Trump and coal mines

[Hermit]

China generates about 70% of its power from coal and that will go up 20%, or to about 84% , by 2020.

Where do you get those figures from?

According to an article published by the Financial Times in January this year coal consumption will rise to 4.1bn tonnes in 2020 from 3.96bn tonnes in 2015 despite China's plan for aggressive coal capacity cuts to 2020. The figures you quote are total bullshit.

The Wikipedia article titled [urlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#cite_ref-eia_5-0]Coal in China[/url] also totally contradicts your spurious assertions.

I'm beginning to get the impression that your increasing hysteria regarding anything "left" has caused you to take leave of the real world for the world of "alternative facts". You're certainly outTrumping your dear leader right here.

[Tero]

Ah, twenty percent of 70% is 14% add to 70%. new math to me. But OK whatever.

[Svartalf]

lol, is he also going to restore jobs in the flint knapping sector?

[Animavore]

Oh other countries are using coal so people should protest them instead and leave Trump alone to strip environmental protections to the bednefit of a tiny few.

Yes. Yes. I can see what an amazing argument this is. Such brilliant rhetorical flourish. I've now been cleansed of all my climate concerns. Coral reefs are only stupid anyway.

[pErvinalia]

Coral reefs are a Marxist construct.

[Tero]

There's no sign yet of a Trump boom in manufacturing or coal mining

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ining-jobs

[Scot Dutchy]

There's no sign yet of a Trump boom in manufacturing or coal mining

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ining-jobs

With 45 in power I dont trust American government stats. Who and what is unemployed? I understand that they are plenty of people without a job but not registered as unemployed. I would really love to see how all these stats are produced over all the different states with different. 45 will just claim everything so what's the point of collecting data?

[Forty Two]

China generates about 70% of its power from coal and that will go up 20%, or to about 84% , by 2020.

Where do you get those figures from?

http://www.chinafaqs.org/issue/coal-electricity (69%)
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... ding-them/ China is building one coal-fired power plant every 7 to 10 days, while Japan plans to build 43 coal-fired power projects to replace its shuttered nuclear units. The United States, on the other hand, cannot build new non-CCS coal-fired power plants and is shuttering existing coal fired power plants. These existing coal-fired power plants retiring in the United States are among the cheapest source of electricity generation in this country. To replace these plants with new generating capacity will cost the nation and thus taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.COAL.ZS (70.1%)

According to an article published by the Financial Times in January this year coal consumption will rise to 4.1bn tonnes in 2020 from 3.96bn tonnes in 2015 despite China's plan for aggressive coal capacity cuts to 2020. The figures you quote are total bullshit.[/quote]

They're building new coal plants at a rapid pace. According the wikipedia article you cited - "China's installed coal-based electrical capacity was 907 GW, or 77% of the total electrical capacity, in 2014." And, the stats year by year from 2000 to 2015 in that wikipedia article show massive increase in coal.

I'm beginning to get the impression that your increasing hysteria regarding anything "left" has caused you to take leave of the real world for the world of "alternative facts". You're certainly outTrumping your dear leader right here.

China Burns 17% More Coal Than Reported https://cei.org/blog/china-burns-17-mor ... gQodyD0Eyw

China has been burning up to 17% more coal per year than previously reported, according to new data released by the Chinese government. New York’s Times announced this news in a top-left, front-page story on 4th November. According to reporter Chris Buckley, “The sharp upward revision in official figures means that China has released much more carbon dioxide — almost a billion more tons a year according to initial calculations — than previously estimated. The increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.”

China Doubles Down on Coal Despite Climate Pledge
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-doub ... 1478520063

China to increase coal fire capacity by 20% - http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... 20-percent

Despite Climate Vow, China Pushes to Dig More Coal https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/busi ... .html?_r=0

China to increase coal production - http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy ... production

[Tero]

Must not have regulated fucking enough in China. Too many Chinese, with too many males from 1 child era.

Put all them extra males working in the coal mines.

[Hermit]

China generates about 70% of its power from coal and that will go up 20%, or to about 84% , by 2020.

Where do you get those figures from?

[/quote]

China to increase coal fire capacity by 20% - http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... 20-percent

You do realise that even if one accepts the increase in coal fire capacity to be 20%, the percentage of its power from coal and that will not go up 20%, or to about 84% of total electricity generation by 2020. in fact, the link you cite says that it will go down to 55%. In part that has probably something to do with China investing 120 billion dollars a year in renewable energy generation.

By actually posting links that contradict your assertions you have confirmed that your increasing hysteria regarding anything "left" has caused you to take leave of the real world for the world of "alternative facts".

[Animavore]

This distracts from the point that saying other countries are doing it is a shit argument. I'll again remind that Obama's clean energy plan was ambitious in its scope and would've drastically reduced emissions. Trump could've decided to just go ahead with the plans but he and his team, which include fossil interests, want to scrap it for their own greedy, personal benefit disguised as ideological reasons (Green is the new Red and other manufactured, shrieking Neo-McCarthyism).

This is not merely a political argument over policy. What the Repubs are doing is simply immoral and shows a selfish and callous disregard for people and nature. And as such they should be treated as a hostile government willing to attack and poison their own people every bit as much as Assad.

[Forty Two]

Coral reefs are a Marxist construct.

Be careful...we've gone from gender is a social construct, to sex is a social construct, to race is a social construct....it's only one more step to "species is a social construct." Maybe someone identifies as a coral reef. The lines between species come about due to certain genetic alleles being privileged over other alleles over time.... marginalized alleles are oppressed, and ultimately tend to disappear. It's genocide via systemic oppression of disfavored and underprivileged alleles.

[Forty Two]

There's no sign yet of a Trump boom in manufacturing or coal mining

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ining-jobs

I'm shocked. There's no sign in the first six to eight weeks of his presidency that that there has been a Trump-created manufacturing and mining boom? Epic Presidency Fail!

[Forty Two]

There's no sign yet of a Trump boom in manufacturing or coal mining

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ining-jobs

With 45 in power I dont trust American government stats. Who and what is unemployed? I understand that they are plenty of people without a job but not registered as unemployed. I would really love to see how all these stats are produced over all the different states with different. 45 will just claim everything so what's the point of collecting data?

You trusted them under 44? Why? Because the Democratic Party has shown itself to be of good character? Like when it cheated during the election?

The numbers are as accurate as the methodology used to collect the data, which generally does not change administration to administration -- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... xposed-by/

It's rather unbecoming to suggest that now that 45 is in office the formerly trustworthy numbers are now not trustworthy. It's the same shit as with 43. People said the unemployment rate wasn't "really" 4.9%, it was really 10% due to this or that...but, once Obama was in office, those same folks had no issue with the raw number anymore. Embarrassing. You're better than that, Dutchy. Please. You're better than that.

[Forty Two]

This distracts from the point that saying other countries are doing it is a shit argument.

Except that selective application of criticism suggests that the criticism is being applied for motives other than straight criticism of the policy. I.e., picking on one person but not another when both are equally deserving of said picking suggests there is some other motivation for choosing one rather than the other. Like, if a prosecutor chooses to bring charges against certain people, but not others, even though the circumstances are similar, one might look for a reason as to why the selectivity.

I'll again remind that Obama's clean energy plan was ambitious in its scope and would've drastically reduced emissions. Trump could've decided to just go ahead with the plans but he and his team, which include fossil interests, want to scrap it for their own greedy, personal benefit disguised as ideological reasons (Green is the new Red and other manufactured, shrieking Neo-McCarthyism).

Well, on the other hand, the costs associated with the so-called "clean energy plan" and its impact on the economy, measured against the overall benefit, might suggest a more gradual policy would be in order.

This is not merely a political argument over policy. What the Repubs are doing is simply immoral and shows a selfish and callous disregard for people and nature. And as such they should be treated as a hostile government willing to attack and poison their own people every bit as much as Assad.

If you oppose Obama's energy policy you're immoral. Yes, put in those terms, it's not merely a political argument anymore. It's a religious one.