More steam engines just begat
more coal digging.
More steam engines just begat
more coal digging.
Not exact matches
The nation has already overtaken the U.S. as the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter largely because of the
more than three billion metric tons of
coal it burns annually — and several thousand miners die each year
digging up the dirty black rock to feed China's energy needs, not to mention the health toll taken by choking air pollution caused by
coal burning in the Middle Kingdom, estimated by the World Bank to cost the country $ 100 billion a year in medical care.
Imagine a man or woman being so arrogant, and selfish, that they'd take a job driving a CO2 belching truck, or
dig for
coal in a mine, or fish for salmon in the ocean, or fly a CO2 belching airliner, or flip beef patties that came from CH4 exhausting cows, or teaching a classroom of students all of whom belch CO2 and exhaust CH4 and whom will have offspring that produces even
more of those evil gases, or working as a climate scientist in an office heated by CO2 belching FFs and occasionally traveling around the world by CO2 belching airliner — all the while using computers made from FFs and powered by CO2 belching FF power plants, or working as a Senator from Tennessee who was President of the USA for a few hours and who travels all over the world in CO2 belching airliners, or one of the millions of people who mine, process, manufacture and transport every product you have ever seen in your life and all the ones you haven't seen as well.
But how much
more can be accomplished administratively is unclear, which is why the prese ce of a clear and present signal that raises the cost of emitting carbon (starting from where oil, gas, and
coal are
dug up) is so important to cover all the bases.
The idea is to supply fuel by recycling the carbon already in the air in CO2 molecules instead of adding
more to the atmosphere (and greenhouse effect) by
digging up or pumping
more ancient deposits of
coal and oil.
For the
coal industry to try and thwart solar and other methods for the sake of
digging and burning
more coal is a mentality problem.
A
more likely scenario if we do nothing is that emissions will continue at a rapid pace as oil from sand and shale plus
coal substantially replace oil and natural gas, with the consequence that we will have
dug ourselves into a deeper hole in terms of having sufficient resources to reduce emissions sufficiently without major disruption to our society.
We are getting close to world peak production on resources like oil and natural gas, and we shouldn't be using them to
dig up
coal and make even
more pollution delivering WY
coal to Georgia.
Mitigating the environmental costs of
digging up and burning
coal thus means
digging up and burning even
more coal.»
Each year the people keep
digging up
coal and drilling up oil and gas and burning it, and each year, on average, the world, since 1907, has warmed by half
more than a hundredth degree Fahrenheit.
If we keep
digging up
more coal, gas and oil, it will get burned, if not here, then somewhere else.
We could
dig more coal, pump
more oil and drill
more gas, to bring
more of each on stream.
(1) Putting aside actual so - called fossil carbon (i.e. shales,
coal, oil, gas tar sands) which are all relatively unreactive geologically overall (unless those pesky humans
dig them up and burn them) there are in fact (today) substantial pools of potentially
more reactive «fixed» carbon other than the active biosphere's biomass.
But if Donald Trump really wants to create jobs, then he's going to be pro-solar, because there are a lot
more jobs installing solar panels on people's roofs than there are in
digging up
coal or burning it.
No matter how bad the energy situation gets out there in the rest of the world, here in the good old U.S. of A., we can always just
dig some
more coal.
That's right: If we're serious about preventing catastrophic warming, the new study shows, we can't
dig any new
coal mines, drill any new fields, build any
more pipelines.