Thread: A Challenge to all those Who Rant and Rave Against the Fossil Fuel Industry

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Then from now on just ignore me please....because that is what I will do re. you. There are others here with substance to their posts and arguments to whom I wish to reply...I may not agree with them but that is what debate is all about (look it up).

You never did respond to this post?

Originally Posted by MannieD

How many people on this forum have demanded we stop a the use of all FF today? How many reasonable people in general are advocating stopping the use of FF TODAY? I have stated many times that windpower and solar power are most useful as a supplement to the increasing demand for power; not a replacement for the use of FF.
Me thinks you have built another strawman.

Because it lacked substance?

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

My definition of ECONOMICAL: Something that pays for itself and competes with alternatives in a free market.

Liberal Definition of ECONOMICAL: Whatever we want that we can have the gov't force down peoples throats via taxation.

See the difference in the way we think??

I certainly do. The conservative version is both untrue and immoral, because you have ignored external costs.

When party A contracts with party B to provide a good or a service, but party A offloads part of the cost of that good or service onto an unsuspecting public which did not agree to take on those costs, there is a problem. The "free market" has broken down. Party A is getting a free ride, and the rest of us are paying for it, even though we didn't agree to.

In your fantasy version of a perfect world, the free market never breaks down, so there is never a need for governmental regulation. The real world is different. In the real world, most people consider it immoral to offload your costs onto others without their consent. Most people consider it to be the moral equivalent of theft. But conservatives are just fine with that. In fact, conservatives object to systems designed to either recover the external costs, or to reduce them. Which is why conservatives are wrong.

And always will be.

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

I certainly do. The conservative version is both untrue and immoral, because you have ignored external costs.

When party A contracts with party B to provide a good or a service, but party A offloads part of the cost of that good or service onto an unsuspecting public which did not agree to take on those costs, there is a problem. The "free market" has broken down. Party A is getting a free ride, and the rest of us are paying for it, even though we didn't agree to.

In your fantasy version of a perfect world, the free market never breaks down, so there is never a need for governmental regulation. The real world is different. In the real world, most people consider it immoral to offload your costs onto others without their consent. Most people consider it to be the moral equivalent of theft. But conservatives are just fine with that. In fact, conservatives object to systems designed to either recover the external costs, or to reduce them. Which is why conservatives are wrong.

And always will be.

If you want a response you are going to have to be a lot more specific re. what you are talking about.

Particularly:The real world is different. In the real world, most people consider it immoral to offload your costs onto others without their consent.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

If you want a response you are going to have to be a lot more specific re. what you are talking about.

Particularly:The real world is different. In the real world, most people consider it immoral to offload your costs onto others without their consent.

Hmmmmm - try this one - coal fired power station emissions

Plant a) has mitigation in place but it costs 0.9 cents more - plant b) has no mitigation in place and it not only spewing CO2 into the atmosphere but coal ash all over nearby citizens increasing their mercury exposure and radiation exposure (read about the level of radioactivity in coal ash)

Now if all things were equal we COULD say "just sue the second power plant" but as most know it is not as easy as that. Litigation COSTS and there is no guarantee you will win - even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

Now if all things were equal we COULD say "just sue the second power plant" but as most know it is not as easy as that. Litigation COSTS and there is no guarantee you will win - even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Also, lawsuits are just as much a part of government as regulations are (it's just that lawsuits are judicial branch, while regulation is executive and legislative branches). And they're not only a lot more expensive than regulation, they're a lot more uncertain too. Why anyone would prefer lawsuits to regulation is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

If you want a response you are going to have to be a lot more specific re. what you are talking about.

Particularly:The real world is different. In the real world, most people consider it immoral to offload your costs onto others without their consent.

One external cost could go something like this:

A factory upstream from me dumps their crap into the water because there is no regulation to prevent it. I use the water for drinking or watering livestock. If the water is unusable I lose money because I have to find a non polluted outside source.

I would have to pay the cost of this factory dumping their water into the stream because they did not pay to treat it or dispose of their waste in a proper manner.

Or...I do not manage the runoff water from my livestock operation and the water flows downstream into a large source of public drinking water and it causes an algae bloom that makes the water undrinkable without costly treatment.

See how that works?

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

The fact is BB,and the rest of you eco-folks, the fossil fuel industry does not pollute AT ALL

That statement is so ridiculous on so many levels I'm thinking you said it because you're counting on it brain-freezing your critics into a state of dumfounded stupification.

So, you're saying the Exxon-Valdez and BP-gulf oil-spills polluted nothing?

Ever talk to people living in Fort Chippewan, downstream from the northern Alberta tar-sands mines? Ever been to Nigeria and seen the messes around their environment-refugation-free pumps?

Lemme guess... you're going to say excess CO2 in the atmosphere is not "pollution", because CO2 in small amounts occurs naturally. That means you don't mind neighbors playing music at 90 decibals at 3:00 AM because there's always some amount of sound in the air. It means you don't believe massive doses of vitamin C can cause a heart-attack, because it's safe at low levels.

Why don't the FF-industry lobbyists/apologists come clean and just say what the issues are among FF-shareholders... that they know darn good and well that global warming is happening and that it is catalyzed by excess CO2 in the air, but the selfish-and-hateful subset of FF shareholders don't want to convert to different forms of energy production because for now they get the largest dividends from FF, while the cautious-and-conservative subset of FF shareholders don't want to admit their investments facilitate global warming because they're afraid if they do, they'll get sued.

Can you find a coal-fired power plant in the US that does not have particulate, NOx, and sulfur dioxide (real pollutant) emissions controls?

You know what the measured mercury concentration in the air in the US is? BDL - below detection limits.

Not only do small amounts of CO2 occur naturally, but the geological record shows that much higher CO2 levels occurred naturally in the past. Where do you think all that limestone came from?

Originally Posted by Taxcutter

Can you find a coal-fired power plant in the US that does not have particulate, NOx, and sulfur dioxide (real pollutant) emissions controls?

You know what the measured mercury concentration in the air in the US is? BDL - below detection limits.

Not only do small amounts of CO2 occur naturally, but the geological record shows that much higher CO2 levels occurred naturally in the past. Where do you think all that limestone came from?

You wouldn't care to back up that claim, would you?

Originally Posted by Taxcutter

Can you find a coal-fired power plant in the US that does not have particulate, NOx, and sulfur dioxide (real pollutant) emissions controls?

Being forced by government to put on emission controls does *not* mean that the FF-industry "does not polute at all". It means it *does* pollute, which is why the power company's were forced to put on emission controls... and they still leak a bit.

What about coal-powered plants in countries that *don't* use emmision controls? Lemme guess... the FF-industry lobbyists/apologists in the US are going to start saying that if global warming is going to happen anyway because other countries won't enforce emission controls, then US FF-industry shareholders should be allowed to drop the expense of emission controls so they can make higher dividends so they can afford to dig themselves into mountains in order to ride out the global warming apocalypse.

Not only do small amounts of CO2 occur naturally,

The critical part being the "small amounts".

but the geological record shows that much higher CO2 levels occurred naturally in the past.

Yeah, and it also shows the earth went through periods of being much hotter than it is now.

Where do you think all that limestone came from?

Shells of calcium carbonate settling onto the bottoms of low oxygen, low current-flow ponds, and if you get too much CO2 being absorbed from the atmosphere by water to become carbonic acid, it makes the water too acidic to support the forms of life that would become limestone, like coral.