Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (183763)	5/6/2014 8:31:00 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206184

Bob, are you suggesting that the Obama administration is alone in the world in efforts to try to minimize coal as an energy source? I posted a Bloomberg article awhile ago about China trying cut down on coal as part of their effort to cut the terrible pollution in their cities. I am sure if I looked, I could find articles on other countries doing the same, even though I realize that coal use has actually increased a little recently in a few countries in the EU in response to higher NG and lower coal prices. But it still isn't close to where it was 15 or 20 years ago in those countries, and is definitely controversial. I have never said it would be an easy thing to do. As long as people are in the habit of not taking into account any of coal's negative externalities, it looks like a cheap source of energy. If - emphasis on if - AGW is real - then it is going to happen. Bob, why do you think that Russia, Canada, China, the Scandinavian countries, and a couple of others are jockeying around the arctic over the past few years staking a claim to the natural resources that everyone presumes are there, including a massive amount of fossil fuels? And private companies as well as governments are talking about investing billions of dollars in infrastructure up there for the first time ever? See, to take one example: cfr.org Record melting has occurred in recent years and the expectation is that this melting will continue. If that expectation didn't exist, no one would be thinking about investing billions of dollars there. Climate change is real, and yeah, it is "going to happen," to use your words. But there are things that could be done that could at least minimize it. However, this is not a thread to discuss that, and I would not have brought it up here except in response to other posts. I almost always succeed in remaining silent, knowing that these discussions are fundamentally futile.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (183763)	5/7/2014 12:24:51 AM
From: Hannoverian	Respond to of 206184

Someone clearly has developed more than a passing interest in the politically unloved American coal-that dirty & evil hydrocarbon. @ least with Coal, no drilling & the ultimate induced seismicity resulting from the jobs, which currently necessitate those evil injector wells. Of course with coal production there is the minor issue of all that surface H2O pollution & speaking of the surface, with Coal mining the local environment does take a degree of devastation.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (183763)	5/7/2014 11:20:01 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206184

You are correct that overseas companies/countries are not cutting coal from their energy mix (particularly India and China) because of the price (source one of this year's National Geographic Magazines), but it also well documented what this will do to the global warming trend (accelerate it). IMHO we need need a tax policy in the coal producing nations that addresses this and pays coal using nations to switch to more environmental friendly means of energy. (Part of the tax revenue would go to coal producing states to offset the loss of jobs therein). This would be hard to do politically, but we need to have, as a nation, an argument over it IMHO.