- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How is this going to help bring back jobs in the coal industry?
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:01 pm to Adam Banks
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:01 pm to Adam Banks
His tears are why muslims are tossing gays off buildings. They know it will crush their oil.
0
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:01 pm to Toddy
Shep, there have been plenty of threads on here (use the search function) discussing whether coal would truly come back to any great extent or not. Jury is out on that issue and I would say it is more unlikely than likely.
Coal jobs were not specifically cited or tied directly to termination of our participation in this agreement. I think you already know that, but are ignoring it. Termination of American interests in the accord has more to do with the terms and conditions placed on America in relation to other manufacturing countries and polluters like China and India.
According to UN Models, perfect execution on the accords will reduce the global temperature by .3 degrees and cost well over $100T by the end of the century for all nations. Hardly seems worth the cost and certainly not one any private business would undertake given the return.
It leaves me to wonder then why the upset here in American and across the globe. The answer lies in wealth transfer and further job exportation from the US to other members of the vaunted "global community" that the left loves to trumpet.
Coal jobs were not specifically cited or tied directly to termination of our participation in this agreement. I think you already know that, but are ignoring it. Termination of American interests in the accord has more to do with the terms and conditions placed on America in relation to other manufacturing countries and polluters like China and India.
According to UN Models, perfect execution on the accords will reduce the global temperature by .3 degrees and cost well over $100T by the end of the century for all nations. Hardly seems worth the cost and certainly not one any private business would undertake given the return.
It leaves me to wonder then why the upset here in American and across the globe. The answer lies in wealth transfer and further job exportation from the US to other members of the vaunted "global community" that the left loves to trumpet.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:03 pm to weptiger
quote:
According to UN Models, perfect execution on the accords will reduce the global temperature by .3 degrees and cost well over $100T by the end of the century for all nations. Hardly seems worth the cost and certainly not one any private business would undertake given the return.
.3 degrees? Please provide a link for this. Thanks
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:09 pm to Toddy
quote:
As I figured, Trumpkins have no response to this.
...said three minutes after the original post and after one reply
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:10 pm to Toddy
quote:
I thought Trumpkins didn't believe they were melting. Didn't their leader tell them climate change was a hoax?
They were supposed to be gone by now.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:15 pm to Toddy
quote:
.3 degrees? Please provide a link for this. Thanks
Attached is a link to where I got it. Admittedly, it is a Prager U (hey, we all argue our links), but this one isn't bad. The number I provided is somewhere around the 2:55 mark of the 5 minute video. The narrator of the segment does contrast the .3 number against a 1.6 number presented by more optimistic projections from other groups that make assumptions such as there being additional climate change measures implemented by the end of the century, etc.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:18 pm to Toddy
Oh Lord, even coal companies were asking Trump to not pull out. 
Any Trumpkins want to attempt to spin this?
quote:
Some big American coal companies have advised President Donald Trump's administration to break his promise to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement – arguing that the accord could provide their best forum for protecting their global interests.
Remaining in the global deal to combat climate change will give U.S. negotiators a chance to advocate for coal in the future of the global energy mix, coal companies like Cloud Peak Energy Inc and Peabody Energy Corp told White House officials over the past few weeks, according to executives and a U.S. official familiar with the discussions.
"The future is foreign markets, so the last thing you want to do if you are a coal company is to give up a U.S. seat in the international climate discussions and let the Europeans control the agenda," said the official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.
"They can’t afford for the most powerful advocate for fossil fuels to be away from the table," the official said.
Cloud Peak and Peabody officials confirmed the discussions.
Any Trumpkins want to attempt to spin this?
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:19 pm to Toddy
No idea. I do know pissing away more money out of country isn't the answer though.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:24 pm to Toddy
quote:
.3 degrees? Please provide a link for this. Thanks
quote:
In truth, Trump’s action just exposes what we have known for a while: The Paris Agreement is not the way to solve global warming.
Even if every nation fulfilled everything promised — including Obama’s undertakings — it would get us nowhere near achieving the treaty’s much-hyped, unrealistic promise to keep temperature rises under 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The U.N. itself has estimated that even if every country lived up to every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030, emissions would be cut by just one-hundredth of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 2 C.
My analysis, similar to findings by scientists at MIT, shows that even if these promises were extended for 70 more years, then they'd only reduce temperature rises about 0.3 degrees F by 2100.
USA Today
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:24 pm to Toddy
I'll spin it.
That response says nothing about the validity of the agreement or efficacy of any regulations.
Simply, it mentions only keeping a seat at the table -- regardless of cost.
That is the kind of agreement that should always be avoided. (One that has no meaning, but done for PR reasons)
That response says nothing about the validity of the agreement or efficacy of any regulations.
Simply, it mentions only keeping a seat at the table -- regardless of cost.
That is the kind of agreement that should always be avoided. (One that has no meaning, but done for PR reasons)
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:27 pm to Toddy
You idiot. The agreement would still allow countries like China and other nations to open and develop their own coal mines. How is that going to help reduce emissions? Coal companies would have shifted their production to foreign countries. While our workers would have been left high and dry.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 8:28 pm
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:29 pm to Toddy
Fedgov doesn't have to do anything but take its boot off the neck of the industry and leave them enough breathing room to figure out something on their own.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:32 pm to Toddy
Ya know, I'll be honest with ya.
I honestly didn't give a shite one way or another about the Paris Accord.
After seeing the left melt again, I'm sure it was a good move and I now support it.
I honestly didn't give a shite one way or another about the Paris Accord.
After seeing the left melt again, I'm sure it was a good move and I now support it.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:33 pm to Toddy
Don't you have a pant suit to sew!?
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:40 pm to Toddy
quote:
Oh Lord, even coal companies were asking Trump to not pull out.
quote:
Some big American coal companies
Easy. Big companies can far more easily deal with regulatory costs and administrative burden than smaller companies. Smaller companies go out of business less competition. This is being seen in healthcare and medicine with large essentially conglomerates buying up solo practitioners.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:41 pm to Toddy
It has a better chance to do so then the Paris Accord did. Killing off coal jobs as we have been doing, without having other jobs that the former coal miners can get or have the skill set to do, certainly doesn't help us.
This post was edited on 6/1/17 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:42 pm to Toddy
Pulling out of the rip-off agreement will not decrease the chances for the demand for coal production to increase and most likely will only help. But the primary reason is due to other economic factors as explained in this article:
Look for Coal and Mining Jobs to Come Back This Year
Look for Coal and Mining Jobs to Come Back This Year
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:43 pm to Porky
Seriously, how many are going to come back and for how long? Three more coal plants shut down today alone.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:45 pm to Toddy
quote:
As I figured, Trumpkins have no response to this.
Posted on 6/1/17 at 8:47 pm to Toddy
quote:
Toddy
Suck my American made SUV exhaust pipe, climate bitch.
MAGA
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News