2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton should not apologize about shutting down coal mining.
No way. Coal is one of the worst possible fossil fuels there is. Coal-burning created the acid rain that screwed up freshwater resources in the eastern part of this country. It's a dirty fuel that should no longer be used for any industrial purpose. It's a major contributor to global climate change. No other fossil fuel is more damaging to the environment, both from mining and use as a fuel.
What about those coal mining jobs? Well, when coal mining is shut down, they will be gone. We can, and should, find ways to help miners who lose those mining jobs find alternatives, but we should not continue to mine and burn that climate-changing, environment-destroying fuel.
Thinking people want to end coal mining and the use of that fuel. That it will hurt an industry that has damaged so much is no reason to move away from that position. Politics are no reason to move away from that position.
Coal is filthy fuel that creates great harm wherever it is burned. We need to stop mining it and stop burning it. Period.
That's my opinion. Thanks for reading it.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Hard choices have to be made.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)I hope those coal mine workers can be assisted in finding new ways to earn their living, but those mines still need to be shut down. They are a plague on the environment, both during mining and when the coal is burned as fuel.
Some things simply have to be done. That's one of them.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Since she is so pro fracking in T-T-IP, she's got to leave coal or millions in cities where there is no room for solar will freeze.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)But that requires a major investment in alternative sources of energy. Right now, we're nowhere close to being prepared to replace oil and coal. Look around you and virtually everything you see is the product of those sources.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)under Hillary Clinton's plan. Coal is being phased out as a fuel. That has caused many jobs to be lost already, as has new mining technology. It has also lowered the number of new cases of black lung and deaths in mining disasters.
We can't simply shut down coal production instantly, of course, but we will shut it down and are already scaling it back. We need to accelerate that process. Will people in West Virginia and other coal mining areas face economic challenges? Of course, but we can plan to mitigate those challenges. And we should. But, we should not back down from the plan to stop mining and burning coal.
That it will not happen tomorrow is no reason to pretend it will not happen.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I agree with your reply. I just think people underestimate how reliant we are on fossil fuels and how far we are from being able to replace them while maintaining any semblance of our current lifestyle (perhaps we ought to question that lifestyle, but that's a whole other discussion).
Electric cars seem great, but the batteries are toxic and what do folks think is responsible for electricity? Hint: it rhymes with "foal."
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)And it's going to take longer than any sensible person wants it to take. I'm not knowledgeable enough to really discuss how it will happen, though. Here's what I'd do, if I were a lot younger and an engineer. I'd come up with a new roofing technology that could turn every roof into a solar site. From residential to industrial buildings, we have an enormous amount of available space on structures that face the sky. Right now, they're just designed to shed rain and snow. We need to change that.
I know such systems are under development, but it would help if some grants in aid were available to encourage faster development and implementation. It's one solution to part of the problem.
As for vehicles, we're simply going to have to scale down our individual transportation methods. A full-sized automobile is horribly wasteful of energy, and most of the time, they're just going to a job or shopping. Turning full-sized autos into EVs makes no sense at all. Scaled down vehicles could be powered easily with much less drain on our power grid.
In fact, that solar roof on your house would keep a small EV charged without the owner even noticing the cost, really.
My wife and I put only about 5000 miles per year on our vehicle. Most of its trips are under 5 miles. We work at home, and have since 1974. The people we work for aren't even nearby. We've been telecommuters for decades. We still drive a gasoline-fueled vehicle, mostly because of the high cost of EVs. We'll switch when we can.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)making it irreversible in Tafta
Baobab
(4,667 posts)It wont create any jobs for Americans unless wages fall a LOT.
US firms wont win the bids.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)She's a political coward and a liar and she should never be given the responsibility to commit the country to wars, or to set policy on climate change issues.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Her apology was for not putting it in terms that were understood correctly. That's a different thing.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)We're treading too close to "the meaning of is" territory here.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)It's not even a technicality or triviality. Anybody claiming "there's a war going on between Germany and Britain." would be loudly dismissed as a blithering idiot, as would one who claimed it was a true statement simply because such a war existed in 1944.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)But what not everybody forgets is he made that statement to try to explain why he lied to a grand jury about whether or not he had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. It was an ambiguious remark, designed not to clarify, but to obfuscate and confuse. Sort of like the way Hillary tried to explain her previous anti coal statement.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)"there's nothing going on between us." is not ambiguous. If your current SO asked you about a previous flame for example, it would be a perfectly fitting and perfectly acceptable answer. It would take an entirely new tense or the spontaneous revision of the present tense's meaning to imply even to the thickest questioner that this referred to any past entanglement in any way.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)"Are you having a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky?"
"No, at the moment I'm sitting in a chair responding to your questions. Miss Lewinsky is nowhere in sight."
Can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?
Don't bother to reply, this is going nowhere.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)She is far from a coward. Wow! Being a Senator for decades and staying in a comfort zone environment is cowardice.
BootinUp
(47,209 posts)MineralMan
(146,345 posts)She didn't say she wanted to back off shutting coal mines down. She felt bad for the workers who will be displaced, but has a plan for that, too.
Some things are basic, and should not be politicized. Coal needs to be no longer used as an industrial fuel, both in the US and worldwide. Period.
LonePirate
(13,437 posts)The decline of coal based energy production will only continue. The jobs are never coming back and politicians need to stop sugar coating this reality.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)She apologized for using insensitive words not for telling them the truth.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)"Suck it up, bro"?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)What should Bernie and Hillary tell him then?
Skink
(10,122 posts)She's got to do what it takes to win.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)She knows she's not going to get that. That goes to the Republicans.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)She should map out the path, and a bold plan for paying the citizrns whose jobs will vanish.
It's change we need.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)MineralMan
(146,345 posts)It's not a plan that can be outlined in a few words, however. She mentioned it, but couldn't provide the details quickly and simply.
Stuff's complicated.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Now, she says it is a misstatement. Which is it?
She's never mentioned it was a misstatement before, but now when it's politically expedient in coal country she's trying to back away from that statement.
God knows what she beleives. It all depends on who she is talking to at the moment.
May be a good idea for her to read her own website.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)this time.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)She apologized for being misunderstood, not for her position on coal. Listen to what she said again to that coal miner.
Bernie Sanders also wants to end our dependence on coal and other fossil fuels. That coal miner wouldn't like his position any better. What's needed is a transition plan for those workers, not a surrender to the coal industry. That's Hillary's plan, and I'm sure it is part of Sanders' plan, too.
But, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, not Bernie Sanders.
qdouble
(891 posts)She didn't waffle. I really don't see what the big deal is.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)She's backing fracking and NG special interests, this is well documented and easily validated so it's political calculation that the 'blow back' from making such a statement is already been 'tested' through the 'focus group political optics machine'...
Odd the writer of this OP doesn't mentioned HRC's stance on fracking, which is much more devastating to environment than coal...