Coal is extremely clean and hardly harms the environment if at all.
I don't know of any kind of green energy or job that is feasible without government subsidies. In our current economy it is better to create any job than to insist that it be "green".
I'm not sure what you mean by "closing coal mines and creating unemployment" the coal companies are creating more jobs by removing these mountaintops. It takes a lot of people to operate the machinery that removes mountaintops.
We need jobs
Green jobs?? Green energy?? Unemployment,,, the enviroment so called protectors put peope out of work. They don't want people in the woods,mountains, streams or anywhere there were no people thousands of yrs ago. They have done their share to stop the economy.
Green jobs?? Green energy?? Unemployment,,, the enviroment so called protectors put peope out of work. They don't want people in the woods,mountains, streams or anywhere there were no people thousands of yrs ago. They have done their share to stop the economy.
If done right and if the Feds move to build nuke plants I'm all for it, except at Blair Mountain due to it's historic nature.
I believe you have misinterpreted my position.
I do not believe that closing coal mines (and thus creating unemployment) is the right way of going about solving climate change. You seem to be of the opinion that i wish to close coal mines. I have made no such assertion.
Instead, what i have advocated is the creation of green jobs. I mean that this is the most effective technique of combatting climate change. I am disregarding ideology. Government subsidies or not, however it is achieved, green jobs will need to be created to keep everyone with power when fossil fuels become uneconomical. I presume you have lighting? Do you also have a television? A toaster? I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you're using a computer right now.
My point is that green jobs are not only vital to millions of individuals, who hope desperately for employment so that they can eat three meals a day and afford for their childrens' education and health insurance, but also to everyone else.
Oh, and there are several workers' cooperatives that produce and sell wind turbines. It is not necessarily reliant on Government subsidies.
I was referring to the video. It was noted that the US Government intended to close down the coal mines. I am not contesting that it provides jobs - that's precisely why i did not advocate ending the operation. I stated - clearly, i believe - that i disapproved of a move to close down the coal mines. I opposed it in regards to the 80s in the UK, and i still haven't changed my mind.
Maybe coal mines are becoming obsolete, like dinosaurs and one of the greatest contributors to pollution? Maybe those working for the coal industry can be retrained for a new industry, or the coal industry can be gradually weaned out?
In a few years, we will have an energy deficit. Frankly, we need as many sources of energy accumulated as possible.
Actually, i take that back. We need as much energy as possible.
So, if you can find an alternative that accumulates energy at a more efficient rate, then recruit as many people into the industry as possible. However, personally, until coal becomes uneconomical, i think you'd be better advised to recruit from the unemployed, rather than from those already working on accumulating energy.
Eventually, we'll need renewable energy as our primary (and at some point only) source. But first, i'd recommend concentrating on producing power to fill society's requirements.
I'm almost certain they will come up with a "nuclear" solution, depends on the money for research that is available. It probably will have to be real urgent before they put the right kind of money into research for coming up with alternative energy solutions.
Since I live in Kentucky I have mixed feelings about coal mines. Coal does not have to be as "dirty" as it sometimes seems. As for the people that work in coal mines, they will just die off if coal goes away. Most of them have nothing else and would just go on some kind of "welfare" program until they died. They can't afford to move and have nothing else going on around them. Who would hire a poorly educated person that has spent the last twenty to forty years down in a coal mine? Too many better educated, experienced, and healthy people looking for work now.
Unemployment has to be a real concern. Wish Obama could make it a priority as well?Since I live in Kentucky I have mixed feelings about coal mines. Coal does not have to be as "dirty" as it sometimes seems. As for the people that work in coal mines, they will just die off if coal goes away. Most of them have nothing else and would just go on some kind of "welfare" program until they died. They can't afford to move and have nothing else going on around them. Who would hire a poorly educated person that has spent the last twenty to forty years down in a coal mine? Too many better educated, experienced, and healthy people looking for work now.
Unemployment has to be a real concern. Wish Obama could make it a priority as well?
You've just broken the Golden Rule of being an American. You're not supposed to demand that politicians actually do something!
13.5% is quite high, yes.
Oh and before anyone says it's 7.2%, that's a lie. A white lay but a lie nonetheless. The 7.2% is calculated using a system that discounts most of the unemployed for 1 reason or another. After discounting only the young, disabled and retired (and employed obviously) it's 13.5%.
Oh joy...
Edit: 17.5% using the same counting method they used during the Great Depression.
Last edited:
I don't think I got it, but my first thought was "Twinkies"Cake.
*Wonders if anyone will get the reference.
I don't think I got it, but my first thought was "Twinkies"
Has to do with France.
Cake.
*Wonders if anyone will get the reference.
I think i might get the reference, in fact.
I read a bit of Rousseau a while ago. Brilliant - absolutely brilliant. I do suppose you were quoting the princess?
Never heard of Rousseau.
What?!
He was an Enlightenment writer. European stuff, y'know.
The story i was talking about was one he told about a princess. When her people were starving, she was informed that the peasants had no bread. She replied "then let them eat cake". This showed that she was very out of touch with her people.
The phrase is incorrectly but commonly attributed to Marie Antoinnette.
Similar threads
