• Sprott Money
    05/05/2016 - 06:02
    Why is a Deutsche Bank mouthpiece suggesting “negative retail deposit rates or perhaps wealth taxes”? The answer is to (supposedly) stimulate our economies.

Guest Post: Coal - The Ignored Juggernaut

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by PeakProsperity.com contributing editor Gregor Macdonald

Coal - The Ignored Juggernaut

Oil, natural gas, and alternatives dominate the headlines when it comes to energy. But there's a big and largely-overlooked revolution occurring with the energy source likely to become the most preferred fuel for a world in economic decline: coal.

The United States coal sector has been hit very, very hard this spring. Demand has been crushed by over 10%, as warm weather and bountiful supplies of cheap natural gas have induced power plant operators and all other users where possible to switch away from domestic coal. The rapid change in fortune has sent the stock prices of big, listed names such as Peabody and Arch down by double digit percentages, as the Dow Jones US Coal Index has fallen below 160 from above 225 at the start of 2012.

From Bloomberg:

Central Appalachian thermal coal futures, the U.S. benchmark, averaged $60.20 during the first quarter, down from an average of $73.58 in the year ago period and down from a high of $143.25 in July 2008. “It’s like a perfect storm,” Mann said. “The three main challenges are the really mild winter, a lethargic economy and on top of that, with gas prices being so low, those utilities that can burn gas have opted to burn gas instead of coal because gas is so cheap.” Cheap gas has undercut power producers’ revenues because it drives down wholesale electricity prices, squeezing margins for plants that run on nuclear, renewable and coal power. Moody’s Investors Service changed its outlook for the U.S. coal industry to “negative” from “stable” on May 7, citing weak prices and a drop in power demand, and said it expects a 5 percent decline in prices for coal deliveries in 2013. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the industry to see a 10.9 percent decline in coal consumption this year and Moody’s expects U.S. coal demand from power plants to plunge by 100 million tons by 2020, the ratings company said in the report.

(Source)

Given the rather weak near-term and long-term outlook for US coal demand, it’s not surprising that within such a capital-intensive business, a number of smaller coal producers were hit recently with bankruptcy rumors. Indeed, even large cap names like Arch Coal have seen an escalation of concern over debt levels. Accordingly, many have concluded that coal -- in an era of solar, wind, and natural gas -- has finally displaced itself due to its problematic extraction, distant transportation, and overall costs. Is coal finally going away as an energy source?

Not a chance.

Indeed, everything currently unfolding for coal in the United States is precisely what is not unfolding for coal globally. Prices to import natural gas to most countries via LNG remain sky-high, easily protecting coal’s cost advantage. And the demand for coal in the developing world remains gargantuan. Accordingly, just as with oil, lower US demand simply frees up supply to elsewhere in the world.

The global coal juggernaut rolls onward.

Soaring US Exports

In the same way that falling US oil consumption has freed up global supply, so now is US declining coal demand freeing up production for export. Last year marked a twenty-year high in US coal exports:

For the full year of 2011, the US exported 107,259 thousand short tons of coal. This was the highest level of coal exports since 1991. More impressive: exports recorded a more than 25% leap compared to the previous year, 2010. (see data here, opens to PDF).  Additionally, this was also a dramatic breakout in volume from the previous decade, which ranged from 40,000 – 80,000 thousand short tons per annum.

(Source)

The United States remains a large consumer of coal, and currently places second, behind China, in the top global users, which I call the Coal 7: China, USA, India, Japan, Russia, South Africa, and Germany. Accordingly, this means that the US, which currently consumes about 15% of total global demand, is about to become a marginal new source of global supply.

Although most grades of coal are still trading at a cheaper price level than a similar equivalent amount of BTUs sourced from natural gas, the all-in costs of burning coal in the United States given our regulatory framework is now higher than burning natural gas. In one sense, this is not a new story. Indeed, the advent of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and the historic wave of pollution regulations set the United States on a course away from coal and towards natural gas over 40 years ago. Even the coal industry is eager to advertise the long decline of coal-fired pollution (as a portion of the whole) in the United States, which is due overall to an increase in emissions control, but is mostly the result of the rise of natural-gas-fired power since the early 1970s.

Global Coal Picture

What has changed, however, is that coal is the preferred energy source of the developing world.

In addition, as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has shifted its manufacturing to the developing world over the past few decades, coal has been the cheap energy source that has powered the rise of such manufacturing, especially in Asia. Accordingly, the extraordinary increase in global coal consumption the past decade is partly due to the OECD offshoring its own industrial production. How are most consumer goods made? Using electricity in developing world manufacturing centers, generated by coal.

Only a very small portion of the global public is aware that global coal consumption has advanced by over 50% in the past decade. According to data from the just-released BP Statistical Review, from 2001 through 2011, global consumption of coal rose an astonishing 56%. Using the energy unit Mtoe (million tonnes oil equivalent), global coal consumption rose 1,343 Mtoe, from 2,381 to 3,724 Mtoe. And this trend shows no sign of slowing down.

Additionally, this advance contrasts greatly with the flattening of global oil production and thus the slowdown in global oil consumption. Oil's price revolution has killed a great deal of oil demand. But few are aware that while oil has fallen as a portion of primary world energy supply, coal has stormed to prominence. This is why the export of US coal, and world trade in coal, still has room to run.

Coal Hunger: It’s Not Just China

Coal consumption in the robust Indian economy has grown rapidly in recent years, averaging 8.5% per year in 2006-10 according to EIA data, including growth of 10.8% in 2010. Although we have slightly reduced our 2012-13 growth forecasts for India in light of global developments, the economy is still expected to grow by around 8% per year. Coal consumption is therefore expected to continue to rise strongly, boosted by the long-term plan to increase thermal power-generation capacity in an effort to increase access to electricity in rural areas. In its new five-year plan for the period 2012-17 the Indian government envisages that the rate of annual demand growth could stay at around 8%.

(Source: World Coal: The IEU’s Monthly Outlook, via The Economist Intelligence Unit)

2008 saw the crossing of a major milestone in humanity’s march towards industrialism, when, for the first time ever, more than 50% of the world’s population became urban.

This great migration from the countryside to the cities, which is happening in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, is a primary driver for coal demand, as millions of new city dwellers take their place in the power grid. This recent table of projected urban population growth rates from the Economist, in its piece on Emerging Market Cities, demonstrates that an enormous phase of change still lies ahead:

(Source)

The world continues to marvel at the growth rates seen in Chinese cities, like Shanghai, which is expected to add over 200,000 new residents per year in the 15-year period from 2010 to 2025. Such a pace will grow the Shanghai population from its 2010 level of 16.6 million residents to at least 19.6 million residents. However, the growth rates of urbanization are even faster in emerging mega-cities such as Kinshasa, Lagos, Karachi, Dhaka, Mumbai, and of course, Delhi. As Mike Davis writes in his terrific book, Planet of Slums:

Ninety-five percent of this final buildout of humanity will occur in the urban areas of developing countries, whose populations will double to nearly 4 billion over the next generation…The scale and the velocity of Third World urbanization, moreover, utterly dwarfs that of Victorian Europe. London in 1910 was seven times larger than it had been in 1800, but Dhaka, Kinshasa, and Lagos today are each approximately forty times larger than they were in 1950.

(Source)

Despite the fact that the developing world has indeed increased its demand for oil, thus taking nearly 100% of the supply freed up by weak OECD economies, the economies of the developing world are largely running not on liquid BTUs, but rather on BTUs from coal.

Coal’s versatility, in that it can be stored cheaply and transported via ship, rail, truck, or in smaller quantities by small personal transport, makes it the logical energy choice for the developing world. (This is not to say that wind and solar do not also make sense in non-OECD nations. Indeed, the fast pace of growth in renewables in the developing world is astonishing as well). Most important is that the cheap price of coal, especially when burned without environmental regulations, aligns with developing world wages.

For those concerned with climate change, this is, of course, terrible news. However, many of the world’s international organizations, from the International Energy Agency in Paris to various OECD policy-making groups, remain very focused on making sure that developing world nations get access to electricity. There is a strong view and strong agreement among Western policy makers that working to ensure that the world’s poor have access to electricity is the most transformative action to pull humanity out of poverty. Surely this is why the World Bank has been investing heavily in coal-fired power production. From World Bank Invests Record Sums in Coal, via The Ecologist.

(Source)

Rebounding Into Coal

The financial crisis period of the past five years has served to highlight the new and constant restraint that oil prices place on the world economy. What’s over now is the fast growth made possible by cheap, liquid BTU (oil). But this is precisely why the economies of the non-OECD continue to increase their coal consumption, and why the world economy -- when it advances -- rebounds into coal.

There are enough BTUs from natural gas and coal to fund global economic growth for years to come. If natural gas from North America was exportable right now, then world prices for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) would be much lower than the $14-$18 level seen from Europe to Asia. Instead, North American natural gas remains landlocked and will remain so until export facilities are completed. This makes for a highly irregular pricing landscape in natural gas, in which Americans pay $2.50 for a million BTUs of natural gas, while heavy importers like Japan can pay as much as $17.00 per million BTUs. Accordingly, it is coal and not natural gas that provides the converged pricing to the world market. And with thermal coal trading around $2.50 - $3.50 per million BTUs, the continuing transition to coal is unstoppable.

In Part II: Coal is the Fuel for a World in Decline, we explain that a series of ongoing financial crises only accelerates the transition to coal as the obvious energy source in a time a declining wealth. As the world gets poorer, with higher-income OECD economies set to converge with lower-income non-OECD economies, coal remains the cheapest form of globally traded BTUs, adding low-cost power to economies under pressure. Finally, using the just released data from the BP Statistical Review, we update the latest forecasts on the future crossover point, when coal regains its number one position from oil and once again becomes the primary energy source of the world.

Click here to read Part II of this report (free executive summary; paid enrollment required for full access).

0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 06/30/2012 - 09:46 | 2576476 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

But but but...the EPA says that carbon dioxide is a poison gas.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:09 | 2576559 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Hah! Which is why billions of CO2 injected COKE is consumed by millions of fools born every minute.

It's Carbon and it's crushing us. Diamonds, Soot, Oil, US, Coal, Coke (ing coal that is)...

Still burning black stuff, but in the back-ground... can't see, doesn't exist.

Time to get beyond the car-bon paradigm...

Coke, Coal... CO two funny...

ori

6666-beyond-carbon

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:13 | 2576587 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

No Humans must be made to feel guilty and be punished so that creeps like Flakmeister can feel good about robbing you of your tax money and freedom.  Rent seekers like him also want to eat, even if that means exterminating you.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:22 | 2576635 falak pema
falak pema's picture

don't get mad because he can count better than you can! 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:37 | 2576692 Colombian Gringo
Colombian Gringo's picture

Maybe he count better than me, but so what? The CO2 scam is still a scam. My poorer skills in math do not make him right. Besides Flakman is an authority on nothing except for stupid remarks and broken marrianges.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:45 | 2576713 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

If your math skill are so poor, how can you determine that C02 is a scam?

Maybe your problems are with the consequences for your world view as opposed to the science?

 Why dont you figure out something that is acceptable to you with regards to the C02 problem instead of sticking your head in the sand?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:47 | 2576755 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

God/The Most Holy Invisible Hand would have never created a world that imposed limits on man's consumption. To consume to the furthest extent of the product of one's labor is the greatest glory of mankind and the fountainhead of SALVATION. Consume, and be born anew.

Oh, shit! It's Mr. Creosote!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:48 | 2577021 falak pema
falak pema's picture

I'LL bet my invsible hand that we will invest massively in alternate energies including solar; as we come down that experience curve and produce in twenty years as much electrical energy from these renewables as we do from fossil today.

I see the sun's efficiency and convertibility going viral like the financial revolution of the last twenty years. Lets hope those financiers don't put their sticky fingers into the alternative energy pie once its starts baking hard under innovation splurge and survival urge, which has to be kept sanctified from this predatory cabal. 

I'm counting on you Spas to send consumately elegant smoke signals to the Upper one to get his holy backing on this fountainhead of salvation for mankind. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:58 | 2577051 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Alternative energy is moot.  All western governments will have collapsed long before that happens.

Peak hydrocarbons and over-bearing government regulation are tied to one another.  If PHC comes first, then the government will collapse, and the regulations blocking thorium from taking its rightful place as the next great energy source will be gone.  If the governments collapse first (they will), then PHC is moot because the regulations blocking thorium will vanish. 

Peak energy won't happen until we have devoured the whole of the Earth's crust.  There is too much thorium there.  Nevermind other nearby planetary bodies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:39 | 2577148 Jack Sheet
Jack Sheet's picture

Solar has only ever worked with massive government subsidies. It is not baseload power.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:55 | 2577171 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Massive compared to what? The subsidies for oil and gas in this country?? Admittedly, they are more indirect but they dwarf those of solar, wind and what have you...

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:45 | 2577244 Bob
Bob's picture

Hey, at least we don't have to count the subsidies necessary to clean up nuclear power plants that have reached the end of their lifecycles.  That would cost too much and surely it wouldn't be right for the companies that have profitted from them to have to bankrupt their poor, poor selves to clean up their mess. 

We can just relicense them for another 60 years each.  Rarely are we blessed with gravely serious problems that have such simple solutions!

What could possibly go wrong?

I luvs my free enterprise.  Mr. Market is like a God to me.  Okay, maybe only the next best thing to God hisself, but the Big Guy backs him all the way.  Amen. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:35 | 2577351 Haloween1
Haloween1's picture

Please name one subsidy to oil.  Just one. 

The petroleum subsidy story is nothing more than a hoax dreamed up by Obama and his Dream Team.  There are no subsidies for big oil.  Period.

 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 23:49 | 2578017 Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

- Please name one subsidy to oil.

How about the US Interstate Highway System?  Does that count?  Is that expensive?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 07:07 | 2578245 mick_richfield
mick_richfield's picture

Three hundred billion dollars a year protecting the sources and supply lines?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 10:14 | 2578394 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

...and the war (three trillion)

that was sarcastic right

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:04 | 2577183 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

I take a break from my normal doomerism to have hope in solid state ammonium production.  Solar power (or wind) + air + water = NH3.  Can be used for trasnportation and can be produced anywhere, and zero emissions when burnt.

 

Turns sunshine into mpg. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:29 | 2577228 RoadKill
RoadKill's picture

Matt Simmons was workimg on this after he retired from Simmons & Company. It was tidal energy. The water is right there so you simply make a few thousand bouyies that anchor to the ocean floor and produce liquid ammonia that gets transported back to shore via a traditional subsea or FPU gathering & processing system.

Seems to have lots of potential merits 30 years from now

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:44 | 2577249 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yep.  The issue is the demand and the fact that it will still require approximately 900 kJ of energy per mole to convert nitrogen into ammonia.  Better check on how many moles of ammonia are produced by Dupont and the Habor Bosch process each year.  Then also need to address the issue of sulfur, phosphorus, and many other elements in the correct oxidation state. New innovations don't change the thermodynamics.

There are hard limits and there are real experts, just wish the latter actually got more air time and capital and resource investment.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:58 | 2577272 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Apart from the energy consumption, ammonia is a real nasty gas. Would hate to see one of those pipelines rupture.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:25 | 2577333 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

They don't seem to be very concerned about that since the pipelines are light gauge steel.   Having a few leaks here and there to dissapate into the atmoshpere sounds like a better alternative to taking all the coal on earth, burning it, and giving every living thing on the planet black lung. 

 

It only burns in a limited temp range, can be stored like propane, and along with hydrogen burns cleaner than any other gas. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:40 | 2577357 Praetor
Praetor's picture

Agree that coal can be nasty, but the problem with current ammonia generation is the hydrogen feedstock is currently from fossil fuels. Will there be enough electricity in the future to electrolyse water into hydrogen? Seems we're fooked at any road we take.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:12 | 2577297 CPL
CPL's picture

...sigh...really?  Why don't we just start talking about perpetual motion engines and the over unity engine scams...seriously? 

 

Why aren't we talking about the energy that is currently available to ourselves?  Which would be ourselves.  We should be discussing winding down all human population growth.  Learning how to produce better bikes hand carts, horse husbandry, mule husbandry, foul husbandry. 

 

Start re-learning how to manually do the daily tasks of life.  Understand that this awesome tech called the internet will not exist (and most of us out of a job and business).

We are all asking the wrong questions for the situation and applying the wrong solutions for the options available. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:31 | 2577343 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

Sigh?  really?  Don't be such a cunt.

 

You can set up a windmill and produce enough to run farm equipment and be independant.  Of course there are limits, there are limits to everything.  But I have no desire to drag a plow around when I'm 50, and it sounds like your idea is I should just use a pick axe until I fall over dead. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:06 | 2577408 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"You can set up a windmill and produce enough to run farm equipment and be independant."

Really?  have you done it?  Who bought the land? How did you get around paying taxes ont he property?

Not arguing, just inquiring because you make it sound like this is no big deal.  Might want to re-think that.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:22 | 2577453 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

I've been researching it.  I believe it can be done.

 

http://www.irenew.org/uploads/EETF_Abstract_SSAS-Rev-6Mar12.pdf

 

http://inside.mines.edu/~jbeach/ammonia-fuel.v02.pdf

A more energy efficient method of producing NH3 is

“solid state ammonia synthesis”, or SSAS. This process

removes the need for water splitting, which reduces the

energy usage to about 7,500 kWh/ton of NH3 produced.

In SSAS, a proton-conducting membrane is heated to

about 550 ºC. Nitrogen is admitted to one side of the

membrane and water vapor is admitted to the other side,

as shown in Illustration 4. The gas phase H2O

dissociates into protons and oxygen, an external voltage

drives the protons through the membrane, and the

nitrogen and protons react on the nitrogen side of the

membrane to form NH3. [8] The lower energy

consumption of the SSAS process suggests that it will

be able to produce ammonia at a lower cost than the

Haber-Bosch process.

 

http://www.greennh3.com/

 

Converting equipment to run on it is the easy part. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:53 | 2577507 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Good for you.  Let us know how it turns out, just remember there are over seven billion of us who will need to do the same thing.

I congradulate you on actully doing something.

Believing doesn't get us anywhere, things actually have to be done.

The cost to set-up seems high, more importantly what about maintence?

Whoops, read the information more carefully, seems this is all just theoretical.  Please do let us know what sort of actual production numbers you get.  I am sure you could submit something like this as a contributor.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:52 | 2577380 mkhs
mkhs's picture

Use ourselves?  So we could take the byproduct of liposuction and convert to a combustible product?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:02 | 2577524 Ceteris paribus
Ceteris paribus's picture

They are not scams I have one that works , also I have a carb on a small engine 420cc that will run a week on 1 quart of gas

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 23:29 | 2577993 Errol
Errol's picture

CPL, stop being rational this instant!  Just because something was viable for 10s of thousands of years doesn't mean it will be viable in the future.  Everyone in the US has the right to be sedentary and fat, and we dont intend to ever give up that right!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:41 | 2577149 Jack Sheet
Jack Sheet's picture

Sorry Dup. Fucking iPad text entry

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:48 | 2576757 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

When the scientists and politicians who promote AGW say that they are lying about their findings in order to promote social justice you don't need the math so much.

 


"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
"
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,

 


"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.
"
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

 

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope
."
- David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

 

Before you jump all over me, Flak, why not consider contacting you AGW buddies and asking them to stop claiming that they are lying.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:54 | 2576783 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

All this smoke and nothing to show that the science is wrong... Standard misdirect and strawmen from the denialistas...

Or did you want to debate the science?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:01 | 2576813 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Or did you want to debate the science?

 

No. I want you to tell me why so many AGW proponents say they are lying to promote other causes.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:03 | 2576828 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

"so many" Good idea. Tell us how many AGW proponents there are and what percentage have benn caught lying.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:10 | 2576857 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It's not up to me to prove that CO2 is or is not causing AGW. It is up to the AGW proponents. Unfortunately some of the most prominent ones say that they are lying about the whole thing. That is your hurdle to overcome, not mine.

Seriously. why spend time debating the deniers when you could make so much more progress by asking your allies to stop admitting that AGW is a lie? Don't you see such statements from AGW proponents as a problem?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:21 | 2576903 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well... I'd say the science is pretty conclusive in favor of AGW. Sorry if you cant figure that out...

So could you provide evidence that scientists have lied and or faked data in a peer reviewed article?

Sorry Climategate don't count as the conclusions have been verified by independent means and Mann et al have been cleared by every investigation/panel....

Since you cannot provide any evidence of wrong doing is obvious that you are the one lying through your teeth...

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:31 | 2576952 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

There's plenty of evidence that the IPCC and their associates have lied about the data in an effort to "hide the decline." But I haven't discussed that. What I want to know is why do so many prominent AGW proponents openly admit that they are lying about the science in order to promote social justice? Do you not see such pronouncements as being hurtful to your effort to convince others that AGW is real? Why do you not take issue with these people and their statements?

 

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience
."
- Al Gore,

 

"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
."
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

 


"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level
."

- Al Gore,

 

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.
"
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

 

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.
"
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

 


"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

 

The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models
.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 14:55 | 2577383 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

LOL, who is lying?  The politician?  Facts are facts, and the science has been proven.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it heats up the planet.  If you do the baisic math, the melting of Antartic ice will raise sea levels by 30 meters, then add in greenland et al.  Not trying to alarm you, because you still need some false hope, so you don't completely give up.  The fact is it's already too late.  The methane is being released from the artic, permafrost is melting.  A few emails can't change that.  Who profits from this?  Some non profit enviromentalists, or multinational corporations, who's only goal is to boost profits every 90 days?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 20:37 | 2577497 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

  If you do the baisic math, the melting of Antartic ice will raise sea levels by 30 meters, then add in greenland et al.  Not trying to alarm you, because you still need some false hope, so you don't completely give up.

 

I live 1,200 feet above sea level and I'm going to die within the next forty years anyway so why would I need any false hope in regard to rising sea levels?

 

The fact is it's already too late.

 

That's great because then it would be superfluous for anyone to tax or regulate us for our own good. Now be quiet and let me enjoy a cold Genesee out on my globally warmed (but still high and dry) back porch. Ahhhhhh, that hits the spot!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 11:37 | 2576972 mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

The science isn't conclusive for AGW. The CO2 connection is cicumstantial at best. No-one really knows if CO2 drives global warming, or whether global warmiong drives CO2, or whethere there is a connection at all.

The one thing true is that things are warming up.The most likely driver is the sun (duh). Nothing we can do about it. To me, AGW is simply another example of our race's insistence on being the center of the universe, that we have the power to do SOMETHING big, even if it is only creating a problem. That's ego for ya.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 12:16 | 2577072 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

you win, man can not affect his environment. There's no evidence on that is there. And the earth is not an environment is it. Digging out the most energy condensed matter ever produced that took millions of years to form and spewing half of it into a fixed atmosphere couldn't possibly have an effect. Or if any effect, only a good one right? Because too much of a good thing is always good for us right. And the ice cores showing the most rapid incline ever recorded in all of the cycles shows nothing does it. This issue is not settled with one set of emails or one piece of data or one political group or one blog. It concerns the entire earth and data coming in from just about all four corners from just about every discipline, every animal, every plant and every oil industry executive who offers a "scientist" 10,000 bucks to write an article challenging the data. If you think the stakes aren;t high and the lying isnt spewing from the denial side, because of course big industry never lies does it and it has no money to keep the lies going does it and we never talk about that fact here do we, and these energy industries have nothing to lose do they and the big money and the ungore" side" isn't nearly as big as the gore side is it and Chevron doesn't do its damned best to avoid paying a judgment for destroying a country environment by dissolving its assets in that jurisdiciton does it. 

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 13:49 | 2577254 Bob
Bob's picture

Sounds like sombody's head is in the sand.  I need a smoke.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:32 | 2577479 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

I can appreciate the irony, enjoy your non cancer causing smoke.  Who do you believe the tobacco companies or the science?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 15:53 | 2577500 Bob
Bob's picture

Never believe "do gooders," they're always commies.  Better dead than Red, dontcha know?

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:07 | 2577538 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

George Z was a do-gooder.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:15 | 2577551 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

Why is it, that more non-smokers than smokers get lung cancer??? Maybe there is something else going on....

Same is true for Global Waming...the models cannot explain why it was warmer worldwide in the Medieval Warm Period than it is now....There have been several periods during history that were warmer than it now...

 

Long before the first coal fired powerplant or hummer...Go smoke that

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:37 | 2577580 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

Best strawman ever!

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:31 | 2577570 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I believe trials with controls.  Where is the planet that doesn't have humans?  Oh, those are warming too?  Ok, sure it could be different things causing the warming on different planets.

Oh, are those controls invalid?  Then the whole idea that AGW is science goes out the window, because without controls, your data is worth nothing.  Even if you are RIGHT, it still isn't SCIENCE.

Sat, 06/30/2012 - 16:45 | 2577593 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

This is not a trial.  This is just the way it is.  The increase in CO2 is causing the planet to heat up, BFD right.  The ice is melting, causing the sea levels to rise, which will cover some of the worlds food growing areas, and cities in salty water.  The CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.  Simple shit, and it really is accepted by the scientific community, and you are the the arbirter of what is and isn't science.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!