United States Corrupt Twattery

[Raven]

Nice and wishy washy but the point is, they aren't so the question remains, who will pay for it?

It certainly won't be the ones making money out of it, it will be the ones getting double dipped for it. They will pay for it via energy bills and then they will pay for it via taxes, the same with renewables. The difference being one creates jobs and the other doesn't.

And before you get on your mighty fine high horse and get yourself all flustered, none of that paragraph supports fossil fuel use, it just explains the why.

 

[DaGaffer]

Nice and wishy washy but the point is, they aren't so the question remains, who will pay for it?

It certainly won't be the ones making money out of it, it will be the ones getting double dipped for it. They will pay for it via energy bills and then they will pay for it via taxes, the same with renewables. The difference being one creates jobs and the other doesn't.

And before you get on your mighty fine high horse and get yourself all flustered, none of that paragraph supports fossil fuel use, it just explains the why.

Sorry, which one doesn't create jobs?

 

[Raven]

A handful of maintenance and installation engineers does not really get anywhere near to the amount of people mining, transportation, manual labour jobs, along with all the other supply chain jobs that would be created if fossil fuels were brought back online. Certainly not jobs for people that voted Trump (and presumably would vote again)

Nice straw-man argument though.

 

[DaGaffer]

A handful of maintenance and installation engineers does not really get anywhere near to the amount of people mining, transportation, manual labour jobs, along with all the other supply chain jobs that would be created if fossil fuels were brought back online. Certainly not jobs for people that voted Trump (and presumably would vote again)

Nice straw-man argument though.

Nice "Raven doesn't know what a straw man is" comment.

Renewables are employing 3.4m people in the US (and increasing). Coal before the big cuts started in 2008 employed 127,000 and even at peak in the 70s employed 250,000. Even allowing for transportation increases (which would be trivial because Amtrak is already overstaffed, so it might maintain a few jobs, but isn't going to create new ones), coal for jobs is nonsense and even the boss of the biggest coal company is saying it. Modern extraction techniques mean fewer jobs anyway.

There's a slightly better argument for steel, mainly because the US should really be investing in infrastructure (and its one of the few Trump policies that makes any sense, apart from the retarded wall), which is falling apart, but even then, the jobs are not what they were and they would have to subsidise production to compete with Asian steel.

 

[Scouse]

Nice "Raven doesn't know what a straw man is" comment.

First thing I thought.

Unconsciously incompetent.

 

[Raven]

Firstly, the cuts started long before 2008, around the time nuclear power kicked off. Secondly energy needs have increased massivly and thirdly if the US reverses renewable energy progress, as in wind, water, solar...not nuclear (that your figures include) the jobs wont be created anyway.

It certainly wont be targeted employment like bringing coal back is. Besides which, the point was job creation, not existing employment.

 

[DaGaffer]

Firstly, the cuts started long before 2008, around the time nuclear power kicked off. Secondly energy needs have increased massivly and thirdly if the US reverses renewable energy progress, as in wind, water, solar...not nuclear (that your figures include) the jobs wont be created anyway.

It certainly wont be targeted employment like bringing coal back is. Besides which, the point was job creation, not existing employment.

Read what I said. Even at peak only 250K people were employed in the US coal industry, and mining techniques have long since moved on. It won't create the numbers of jobs that renewables are already creating.

 

[Job]

Its about local jobs for small communities destroyed by job cuts, any token measure us better than nothing, Trumps backing of coal makes it feel like hes on their side, which is more than theyve had for decades.

 

[fettoken]

The key word is 'feel'. People vote with the feels.

 

[DaGaffer]

Its about local jobs for small communities destroyed by job cuts, any token measure us better than nothing, Trumps backing of coal makes it feel like hes on their side, which is more than theyve had for decades.

"Token measures" that fuck everything up for the rest of us. Great.

 

[Job]

Ha really...renewables arent actually powering fuck all, so were not going to notice the difference are we.

 

[Tom]

Ha really...renewables arent actually powering fuck all, so were not going to notice the difference are we.

G. B. National Grid status

22%. Once more, talking out of your arse.

 

[DaGaffer]

Ha really...renewables arent actually powering fuck all, so were not going to notice the difference are we.

Yes because if we did fewer renewables and more hydrocarbons its a double whammy. You really do live in the 1950s don't you? What are your thoughts on teddy boys and Sputnik?

 

[Job]

G. B. National Grid status

22%. Once more, talking out of your arse.

Nope...thats theoretical, bullshit halftruths to shore up the technologies.

 

[Tom]

Nope...thats theoretical, bullshit halftruths to shore up the technologies.

What's it like, looking at words and not understanding what they mean?

 

[Job]

Whats it like believing that those figures are actually some kind of real time measurement.
The renewables is based on wind x turbines plus solar panels x light.
In reality between them they rarely replace more than 5% of fossil/nuke use...often much less.
One month a few years ago it was pointed out the entire turbine network of the UK produced less than 1% of the countries consumption in usable power.
OK it was a slow wind month..but still, and its not the turbines fault...the technology is incomplete.

 

[Raven]

Top tip. People vote based on their personal circumstance, for the most part those in sink towns couldn't give the remotest shit about people in New York or California. Neither should they, its not like doing so would bring them out of poverty, nor would the rich help them in any way. Obviously its not certain that voting for Trump will either but it is all they have.

It's still funny when the privileged get pissy because the underclass tries to fuck them.

 

[Raven]

Nice "Raven doesn't know what a straw man is" comment.

Renewables are employing 3.4m people in the US (and increasing). Coal before the big cuts started in 2008 employed 127,000 and even at peak in the 70s employed 250,000. Even allowing for transportation increases (which would be trivial because Amtrak is already overstaffed, so it might maintain a few jobs, but isn't going to create new ones), coal for jobs is nonsense and even the boss of the biggest coal company is saying it. Modern extraction techniques mean fewer jobs anyway.

There's a slightly better argument for steel, mainly because the US should really be investing in infrastructure (and its one of the few Trump policies that makes any sense, apart from the retarded wall), which is falling apart, but even then, the jobs are not what they were and they would have to subsidise production to compete with Asian steel.

At home now. Where did you get you figure of 3.4 million from? The figure I found says 740k employed in 2016 in renewable energy with most growth coming from Asia.

http://www.se4all.org/sites/default/files/IRENA_RE_Jobs_Annual_Review_2016.pdf

Also, your coal figure is miners, not inclusive of related industry, energy production etc.

And edit, before Scouse gets on his high horse again... no i do not support going back to coal.

 

[DaGaffer]

At home now. Where did you get you figure of 3.4 million from? The figure I found says 740k employed in 2016 in renewable energy with most growth coming from Asia.

http://www.se4all.org/sites/default/files/IRENA_RE_Jobs_Annual_Review_2016.pdf

Also, your coal figure is miners, not inclusive of related industry, energy production etc.

And edit, before Scouse gets on his high horse again... no i do not support going back to coal.

It was in the link where I first commented. And things like working in power stations wouldn't be new jobs, they'd be substitutions.

 

[Raven]

So, also jobs if they switched back to coal then...so meaningless in this argument.

 

[Raven]

lol

A White House aide said the reshuffle was not a demotion for Mr Bannon, who used to head up Breitbart News.

The aide said Mr Bannon was only given a seat on the NSC to keep an eye on National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was fired in February.

Steve Bannon loses National Security Council seat - BBC News

 

[DaGaffer]

So, also jobs if they switched back to coal then...so meaningless in this argument.

Yes.

NB. From your link:

So 769,000 jobs in the US. Or three times the numbers for coal at its peak.

 

[Tom]

Whats it like believing that those figures are actually some kind of real time measurement.
The renewables is based on wind x turbines plus solar panels x light.
In reality between them they rarely replace more than 5% of fossil/nuke use...often much less.
One month a few years ago it was pointed out the entire turbine network of the UK produced less than 1% of the countries consumption in usable power.
OK it was a slow wind month..but still, and its not the turbines fault...the technology is incomplete.

Right, so you know more about this than Sheffield University.

Good one. You're the guy who reads the Daily Mail.

 

[Job]

Its simple physics and how the National grid works, they are fine tuning it, but long way to go.
They couldnt possibly be honest about it or it would kill the industry dead.

 

[Tom]

Oh so it's a conspiracy then. I see. That makes perfect sense. Are these liberal conspirators, or muslims? Or maybe they're transgender conspirators? What about grown men who fancy teenage girls, are they the conspirators?

 

[Scouse]

It's all fake news @Tom because it doesn't fit in with his beleifs.

He's a big religionista is our Job. It's a massive conspiracy to create jobs in clean technology that will be better for the environment and human health.

 

[Ormorof]

as the old joke goes

The world will be saved by a plucky group of underdog right wing billionaires and oil companies (who have a long history of honesty and ensuring theres no extra poison in their products) from this conspiracy called "climate change" that is being touted by highly educated scientists

 

[fettoken]

I've never read that passage anywhere, is it a translation from the Trump Bible?

 

[Gwadien]

Rich people getting richer by destroying the earth and telling everyone it's cool whilst building their space rockets.

 

[Raven]

Top tip. They make money either way.

There is a reason energy bills have not fallen, even though renewable production is going up and the cost of fossil fuels is falling.

Energy companies will ream you dry, regardless of what their cost of sale is and that goes for industry too.

There is no such thing as cheap energy and renewable sources will not lower your bills.

Just another double dip from the rich, they are heavily subsidised and get to charge high to the end user.