realize that on Venus the atmosphere is nearly 100% CO2, and
on earth the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. See "Global Warming on
Venus in Perspective" at the San Jose State University.To
"FT" the problem is that the liberals and their allies also want to stop
the viable alternatives. Just look at the decades that it takes to get a
nuclear plant approved to start construction.To "Frozen
Fractals" you do realize that wind power is only viable in some areas
because of direct government subsidies, and the high cost of energy in those
RE: "The Governor should let coal go"...And what about the
families living and working in Carbon County, and Emery County? Should he just
let them go too?The coal industry has a huge economic impact in
Utah, especially in these counties. Should the Governor just say he
doesn't care about these Utahns, and he doesn't care what happens to
the families, companies, jobs, and small communities, if their jobs are coal
related? He should just let these communities fold, and put the
people on welfare if they can't transition to clean office jobs and move to
SLC (where their homes, cars and their daily commute contribute to our air
pollution)?=====Coal-haters want you to believe that
Salt Lake County air inversions and air pollution are from burning coal for
electricity. But the truth is... there are no coal burning power plants in
this valley. They are not the cause of our air pollution ... your car and your
job is (not theirs).Coal power plants in Delta and Huntington,
don't cause air pollution in SLC. That's generated here (not in
Carbon or Emery).
If you think coal burning power plants are the source of pollution in the SL
Valley... think again.There are no coal burning plants in this
valley. And the coal burning plants in rural Utah do not contribute to SLC air
pollution (much). They are separated from us by mountain ranges (not the same
valley). The prevailing winds are the other direction (so it would have to go
around the world before it got back to us in SLC).And the emissions
from these power plants are scrubbed WAY more than what comes out of each and
every tailpipe in the valley.Even with catalytic converters... our
cars emit a LOT more harmful stuff (Hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen
oxides, etc). What comes from the highly regulated and scrubbed coal burning
power plant... Steam and C02... are naturally occurring and are REQUIRED for
life on this planet. What comes from your tailpipe (Hydrocarbons, Carbon
monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, etc) is what's messing up our air... not what
comes out of a very efficiently scrubbed power plant in Delta or Huntington.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTEven with catalytic converters...
our cars emit a LOT more harmful stuff (Hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen
oxides, etc).======== But, a Toyota Corolla emits
1/5th as much as a SUV or truck, going to and fro the same places - doing
the same work.A Toyota Prius emits 1/100th.That's
the problem with FREEDOM.Those who abuse it, end up loosing it for
the rest of us.
To "airnaut" now you are being crazy. A Toyota Corolla cannot haul my
800 lb trailer filled with 2000 lbs of rocks. Just like that same Corolla
cannot haul a family with 4 kids. What is better for the environment, a family
driving 2 vehicles that get 30 mpg or one Toyota Sienna that gets 21 mpg?Now, for the people that do have trucks and occasionally use them for
hauling large things. Would you rather they buy an additional car for
commuting? You do realize that buying an additional car is more harmful to the
environment than simply driving the larger truck.The problem
isn't those that abuse freedom. The problem is that there are too many
people like you who are willing to give up freedom for a sense (not actual)
There was one incorrect statement a bunch of comments back that stood out. The
reason CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not because it somehow traps or seals in heat.
What it does is absorb long wave radiation trying to escape from the ground to
space, and then re-radiates it in random directions. This slows the escape of
heat from the earth. More CO2, for example, means higher minimum temperatures at
night because the heat is slowed in its escape. Water vapor is a far more potent
and important greenhouse gas. That's why deserts cool off so fast at night
- low humidity.There have been some sensible comments about how
energy choices are about assessing various sources and evaluating the
trade-offs. There is no perfect energy source. Solar and wind are very
expensive, and work by extracting energy from one place and transporting it to
another. How does that affect the environment, particularly when we're
knocking down the wind in the process? And both are literally murder on birds.
And both require conventional backup (oops, just doubled the cost), unless
you're willing to do without electricity when you most need it. My choice