Trump trash gets the pollution, immigrants in Silicon Valley get the jobs automating coal production. Sounds like a great trade-off to me.
Given a choice between putting men's lives at risk or using machinery to perform the work the more ethical thing to do is not place men in harms way. Yes jobs will be lost due to it but not putting people at risk is the greater obligation. The environment should be protected no matter which method is used.Except for the lives of the people who rely on the contaminated water (See: Flint, Pine Ridge & other reservations), the jobs of the people who were displaced by the machinery, and the environment.
Well my bible says that Jesus is God the Creator and he did say be a good steward of all things.Question. What would Jesus do? Sully the land that his father created, or preserve it?
and my bible says that jesus is god and will bring spongecake and strawberries to all the good children.Given a choice between putting men's lives at risk or using machinery to perform the work the more ethical thing to do is not place men in harms way. Yes jobs will be lost due to it but not putting people at risk is the greater obligation. The environment should be protected no matter which method is used.
Well my bible says that Jesus is God the Creator and he did say be a good steward of all things.
Given a choice between putting men's lives at risk or using machinery to perform the work the more ethical thing to do is not place men in harms way. Yes jobs will be lost due to it but not putting people at risk is the greater obligation. The environment should be protected no matter which method is used.
Well my bible says that Jesus is God the Creator and he did say be a good steward of all things.
Then you run into other moral conflicts. Do we say, "no mining" if that means we price energy such that poor people freeze? Or do we recognize that mining has benefits and costs and try to maximize the benefits and mitigate the costs? The current regulatory regime tries to mitigate costs by internalizing them, that is, it tries to push the costs of mining into the price of minerals. In this case, the price of coal should reflect the cost of doing something less destructive with the gob than dumping it in creeks. Likewise, the point of requiring scrubbers on smokestacks is to push the cost of avoiding air pollution onto the price of electricity. By internalizing the costs, we push mining companies and power generators to seek higher efficiency and less polluting methods. Relaxing the standards rewards inefficiency and waste.So no mining then.
Then you run into other moral conflicts. Do we say, "no mining" if that means we price energy such that poor people freeze? Or do we recognize that mining has benefits and costs and try to maximize the benefits and mitigate the costs?
The saddest part of it all is that Repubs' idea of how to raise up impoverished regions of the country is to send 'em back to the mines...
Those coal mine jobs are gone for good. The whole thing about cutting regulations or taxes will bring back steel mill and coal mine jobs is just a pipe dream for low value add losers whose dreams involve going back 100 years to do crappy jobs.
Boo hoo hoo so you mining jobs aren't coming back. Hey I hear that Hooters is going to start hiring men soon.I was playing him at the ol' "What would Jesus do" shtick. He's put forward that argument in previous threads 'n' all.
Nobody in the US is building new coal plants. They're being aggressively retired since most of them at or past end of useful life and NG/renewables have been eating their lunch. Utilities need to make investments that will last 20-30 years and building something that could easily become a stranded asset in a few years and more expensive to build per megawatt isn't an option. New capacity forecast for 2017 is like 1/3 NG and 2/3rds renewables. Most of the major coal mining companies will be out of business in 10-15 years, if not sooner.
Enjoy the destruction of our environment. You really showed those fucking liberals.
I havent read the article, but based on the headline alone. What possible reasonable reason could someone have for supporting the dumping of coal waste into streams?
.......- But anyways, I am a environmentalist......
I havent read the article, but based on the headline alone. What possible reasonable reason could someone have for supporting the dumping of coal waste into streams?
Perfectly said, sir.Then you run into other moral conflicts. Do we say, "no mining" if that means we price energy such that poor people freeze? Or do we recognize that mining has benefits and costs and try to maximize the benefits and mitigate the costs? The current regulatory regime tries to mitigate costs by internalizing them, that is, it tries to push the costs of mining into the price of minerals. In this case, the price of coal should reflect the cost of doing something less destructive with the gob than dumping it in creeks. Likewise, the point of requiring scrubbers on smokestacks is to push the cost of avoiding air pollution onto the price of electricity. By internalizing the costs, we push mining companies and power generators to seek higher efficiency and less polluting methods. Relaxing the standards rewards inefficiency and waste.
Can't speak for other liberals, but I am fucking done. Let the GOP rape and pillage. I don't give a single fuck.Well, to be quite honest - where is the uprise from Liberals? You're too busy camping out for shit as stupid as a pipeline - which has been proven to be safer and more environmental friendly than other modes of transport for fuel lines. But screw facts, amirite? It's all about protecting the native americans though right?! Which is why we need to GET RID OF THE REDSKINS! Even though when native americans were polled 9/10 said they don't give a shit. But screw facts, amirite? And screw actual important issues like dumping coal or the health of the overall economy.
You can't shit on a conservatives like me on this one, since I actually did vote for Billary as much as I didn't want to. I knew my retirement assets would be safe under her.
Well, to be quite honest - where is the uprise from Liberals? You're too busy camping out for shit as stupid as a pipeline - which has been proven to be safer and more environmental friendly than other modes of transport for fuel lines. But screw facts, amirite? It's all about protecting the native americans though right?! Which is why we need to GET RID OF THE REDSKINS! Even though when native americans were polled 9/10 said they don't give a shit. But screw facts, amirite? And screw actual important issues like dumping coal or the health of the overall economy.
You can't shit on a conservatives like me on this one, since I actually did vote for Billary as much as I didn't want to. I knew my retirement assets would be safe under her.
Touchy, huh? Ashamed of your conservative brethren? You don't have to attack liberals to say so.