This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Coal - The Ignored Juggernaut
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:
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).
»
- 25471 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
When proven wrong, slippery snake here moves the goalposts. Now we are not allowed to look at any data older than 20,000 years. Soon he will slip and slide into claiming that creationsists are right and the world is 6,000 years old, so no data from before that is valid. Soon after, he will be a "Last Thursdayist" who claims the world was created last Thursday, and we were all created with our memories of the past at that time, and that all data from before that time is suspect.
lol
Clifffie, you are on drugs
Here is the Vostock Ice core C02 record
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/co2nat.txt
and a figure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
So unless you can provide evidence of H. Sapiens going back before 400,000 BCE I would say the two of you are full of shit
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/nat-rothschild-plays-his-strong...
CO^2 levels in the atmo have been 1000's of times higher in Earth's history. Humans are hardly the cause of any relevant fluctuation. If you want to worship a ball of rock floating in space, then fine, but leave the rest of us out of your delusional obsessions.
Mate the only time CO2 levels were at the level you describe is after the Earth just finished forming out of the solar nebula. Your a fucken liar and an idiot.
That simply is not so
ICE Core samples show otherwise
do self appointed experts pay themselves when they testify?
Why does the wanker davy jones only show up when the global warming scam is debated on ZH? Is this you other personality, Flakmeister?
The muppet speaketh.... You are just like the sheep in Animal Farm, bleating mindlessly and endlessly....
Dude, CrockettAlmanac asked some valid questions and you have been constantly avoiding answering them. Ok, Politicians lie, but if the science behind the GW was flawless, why would have they lied? Think about it.
I dont want to pay no CO2 tax either. Such scams are cushty job rewards for political shills by their masters for helping screw the sheeple.
I believe in Peak resources, as its only a finite planet but I dont believe in champagne sipping politicians, or anyone, being sincere to the people and the planet.
Note: The first one to call the other "troll" in an argument is a loser.
Dude, the problem is - what scientific lies? Everyone craps on about Climategate and conveniently forgets the findings that there were no lies or fudging the results, only edited e-mails from the hackers that made it appear they were fudging results, when all they weret doing was recalibrating their data against set standards. Nothing really shocking to those who work with loads of data from different sources.
Ohh the hackers... must be the same bunch laundering money in various bank accounts lately. Hackers are the real root of all evil...
when all they weret doing was recalibrating their data against set standards. Nothing really shocking to those who work with loads of data from different sources.
Riiiteee... Just some recalibrating, hmmm okay... this boat floated perfectly fine in my bath tub, not sure why it capsized in open ocean, kind of recalibrating?
Or maybe, nothing really shocking like claiming the cruise liner will never sail because the pin does not float in water.
If it smells like shit, it must be.
Gee do you ever channel search on your tv when its new? Gee that's recalibrating against signal. Better not recalibrate coz that the evil !1!!!!!!111
You really should get out more often...
Here is a series of similar reconstructions that verify the Mann result from 1999:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-remperature-reconstruction-vindicates.html
What valid questions? He keeps bringing up political quotes...
If the science was not solid then it would be possible to shoot it full of holes in peer reviewed articles. That is clearly not the case...
The cushy jobs are for those on the Heartland Institute payroll (and similar orgs.) that are payed to spread disinformation...
I want someone to challenge me on the science of AGW not on the ideology of those supporting it.... Big difference.
Well, Me and lot of others like me are not scientists to understand or challenge the scientific base, but have enough common sense to see, if the front people are lying, then the scientific basis must be flawed.
I have seen Chris Martenson's presentations on Peak Oil and they make perfect sense and I subscribe to them.
Climate change not so much. Even if its true, even then we might have limited ability to avoid it and certainly "paying taxes" is not something I would agree with.
Especially when the fuckers can print all the money they want.
Sorry dude, scientists aren't like the Catholic church by having 'front' people. Anyone can pick up a book and argue with these 'front' men, but if you are going to do so you better have some evidence to back it up. Scientists are not any special breed of human, no doubt you have solved problems at home, then you've used your brain and talents to solve a problem using the information available, same as a scientist.
There are plenty of straw-man arguments that if you support AGW then you support a CO2 tax. That is not true, many here would not like to see a tax on CO2 emissions, just a long term plan to maintain the current levels in the atmosphere.
As a person who is in the field, I can tell you that you are wrong. Any argument against the established model of the educational elites is often nothing more than you diluting yourself that you can win the the argument. Even at that it's an uphill struggle.
You speak of proof as the AGW supporters never provided their own outside of pure speculation and government grants.
And your evidence is....
< crickets >
I'm sorry your highness, you are 'in the field' coz you say so and I must believe you. Fuck off, your not the only scientist around here.
And its deluding oneself, not diluting. you sound like a 3rd rate chemist to me.
Do you have no interest in the politics of AGW? Are you simply trying to prove that AGW exists but you have absolutely no interest in any governmental regulation designed to reduce CO2? Fine. I will stipulate that AGW exists if you will agree that no politician should have any power to make regulations regarding it. Deal?
columbian blend, your observation skills (and honesty) need work. You've been here 25 weeks, I've been here.....
Please show how I only show when global warming shows.
luckily, ZH has a handy tool for you to verify..........
CO2 scam?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/nat-rothschild-plays-his-strong...
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.
a few thoughts in response, in no particular order
1) The article is spot on that we WILL eventually burn all that coal. It is inevitable. I've been to several of those fast growing cities (Nairobi, Kinshasa, Lagos, Shanghai, Mumbai). Those cities will continue to grow. They WILL need to get power from somewhere, and that somewhere sure isn't the oil market.
2) there is absolutely no question that the increase in coal consumption will massively affect the environment. Even those who deny Global Warming realize that coal burning for electricity generation causes mayhem on the environment. We already know the proof. Look at air quality in the US when we used more coal, then look at it now. Massively better. Even moreso, do a Google Images Search of each of those cities, and just look at the air. Just look at it! Anybody see the Olympics in China? My god, it looked like full fog all day. But it wasn't fog, it was smog. Where do people think that smog goes? all over the planet. It will cause chaos.
3) For a progressive LIBERAL with a strong libertarian bent, this entire issue leaves me ambivalent but with also with despair. On the one hand, as Colombian Gringo states, who am I to deny an impoverished child in Lagos energy derived from coal? On the other hand, their increase in coal use will lead to ecologic disaster. Neither answer is "good".
Thus people like me try to reduce our own carbon footprint, and try to get the governments in the world to reduce population stress on our Earth. As for our carbon footprint, I try to lower it. I live in a relatively small house, I ride my bike to work, try to buy local, grow some food in our yard, etc. It's not enough though, as my energy use is still 1,000x what a typical Lagos resident uses... I'd like my American colleagues to also try to do their part, but as columbian gringo states it tramples all over his rights to be an asshole. and thus I don't force Americans to reduce their carbon footprint (because in the end I try to be a liberal LIBERTARIAN). Instead I try to educate them that maybe riding a bike to work really IS a nice and wonderful way to commute, with great health benefits. And maybe it IS a good idea to buy fresh local in-season produce supporting your neighbors instead of paying Monsanto to wipe out local farmers and poison you with their "concoction du jour". And maybe a 5,500 square foot house in the middle of Phoenix or Minneapolis really isn't needed for your family of 2. You might actually find some shred of happiness in a slightly smaller abode.
As for global population control, "luckily" our government is great at the latter by murdering innocent civilians all over the world, including here in the US, with our military policy...and murdering millions more innocent civilians through our economic and foreign policies. (like allowing the big Finance fuckers to speculate in the food and energy markets using free money from Central Banks)
In the end, it doesn't matter what I do anyway, because these places WILL burn coal, and our environment WILL suffer. Global Warming or not, there is no such thing as low-cost "clean" coal.
The difference is, you want coercion while we want the free market to work it out. If people really want alternative energy, the market will provide it for them. If they do not want it, the market will not provide it. What you want to do is let a minority decide what the majority should get. You take away freedom and you replace it with coercion and force.
If you want alternative energy, start a business, make it profitable, and leave those that choose not to buy it alone. Thank you.
Progressivism and Libertarian are counter ideologies. You're just another moronic statist.
And you have demonstrated that you are an asshat muppet who is incapable of rational analytic thought....
Humans must be exterminated due to their exhaling of Carbon Dioxide.
Actually, most are already dying by willingly ingestiing it.
Weird world.
ori
Mind-Duck: Coke Drink, Coke Coal, Coke Drug
And it's Wall Street's Drug of Choice to boot.
Wallf streets drug of choise is testosterone. Vaseline is for the clients.
Strawman... the EPA does not classify C02 as a poisonous gas...
Even when you try to be flippant you come across as a moron....
But it's what canary's in coal-mies were ment to warn about.
o
That is sarc, right? If not, modern day canary is Al Gore and he recently bought an oceanside multimillion dollar home in CA, and no it does not run on Solar panels.
Of course it doesn't run on solar panels. The purpose of the CO2 scam to make al gore and insiders rich off the back of taxpayers.
human beings scam every event and tragedy. Your logic proves nothing.
Yes, they do. Some have even learned to do this miraculous thing called lying in efforts to fabricate a tragedy or event.
like I said above, for the sake of the argument, does the fact that someone is lying about a subject invalidate the subject despite any other evidence, witness, analysis, data, experiment. Dick Cheney lies about a lot of things that still exist. You need to be brave and go beyond the "gate" and dance with all the other outside data.
Like so many here of his ilk, he allows his ideology to trump facts whenever they are inconvenient. Government is bad therefore any government attempt to classify greenhouse gas as bad must be wrong. In this debate like so many others, facts have no place at all and you are wasting your breath arguing with him.
Anyone who believes that CO2 will end the world is a moron, unless you expect to collect money from the suckers. Then, you go on groups like ZH and brag about how smart you are, hoping you can get a job working as a EPA shill. Beats being unemployed and posting garbage on ZH.
Strawmen are flying thick as furious this morning...
Too bad we can't burn strawman arguments for energy. Now that would be LIMITLESS source of energy! Although hardly "clean".
Didn't you know... air quality in Industrial US cities improved amazingly for no reason. It certainly had nothing to do with the EPA. It just happened by market efficiency!
Just like the market efficiency we see in every industrializing country that has no EPA analogue. They have air so clean you can just taste it! (no literally, have you ever TASTED the air of India?) Yummy! I love the taste of sulfur in the morn.
Luckily, all that air pollution in Bangladesh and India and Lagos and Los Angeles and even my home town of Minneapolis just blows away somewhere, never to return!
And as we all know, the Earth itself produces way more pollution... that's why you see huge smog fields in the middle of Kansas and other rural areas.
Adam Smiths invisible hand installed all those scrubbers....
Actually it was a contractor that offered the service on the open market through contractual bidding. Imagine that, the same thing even came up with the solution to the fabricated problem of the government.
So no regulation is ever a factor? How did all that removal of regulation (Glass -S) work out for the banking / financial industry? Criminal law is regulation on human behavior because it understands that human behavior contains violence, lying, greed sexual predatory destruction, environmental destruction......
Voluntaryists understand that legislators and regulators are also humans who are prone to lying and violence. We don't think that it's smart to let an elite class of violent liars maintain a monopoly on the use of force over other sovereign individuals.
you're referring to the oil industry and their wars or the drug industry and their US based costs and legalized dangerous addictions, or Monsanto and a host of others? And you are arguing for no financial regulation? You think this corruption is not brought about by big money and greed. That is the point of most of your argument here but for some strange reason you think it only comes from interest groups, Gore and the taxman. Society always has to step in at some point, when things go to far. Your definition of "elite class" for some reason stops at the DC doorsteps but you refuse to acknowlege that their vote comes from the lobbyists in the halls who come from......
The problem is not the elite class. The problem is an elite class with a monopoly on the use of force against others. Sovereignty rightly belongs to individuals and by transferring that sovereignty to an elite class the individual becomes morally and practically defenseless. Rand called it "the sanction of the victim."
The world will be just fine no matter what. Rather frail, oxygen-dependent humans, not so much.
Ah, so we've got to destroy human civilization in order to save it. Now I understand!
Again you get it backwards... Within 100 years of C02 getting to 1000 ppmv, you will not recognize human civilization....
Neither will you, since you will be dead! Who knows, in 100 years we just might have the technology to deal with your imagined CO2 fears. Why don't you breathing pure oxygen for a few days and see what happens? A few might miss you.
So your plan is that maybe in 50 years a miracle will happen... Is that your idea of Winning?
Seems to me that you are absolving yourself of personal responsibility and merely kicking the can down the road...
Given your diatribes, your statement above brands you as a hypocrite....
I think we should take the same approach with our debt. Maybe in a 100 years we'll find another sucker to buy some more.
I thought you were a proponent of Peak Oil. Does that not invalidate your extrapolation?
Not to mention that extrapolating linear (or exponential) trends tends to make the person doing the extrapolation look like a bloody fool within a few years.
Cliffie, are we getting confused again? What does burning coal have to do with peak oil...
What fraction of C02 increase arises from the different fossil fuels? Why don;t you educate yourself and stop being a muppet....
Now you are resorting to semantics. Peak oil is the same concept as peak coal and you know it.
Or are you now claiming that coal is infinite, but oil isn't?
Twist harder, slippery snake.
What are you on about? Are you deliberately this obtuse?
From a C02 perspective, how many gigatonnes are left from conventional oil? Coal? NG? Unconventional oil?
Per BTU, how much C02 is produced in burning coal compared to NG?
My fuck, and you try to play it up that you took some chemistry in your "youth"....
You just went full retard. I AM a chemist, you dumb fuck.
You are going on and on about how terrible the world would be with 1000ppm CO2, while in other threads you are going on and on about how the fossil fuels are going to run out in our lifetime. It's one or the other, not both.
At a broad stroke, lets say it would take another 1000 years at our current rate of consumption to hit 1000ppm. That implicitly implies that we will have another 1000 years worth of hydrocarbon fuels. Even with more exponential growth, it is going to be damn hard to get that number down below our great grandchildren's lifetime. So if this is what you really think, then I don't want to see one more fucking peep out of you about peak fossil energy happening any time within the next 200 years. If, on the other hand, you think that we have less than 100 years of growing consumption of hydrocarbons left, then you must agree that this whole argument is moot, and that you are a fool for pursuing it.
Which will it be?
Can you wait til tomorrow for the answer? His supervisor is off today (Sabbath) and isn't available to answer what the policy is on obvious contradictions such as this.
because the tragedy of both is impossible right? We can't run into an energy wall for lack of planning, greed and denial and destroy our environment along the way. That's logically impossible right? What chemistry proves this?
no you clearly don't.
LMFAO!!!
Laughing you ass off produces more CO2 than sitting quietly. Why are you trying to destroying the Earth?
Look the Muppet can type!
Strawman... the EPA does not classify C02 as a poisonous gas...
Even when you try to be flippant you come across as a moron....
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the court found the agency "followed both the science and the law in taking common-sense, reasonable actions to address the very real threat of climate change by limiting greenhouse gas pollution from the largest sources."
The Supreme Court unleashed a fury of regulation and litigation when it ruled in Massachusetts vs. EPA in 2007 that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
You seem to have a limited vocabulary and/or your comprehension is limited...
Just another inaccurate observation on your part.
Another content free post....
Strictly speaking C02 is poisonous, in large enough concentrations....
So is oxygen and water. But try living without them, LMHO.
Lots of pots and kettles calling each other black around here.
Your attacks on a person's character pose a convincing argument(not really). They are also very telling of the type of person you really are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_poisoning
You think that's air you're breathing ? Be careful not to exhale, there will be a tax on that.
already paid the the tax called laphroa
easier than paying other taxes
with more babes
god saVE WHOEVER IS CONTROLLING THE PONZI
What if we asked all members of the cult of global warming to inhale and hold their breath for the sake of gaia, al gore and Obama? Better yet, when they inhale, then ask them to tape their mouths and nostrils shut? If they are stupid enough to fall for this scam, maybe they will follow their own advice and commit mass suicide and leave the rest of us alone.
BUT GLOBAL COOLING IS THE REAL MENACE
JUST ASK ANYONE WHO HAS BEEN ON A SKI hOLIDAY THIS IS SERIOUS WE CANT HAVE PEOPLE DISTURBING THE FINANCIKAL PONZI?
According the US Supreme court, that tax is constitutional.
Cow's farts are also very dangerous for the planet. What are we going to do about them?
But but but No they don't you dumbass
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/nat-rothschild-plays-his-strong...
Don't blink. You might miss something.
Go back to the early 2000's. Same family was getting out of the gold game.
Candidate 0 when asked about new coal electrical generator plants responded "will tax them out of existance"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw
The point of this article on ZH is ??
Check out point #1 of the ZH manifesto (my emphasis):
Well Eurobashing has had its sails deflated here on ZH since that last Merkel blink. Wait until the pressure cooker builds up steam in Greece, to get that train hooting n rooting like a bitch on heat; like the Orient Express entering Stambul station again. Murder, murder on the orient express!
Are we sure she blinked...? Cause I'm not sure that was a blink. Maybe she winked. I think the jury is still out on whether she blinked or not.
you should go see her shrink; between a blink and a wink, there is a thing called a freudian chink. TRY WIDENING IT.
Did that freudian chink thing have anything to do with Siggie's visit to the Orient?
perhaps to remind us that economics do not work in a vaccuum
"The point of this article on ZH is ??"
To increase ZH's click-bait count!
So coal really is abundant but current net energy balance calculations show that it's uneconomical to move this type of "fuel" around. No shit! This article is a complete waste of digital space.
American producers are being taxed out of using coal .... thus subsidizing "Coal Aid" to the developing world ! Sounds like liberal foreign aid social engineering .... another way to fleece the free and prop up failed socialism ! Monedas 1929 Comedy Jihad Any System Will Appear To Function With Sufficient Subsidy .... Except Socialism .... It Fails To Work No Matter What
American producers are being taxed out of using coal .... thus subsidizing "Coal Aid" to the developing world ! Sounds like liberal foreign aid social engineering .... another way to fleece the free and prop up failed socialism !
You've got to be kidding me. This is not a conservative/Liberal issue. It is an American Energy and Foreign policy issue. Let's walk through this for a second. I'm being serious, and not a dick.
We could burn the coal here, and we'd see horrific air quality (I'm not talking global warming, I'm talking air quality like LA in the 60's-70's). Or we can burn oil, which releases less pollution at the LOCAL point of use. Americans prefer to use a lot of energy, and Americans ALSO prefer to have lower local air pollution.
Thus, there is a great idea. Allow Americans to burn oil and Natural Gas here in America. This allows us to use TONS of energy with relatively lower LOCAL side effects.
Then ship our dirty coal energy to industrializing nations. This allows them to have cheaper energy, with high local pollution.
Since energy is fungible, this helps to keep us from having to burn the dirty stuff here. (keeps them out of the oil markets).
It's not liberal or conservative. It's an American policy response. Libs may like it because it makes our air quality look better. Perhaps it gives a rural African energy too. Conservatives like it because it's a boon for exports. And because it allows them to burn tons of energy without dealing with the smog.
Lets try an experiment...
Let's release one billion tons or so of C02 in 200 years that was sequestered by natural processes over a period of 150 million years.
What do you think the outcome will be?
Increased plant growth?
Only if you have the available nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and other elements in the correct oxidation state. Plants need a bit more than CO2 in order to grow. Don't talk to me about fresh water right now. We have several crops in the southeast that just got considerably more expensive.
Did you know that nanoporous grapene can desalinate water 2-3 orders of magnitude faster than current RO techniques?
Necessity remains the mother of invention, not that peak oil/AGW death worshipers would be caught dead considering any new technology that could extend the lifespan of mankind beyond next Thursday.
Yes, but how fast can it do it? Give real numbers Tom. Ignoring hard limits, doesn't make them any less real. Now where are those thorium fusion reactors I ordered?
Sorry, forgot to post the link: http://phys.org/news/2012-06-nanoporous-graphene-outperform-commercial-d...
And thorium is fission, not fusion. You add nothing to your credibility (nor do you damage mine) with your childish word games.
Well then, I can't wait to see just one city powered by these reactors. Since it is indeed fission, who gets the radioactive waste?
Do you have any real numbers on the grape vines yet? We have put over 900,000 gallons of water on a small 38 acre crop in the last 24 hours.
Ignore hard limits all you want, it will not make them any less real.
Tmosely that article is describing a computational simulation, not the properties of the real material as yet.
Correct. There are real experts, many are still working with models due to the dangers associated with the technology. In point fact, there is also some fusion-side reactorsd being worked on, but you would actually have to go to the peer-reviewed literature to get that information. Tom believes everything he can access on the internet.
Mosley is actually correct though. You on the other hand, well.... I'm surprised you can get out of bed in the morning.
How insightful. FAIl.
How exactly do you know anything about anyone on this blog? Why not just come out and say that you are full of shit?
Let me guess, you don't think water consumption goes up for a farmer when it gets hot? Do you have any useful information to add?
If you look at the bottom of the article, there is a link to the journal article, published by the ACS.
And I see you continue to insist that thorium fission is actually fusion, again showing how much of a fool you are.
Since you are so stupid that you can't watch a two hour video on the subject, here is a five minute one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
Surely your attention span is longer than FIVE MINUTES.
Tmsoley I have also noticed on occasion you mixing up the terminology of fusion and fusion in past articles. Hold your tongue, you know what he means.
CO2 deprived deserts will flower into Amazonian rain forests ? We've had to live with bovine flatulence ? Monedas 1929 Armageddon isn't as easy to sell as it used to be !
...and plants need a bit more than CO2 in order to grow. Ignorance is indeed bliss, thanks for manking that clear to all.
Soaring levels of eco-lunacy?
Please stop with those'pull my finger' jokes.
Quote from Flake: Lets try an experiment...
Let's release one billion tons or so of C02 in 200 years that was sequestered by natural processes over a period of 150 million years.
What do you think the outcome will be?
We already know. A bunch of rent seekers trying to guilt us into giving them money for nothing.
Do you have a high school diploma? Or are you such a selfish narcissist that you cannot expand your worldview beyond a shallow immediacy...
Let me guess, you believe whatever Rush and Hannity tell with regards to science....
Let me guess, you have one of those big fat certificates that says PHfuckingD! Even more, you will brag about higher degrees but we, like your CO2 scam, are supposed to accept your BS without proof.
In other words, you hold a unproven DR. and brag about it. No wonder you are qualifed to peddle the CO2 scam.
The medical industry thanks you for your continued support. You have heard of the phrase too much of a good thing.
+1, starting to see why columbia is such a shithole.
Actually Colombia is a very nice country with many beautiful women. If you have money,you live better here than in the US. If not, you try to leave.
"if you have money"
Indeed, now what percent of the population does again?
Who the fuck cares?
Apparently you do, otherwise you wouldn't bother to comment.
Oh damn.
people are starting to care about that very issue here at home....or have you not been reading this site.
Ashkenazi (faux)-Jews believe they're inherently more intelligent that other people, the master race.
What were you sayiing about strawmen, ad hominem boy?
Spoken like a true breeder seeking rent - "WINNING"
Wanting to be left alone is the opposite of seeking rent.
Your mind is twisted by your false ideology.
Blogging is "wanting to be left alone?" FAIL.
My God you are a child. Are you telliing me you honestly can't see the difference between imposition of carbon taxes (or mass murder, for that matter), and talking on the fucking internet?
Here's a hint, one includes use of unlimited government force, and the other requires enough force to push a signal along some fiber.
Hmm, since most research shows CO2 levels are a lagging indicator, I'll take a stab. The massive naturally occurring algae blooms in the oceans will get a bit bigger providing more food for plankton. The entire marine chain of life will benefit. Whales will have better food supplies and produce more little whales causing the Bob Barker to run into one and sink in the Antarctic ocean causing the Japanese whaling fleet to throw lifesavers at him, watermelon flavored life savers...
Yep... you got it... unfortunately, backwards....
Why don't you google Phytoplankton and learn that it is down ~50% over the past 60 years, better yet read up on ocean acidification...
Why don't you quote some reasearch about C02 and explain to us the context underwhich it is a "lagging indicator"...
Or maybe explain how the rise in atmospheric C02 is less than the anthopogenic component, meaning we are overwhelming the Earth natural carbon cycle....
All of the above events can easily be explained by other causes. Anyways, why argue junk science with a global warmist fanatic like yourself. Face it, you lost and now you will have to work like the rest of us.
But I have a job idea for you. I know for a fact that excess CO2 is ejected into public bus cushions. So, see if you can get a job with the EPA, sucking farts out of bus seats. I will even give you a reference.
Oh please do explain things by other means...
Could you explain what happens when C02 is dissolved in water??
You are demonstrating that you are an asshat and no better than a denialist muppet....
It encourages the growth of phytoplankton with greater chlorophyll concentration. That whole carbonic acid argument was made in the 70's. It was proven to be incorrect as the action of UV-a on the CO^2 tends to prevent the creation of acids.
Too bad these organisms need more than just CO2.
I would love to see that scientific article that shows that light in the 320-400 nm range 'prevents the creation acids' in an aqueous carbon dioxide-carbonic acid-bicarbonate-carbonate system.
Every source I look at shows no absorption of radiation by CO2 at these wavelengths.
What an intellectual response. now wonder Columbia is such a shithole.
Why don't you explain why your entire side of the debate has lied their asses off using shit GIGO models for years to get the results they want.. Tell me what the weather is next month sport then start making 100 year predictions oh yeah I want exact sunspot activity while your at it and ohh tell me how clouds form obviously you know all this becasue you have models.. Lying sack of S*&%
Do you want a climate model or a weather model?
Or are you too fucking stupid to know the difference?
Here is a climate model from 1975 that made better predictions that all of the "skeptics" combined...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-broecker.html
Be sure to check out figure 2.... if economists were half as fucking good as climate scientists in making predictions the world would be a lot better off....
I would love to meet you just to smell the patchouli, see the worn Birkenstocks and crouch inside your recycled card board hut.. Oh, you don't live like a monk, hypocrite's lie because it makes them feel better.. You are too foolish to see how your betters are using you like most of the world your a tool nothing more, you'll never be sharp enough to see the hands manipulating you for a greater agenda, go away little flakkie man.
You have to quit subscribing to stereotypes...
If you are going to type arguments are are flawed by either being deliberately disingenuous or simply being ignorant then you had better expect to be called out on your errors....
Almost, but exactly backwards. Total Algae is actually down. Blooms have become more unpredictable (like the heartbeat of a dying patient).
By the why, algae and plants need a bit more than CO2 in order to grow. CO2 is the most stable oxidized form of carbon in the carbon cycle.
If you really want to educate yourself, pull your head out of your ass and go look up the other important chemical cycles - nitrogen cycle, sulfur cycle, and phosphorus cycle - to name only a few.
I'll give you a hint, excellerating one of the cycles does nothing to excellerate the others. Here is another hint, we burn coal and other fossil fuels in order to excellerate the nitrogen cycle (see Habor Bosch process).
One would think that someone that is versed in the Laws of Physics would know the difference between "excellerate" (a brand of church software) and accelerate, the rate of change of velocity with respect to time or (d2s/dt2).
Thanks for checking my spelling. very noble.
Spelling? I was checking your physics. And your preference of church management software.
To be good is noble; but to show others how to be good is nobler and no trouble. -- Mark Twain
I am glad you recognize physics is real. Ignoring hard limits, won't make them any less real. Mark Twain certainly understood that and the broader ignorance of humanity.
Maybe you could tell us how it could be possible that someone whose screen name is LawsofPhysics and constantly reminds everyone that he is the physics expert could misspell something as fundamental in physics as acceleration?
Show me one post where I claim to be "an expert in physics". FAIL
So there are no hard limits then, or do you wish to keep ignoring that question?
So now you are claiming that you don't know much about physics? OK, I can buy that.
Glad you are actually starting to read. Now about those hard limits that you don't think exist.
What hard limits "that you [I] don't think exist"?
Why didn't you tell us how "LawsofPhysics" could possible misspell accelerate three times in a row?
300 million years ago co2 levels were ~1500 ppm. Lush deltas containing seed ferns and spore lycopod trees up to 150 feet tall. "Dragonflies" with up to 30 inch wing spans were present and reptiles emerged from amphibians in this time frame. The oceans, no matter how acidified, held rich invertabrate life including abundant spindle shaped foraminifera, corals, brachiopods, mollusks, bryzoans, crinoids, ostracods and trilobites.
Right now co2 levels are ~385 ppm...
Yes co2 levels have an effect on the biosphere. As far as oceanic health is concerned, I would consider that the diverse range of pollutants other than co2 are exerting a far more devastating yield. Radiation, farm run off, corexit, plastics, woteva - crippling the cumulative immunlogical resistance that life should have.
Yep... and pray tell, what was the rate of change?
Tripling/quadrupling the C02 levels did not occur over 400 years....
If anything, the data show that when large changes in the biosphere occured suddenly, a lot of fauna and flora went extinct....
I hear ya. I won't deny that things are changing woteva the cause is, especially that old sun of ours - without it we wouldn't have any global warming of any sort at all. What I was implying with my previous post was that life can exist no matter the circumstance. Climate change causes die offs but it also provides a catalyst for evolution. After all, it is suspected that climate change chased our deepest ancestors from the trees and onto the savannahs. Thankfully our ancestors made the adaption and now I can lurk on the internet.
As far as change is concerned, I will defer that answer to our esteemed prez.
Edit: Anyhow, I gotta tend to my garden. Yeh, its hot out. Then I will review my fossil collection, kinda useless really but gawd dammit I found 'em one by one. LOL