Clinton gets question from West Virginia coal worker

[Mycroft]

How about a slower transition towards renewable energy while we try and figure out what renewable energies works or not. Implementing laws to shut down coal is totally ignorant without a readily usable energy to replace it that doesn't break the wallet of working Americans. Your asshole president never thought about that before he acted, and he has wasted many millions of taxpayer dollars on many now bankrupt green energy schemes. Meanwhile......many families are losing their homes because of your jack wad president.

That's not how the liberals operate. They'd rather make current cheap energy so expensive that people will think the leftists are doing them a favor when they dangle alternative energy in front of them...even though the people end up paying more for their energy.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are all for alternative energy being used...if it can compete with current energy (without all the artificial and cost-raising regulations).

 

[Mycroft]

The deal here is: There has to be enough pressure put on families like this, that they adapt to changing society due to economic realities - *without* knocking them sideways out of the box. And they need valid avenues of transition.

But if we give-in as a society to every individual's reluctance to change with the times, we'd never move ahead as a society! We'd be back in the dark ages! Otherwise, to economically continue in ways that don't work, we're just providing another form of welfare - and we have more than enough welfare in this country!

As a father, I see it as this guy's responsibility to be smart, think, and plan ahead to accomplish what's in the best interest of his family. In both my grandfathers' case, it involved leaving war-torn Europe for America! In my father's case, it was working like a dog (7A-11P 6 days!) to finance and assist my mother in starting her own business so they could be self-reliant and independent, allowing them to own a house & educate their children. And in my case, it was much more humble: I moved my family out of my badly failing neighborhood deep in the city, into the best suburb I could attain - giving my wife & kids a quiet peaceful safe life, with excellent education and quality of life. This is as men, what we do. This is the American story.

So this guy's crying falls on deaf ears, with me. We need to give him some transitional help obviously, but after that the rest is up to him. If the men in my family could successfully flee war and poverty, I'm sure in a country as easy and great as America this guy should be able to figure it out.

With this issue, the problem isn't adapting to changing society due to economic realities. The problem is our liberal government "changing" things to suit "their" concept of reality. Without Obama's efforts and without Hillary's efforts, the current energy industry will be able to supply cheap energy for decades to come.

This guy in the video is, in fact, providing for his family by working his chosen profession...as a coal miner. Economic realities aren't changing things...the leftists are. (and basically telling this guy, "tough ****".

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why does Hillary...and leftists like you...care so little about the livelihood of the citizens of the US? It just boggles my mind that she cares more about her "clean energy" buddies despite the big picture of thousands of people getting tossed out of work.

Maybe it allows her corporate friend to throw older workers under the bus without them being able to claiming age discrimination, and bring in new younger ones for a newer technology?

 

[Russell797]

Those arguing from the stand point of jobs and individuals are missing the point. The goal is to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The overarching problem of global climate change dwarfs the impact on local economies and individuals. Fossil fuel usage for the generation of electrical energy simply must be drastically reduced not only in this country but in the collective of all countries. We can't afford to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

The impact of change on the local level and on individuals is a separate issue which must be dealt with, but you don't let the ship go down to save a few passengers.

 

[longview]

Those arguing from the stand point of jobs and individuals are missing the point. The goal is to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The overarching problem of global climate change dwarfs the impact on local economies and individuals. Fossil fuel usage for the generation of electrical energy simply must be drastically reduced not only in this country but in the collective of all countries. We can't afford to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

The impact of change on the local level and on individuals is a separate issue which must be dealt with, but you don't let the ship go down to save a few passengers.

There is a not so subtle problem with your logic.

If we phase out coal, before we have it's replacement, where is the electricity going to come from?

 

[Russell797]

There is a not so subtle problem with your logic.

If we phase out coal, before we have it's replacement, where is the electricity going to come from?

Wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, wave action, biofuel and more.

Currently, natural gas is replacing coal quite effectively as a lower carbon intensive bridge fuel. We must invest in rapid development and deployment of all those alternatives and increase their portion of the pie. Where we choose to invest is the issue. Century old technologies, or new, modern, efficient advanced technologies. We must rebuild the infrastructure to take advantage of the new technologies in electric vehicles, a new smart electrical grid, new building efficiencies and retrofitting of the old. With a unified approach at least 50% of electrical generation can come from all of the above by mid century or sooner.

 

[longview]

Wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, wave action, biofuel and more.

Currently, natural gas is replacing coal quite effectively as a lower carbon intensive bridge fuel. We must invest in rapid development and deployment of all those alternatives and increase their portion of the pie. Where we choose to invest is the issue. Century old technologies, or new, modern, efficient advanced technologies. We must rebuild the infrastructure to take advantage of the new technologies in electric vehicles, a new smart electrical grid, new building efficiencies and retrofitting of the old. With a unified approach at least 50% of electrical generation can come from all of the above by mid century or sooner.

You missed the point, the current regulations are turning off the supply of energy from coal,
BEFORE the alternatives are ready.
I think burning coal is one of the worst choices, we should have standardized nuclear plants decades ago,
and been building hundreds of them, but we did not!
We should have standardized home solar grid attachment, so that the utilities were
not harmed with each new solar attachment, but we did not!
We need to do many things, we just cannot stop using one, until the replacement is ready.

 

[Ntharotep]

Do you have children?

Probably thinks children are a virus.

The sad fact of life is that sometimes not everyone can be saved.
For Example: When DDT was banned many people died from increased malaria infections. Obviously that's a bad thing, but what would happen if we continued to spray DDT all over the place? It could do catastrophic ecological damage. Personally, I blame greedy corporations that don't care about curing diseases of poor people but that's beside the point. When you act irresponsibly to the planet you put yourself in a position where some people will have to be thrown overboard to keep the ship from sinking.
Fortunately these people in appalachia don't have to be completely thrown under the bus. We can provide them with vouchers to help them leave their homes. Putting these people in more progressive and diverse communities with more opportunities will be good for them.

This reminds me of Native Americans and Jews for some reason...can't place my sarcastic finger on it...

 

[Mycroft]

Those arguing from the stand point of jobs and individuals are missing the point. The goal is to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The overarching problem of global climate change dwarfs the impact on local economies and individuals. Fossil fuel usage for the generation of electrical energy simply must be drastically reduced not only in this country but in the collective of all countries. We can't afford to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

The impact of change on the local level and on individuals is a separate issue which must be dealt with, but you don't let the ship go down to save a few passengers.

Sounds to me like you are willing to burn down half the forest to save a few trees that you claim...with no actual proof or consensus...are being threatened. In other words, you posit some danger from "global climate change" and tell everyone the only way to deal with that is to destroy the livelihood of millions of people worldwide and hundreds of thousands of people in our own country.

Frankly, even though I'm a relatively old guy and won't really be affected by your agenda, I'm betting you'll be facing stiff opposition from those hundreds of thousands and the only way you'll succeed with your agenda is to use the power of government to force people to toe your line...something that was totally against the very reason our country was created in the first place.

How does it feel to be identified as a person who doesn't give a rat's ass about our citizen's ability to provide for themselves and their family's well-being?

 

[Russell797]

Sounds to me like you are willing to burn down half the forest to save a few trees that you claim...with no actual proof or consensus...are being threatened. In other words, you posit some danger from "global climate change" and tell everyone the only way to deal with that is to destroy the livelihood of millions of people worldwide and hundreds of thousands of people in our own country.

Frankly, even though I'm a relatively old guy and won't really be affected by your agenda, I'm betting you'll be facing stiff opposition from those hundreds of thousands and the only way you'll succeed with your agenda is to use the power of government to force people to toe your line...something that was totally against the very reason our country was created in the first place.

How does it feel to be identified as a person who doesn't give a rat's ass about our citizen's ability to provide for themselves and their family's well-being?

According to your logic (if that's what it is) progress is a terrible burden on those disaffected by change. In the attempt to improve the lot of the many a few will always be collateral damage. How did we ever manage to survive the spread of electricity to every home and business? What became of the whale oil industry as a consequence? What became of blacksmiths with the rapid spread of the "motor car"? Oh the horror of it all.

As far as a consensus goes, ask the National Academy of Sciences. The American Geophysical Union. NASA, NOAA etc. for the current scientific understanding. The stiff competition is more than 25 years along and continues as strong as ever. For this 65 year old the fight is for my grandchildren and their descendants along with the natural world which we are systematically destroying.

 

[Mycroft]

According to your logic (if that's what it is) progress is a terrible burden on those disaffected by change. In the attempt to improve the lot of the many a few will always be collateral damage. How did we ever manage to survive the spread of electricity to every home and business? What became of the whale oil industry as a consequence? What became of blacksmiths with the rapid spread of the "motor car"? Oh the horror of it all.

As far as a consensus goes, ask the National Academy of Sciences. The American Geophysical Union. NASA, NOAA etc. for the current scientific understanding. The stiff competition is more than 25 years along and continues as strong as ever. For this 65 year old the fight is for my grandchildren and their descendants along with the natural world which we are systematically destroying.

In none of those examples you give...none...has the federal government been used by a small segment of the population to decimate an industry...for nothing more than the advancement of their own agenda. In all of those examples you give...all...have been the result of non-governmental, free-market innovation winning out against technology that wasn't able to compete.

The fact is, you are not encouraging "progress" at all. You are only working very hard to advance YOUR agenda, using the power of the federal government to do it...and you have the NERVE to tell those whose lives you destroy, "Tough s***."


Oh...and considering all the cheating, falsifying data and downright despicable tactics used by those you tout as being mouthpieces in support of global warming...or whatever the current disingenuous buzzword you favor...it's not really supporting your agenda to mention them. Just saying...

 

[Russell797]

In none of those examples you give...none...has the federal government been used by a small segment of the population to decimate an industry...for nothing more than the advancement of their own agenda. In all of those examples you give...all...have been the result of non-governmental, free-market innovation winning out against technology that wasn't able to compete.

The fact is, you are not encouraging "progress" at all. You are only working very hard to advance YOUR agenda, using the power of the federal government to do it...and you have the NERVE to tell those whose lives you destroy, "Tough s***."


Oh...and considering all the cheating, falsifying data and downright despicable tactics used by those you tout as being mouthpieces in support of global warming...or whatever the current disingenuous buzzword you favor...it's not really supporting your agenda to mention them. Just saying...

Here's the deal. I don't give a rats ass who or what entity gets the job done just so long as it gets done. You can take the stance you do because you poo poo the science. You buy into the disinformation campaign bought and paid for by corporations with a vested interest in the status quo. Government hating conservatives like yourself are more than willing to side with them. It's called confirmation bias. One side of the public debate is being deceived that's for sure.

 

[Mycroft]

Here's the deal. I don't give a rats ass who or what entity gets the job done just so long as it gets done. You can take the stance you do because you poo poo the science. You buy into the disinformation campaign bought and paid for by corporations with a vested interest in the status quo. Government hating conservatives like yourself are more than willing to side with them. It's called confirmation bias. One side of the public debate is being deceived that's for sure.

This issue has nothing to do with whether I agree with the "science" or not. It doesn't even have anything to do with whether I hate government...which I don't. It has everything to do with your desire to use the government to enact your disputed agenda and with your lack of concern for your fellow citizen's ability to provide for themselves and their families when you destroy his livelihood...all in the name of your illustrious agenda.

When it comes to questions by people like Bo Copley, who's job is gone thanks to Obama and others like Hillary and you, all you can say to him is "that's a separate issue". It's not. To Bo it IS the issue.


btw, I've noticed you don't defend yourself from my accusations. All you can do is mis-characterize my words and try to attack me. That never works as a debate tactic.

 

[Russell797]

This issue has nothing to do with whether I agree with the "science" or not. It doesn't even have anything to do with whether I hate government...which I don't. It has everything to do with your desire to use the government to enact your disputed agenda and with your lack of concern for your fellow citizen's ability to provide for themselves and their families when you destroy his livelihood...all in the name of your illustrious agenda.

When it comes to questions by people like Bo Copley, who's job is gone thanks to Obama and others like Hillary and you, all you can say to him is "that's a separate issue". It's not. To Bo it IS the issue.


btw, I've noticed you don't defend yourself from my accusations. All you can do is mis-characterize my words and try to attack me. That never works as a debate tactic.

I have not attacked you. I have attacked an industry and a political ideology which has worked together to deceive the public on a matter of high importance.
You say I have an agenda. Of course I do. A serious problem has been identified and I support efforts to deal with it as should every responsible citizen. The other side has an agenda to just let things slide, or deny the problem even exists. You are worried about coal workers. I'm worried about billions of people and the natural environment. My concern outweighs yours to a colossal degree by any objective standard. Yours is a short term concern, mine long term. Both deserve attention. If the answers were easy to come by we wouldn't be having the conversation.

 

[Mycroft]

I have not attacked you.

ou buy into the disinformation campaign bought and paid for by corporations with a vested interest in the status quo. Government hating conservatives like yourself are more than willing to side with them. It's called confirmation bias.

I consider this an unwarranted and baseless attack upon me

I have attacked an industry and a political ideology which has worked together to deceive the public on a matter of high importance.
You say I have an agenda. Of course I do. A serious problem has been identified and I support efforts to deal with it as should every responsible citizen. The other side has an agenda to just let things slide, or deny the problem even exists. You are worried about coal workers. I'm worried about billions of people and the natural environment. My concern outweighs yours to a colossal degree by any objective standard. Yours is a short term concern, mine long term. Both deserve attention. If the answers were easy to come by we wouldn't be having the conversation.

Thank you for agreeing with my point...even though you still don't care about the thousands you'll throw out of work to enact your agenda...even though you still unapologetically intend to use the full force of the federal government to enact your agenda.

"Tough s***, citizens. I'm going to make you do what I want you to do whether you like it or not."

 

[Chomsky]

so you want the guy to pull him self up by the bootstraps and get to prospering somewhere else, somehow.

I don't neccessarily disagree... but that argument severely damages your lefty credentials, btw.

I think the larger issue is that democrats are enacting great change to an entire industry, but they have not put even once ounce of thought into how to make the transition less painful/ painless for the families they are purposefully and intentionally
sending into financial /despair ruin.

I do have compassion for this guy, and every family that hangs in the balance of decisions being made far above their pay grade, by people who have no care about the well being of these folks, or how to transition those they directly affect.

no matter what your opinion on energy issues is, one cannot help but to be irritated by the shear and utter mismanagement of the coal issue... transitioning the great number of lives that rely on the industry they are trying to kill off should be the first concern of those who are doing the killing, it shouldn't be an afterthought to their agenda.... it's wholly improper governance, without a doubt.

Well, despite my nick and my often leaning to the left, I'd like to consider my credentials as ... well ... *my* credentials! Left or right, be damned!

I just got a big thing about men - fathers and husbands - doing the right thing by their families, since I put those two roles as being a man's highest calling.

But yeah, your point is fair: Changes occur, but it's government's job to implement changes in the way that has the least negative impact. I see no problem implementing these changes in a way that allows these men and their families time to adjust, and we should assist them in reasonable ways.

If I lived in a negative locale, whether through economic depression, crime, lack of safety, incompatible mores, poor quality of life, or whatever - if it really sucked to the point of negative impact on my wife & kids, I'd move my family somewhere better. I did this very thing not long after I married my wife, and I had lived in that old neighborhood for over three decades! And I'll happily do it again, if need be! (not that I necessarily want to, though).

If I may share, here's a post in another thread where I expound a bit more on my thoughts on these issues:

DP

 

[Russell797]

You missed the point, the current regulations are turning off the supply of energy from coal,
BEFORE the alternatives are ready.
I think burning coal is one of the worst choices, we should have standardized nuclear plants decades ago,
and been building hundreds of them, but we did not!
We should have standardized home solar grid attachment, so that the utilities were
not harmed with each new solar attachment, but we did not!
We need to do many things, we just cannot stop using one, until the replacement is ready.

The replacement is ready. It's natural gas. As bad an alternative as it also is, it is much less carbon intensive and otherwise polluting than coal. All the other carbon free and low carbon options are ready too. We just need to scale them up in usage.

 

[Russell797]

I consider this an unwarranted and baseless attack upon me



Thank you for agreeing with my point...even though you still don't care about the thousands you'll throw out of work to enact your agenda...even though you still unapologetically intend to use the full force of the federal government to enact your agenda.

"Tough s***, citizens. I'm going to make you do what I want you to do whether you like it or not."

If you have an alternative course of action which effectively eliminates carbon dioxide, Mercury and the other toxins from the ground to furnace to waist management stream please offer it up. Coal is nasty stuff. So called clean coal technology which scrubs CO2 and other pollutants at the smoke stack increases the price of coal by at least 150%. Thousands of coal workers and people with respiratory conditions die prematurely EVERY YEAR from the use of coal. It has to stop. Period. What about them if you care so much about people affect by this?

 

[longview]

The replacement is ready. It's natural gas. As bad an alternative as it also is, it is much less carbon intensive and otherwise polluting than coal. All the other carbon free and low carbon options are ready too. We just need to scale them up in usage.

Ready is a very subjective term, when speaking of an on demand product like electricity.
If the decision were made today to convert all the coal plants to natural gas, without any concern for cost,
I would be amazed is they could do it in two years, even without all the permitting and other red tape.
The infrastructure of getting a large natural gas pipeline to each coal plant could take several years.
Even with all that, it would not change the amount of CO2 emission by much.
NG is much cleaner than coal, but per Mwh emission rate is slightly more than half of that of coal.
No, I think NG is a good infill, but not a solution.
Long term we need enough photo voltaic solar to replace both electricity and transport fuels,
The current conversion efficiency (70%) means a gallon of gasoline would take about 55 Kwh to make,
Diesel and Jet fuel a little more.
To replace the massive amount of energy will require a multi pronged approach,
Making homes more efficient to heat and cool, this is already happening, but older homes still have many inefficiencies.
Vehicles and transport has room to improve also.
On the supply side, we need to remove the self imposed limitations on home solar,
our zeal to encourage home solar, has produced a toxic effect for the power utilities, and this needs to be corrected.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/utilities-push-back-against-solar
a more fair and uniform system needs to be devised.
There is a path to a sustainable future, but we need to understand the steps, so we do not trip ourselves.

 

[nothanks700]

Do you have another job for them? No? Didn't think so.

I understand their concern, but in the grand scheme their families are just not as important as the environment. Their great grandkids will not have trees, or you know...an Ozone layer, so ultimately their families will be effected either way. This is the natural course of things, industry changes, and people must develop a different set of skills. Jobs in abandoned industries are usually replaced by the new industry in this case, renewable energy. I know it's unfortunate, but we all know life isn't fair all the time.

 

[Henrin]

I understand their concern, but in the grand scheme their families are just not as important as the environment. Their great grandkids will not have trees, or you know...an Ozone layer, so ultimately their families will be effected either way. This is the natural course of things, industry changes, and people must develop a different set of skills. Jobs in abandoned industries are usually replaced by the new industry in this case, renewable energy. I know it's unfortunate, but we all know life isn't fair all the time.

Where did you just get those facts you cited.

 

[nothanks700]

Where did you just get those facts you cited.

What? That's just common economic history. Most people used to be in the ag industry a couple of centuries ago, and then the industrial age hit. Mass production of foods was attainable and less people were needed, but the technologies created various manufacturing jobs. We are slowly turning from a manufacturing economy, to a service based economy. It's just natural progression.

 

[Henrin]

What? That's just common economic history. Most people used to be in the ag industry a couple of centuries ago, and then the industrial age hit. Mass production of foods was attainable and less people were needed, but the technologies created various manufacturing jobs. We are slowly turning from a manufacturing economy, to a service based economy. It's just natural progression.

Where did you get that there won't be trees in the future?

 

[nothanks700]

Where did you get that there won't be trees in the future?

We cut down about 15 billion trees each year, and there are about 5 billion new trees per year whether by human planting, or natural growth. That leaves a deficit of 10 billion trees/year on a planet with 3 trillion trees. At that rate, we will have eradicated trees in about 300 years, and considering we are only increasing the amount of trees we are cutting down, without an increase to those we are planting, it would likely be much sooner than that. With the kind of compounding we are seeing, it could be very well in our lifetimes (if you are under 30) that trees go extinct, or at the very least our grandkids' lifetimes. Source: 38 environmental scientists that conducted a study from various universities.

Further, if you have an understanding of science, you may know our planet quite literally breaths. Trees breath carobon dioxide, and animals breath oxygen, thus this almost perfect balance that keeps the Ozone layer intact, and keeps solar rays out. Without this balance, which we have already effected quite significantly by emitting tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without the oxygen offset, the planet and it's animals will rapidly die off. What will be left is a barron wasteland.

But you know..keep the coal jobs, because those people gotta make money.

 

[Mycroft]

Maybe you guys who go along with that liberal tendency to use government to "tell" people what they have to do should just take the next step and start executing people. You could start with the coal miners, take out the oil and gas workers next...and eventually narrow things down to what ever other people - world-wide of course - that you don't give a rat's ass about.

My suggestion would be to target politicians and the people who they accept money from...but that's just me.

It's guaranteed to reduce the world's carbon footprint.