Out.

Gitt gud

Quote from: Kinder on November 10, 2014, 06:38:26 AM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on November 10, 2014, 06:18:50 AM

Quote from: Kinder on November 10, 2014, 06:10:30 AM

God damn you fucktards love to put words in people's mouths, huh? How about read some news for once? These stringent EPA regulations are going to cost the shutdown 32 coal plants with the possibility of 36 others
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/energy-environment/coal-plants-to-shut-down-from-EPA-regulations.html
March saw the LOSS of over 7,000 mining jobs as well, because of the EPA's harsh regulations
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/12/coal-mining-jobs-free-fall-after-epa-regs


Go on, keep playing the stupid card and think the economy is going to be fine. Because in the real world, away from your dogmatic beliefs the fact is the economy is going to collapse if the EPA doesn't back the hell off

Shutting down coal plants is a good thing.
Sure it's a real bitch for the communities that depend upon them, but the world needs to move past fossil fuels and the sooner it does the better.

And it wouldn't surprise me if these horrific stringent regulations are only just bringing the USA into the same tier as the rest of the developed world.

The economy of the USA doesn't depend on coal mining, I would be pretty surprised if this even makes a 0.1% dent in things.

*facedesks*

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States#Total_coal-related_jobs

Quote

There are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000)

174,000. 174,000 people EMPLOYED that you're telling "oh well, figure it out yourself" that doesn't even include wives, parents, and children who rely on these people for income. The U6 unemployment rate is over 10% and you're adding more people to this number with no way to secure a job

Guess what? We can easily relieve dependence of fossil fuels WITHOUT displacing more people because of job loss. How you say? Tell the EPA to get off the back of industries like coal, but at the same time approve government subsidiaries, grants, and tax breaks to companies in the purpose of alternate energy and the development of that

What this allows is for people to keep their jobs but at the same time the growth of an industry to act as a safety net as the technology has been created and the cost has decreases to provide for a market.

Farmers cultivate different plots of lands so they always have something growing in order to give them some money. This is the same concept you need to use

Hmm, you actually have some good points there <.<

It just seems that this sudden axing of jobs would have been less of a problem if the states had signed up to the kyoto protocol all those years ago. Then you would have had the time to make the transitions, rather than reaching the 'oh shit' point, and having to take more drastic measures to counter the problem.

I would however, put the lives of all the people living on the coasts worldwide above the jobs of coal workers. When the sea level rises, it's GG for a fucktonne of people. The bigger picture is what is at stake here though, 200,000 jobs or several million lives?
Normally I'd be linking the shit out of this post, but since my internet has gone back to dial up quality I'm surprised I can still post on here.

So ya, Both of you have raised good points <.<
I would still put greater importance on not having the planet go completely balls up though.

It won't be ugly grey this time. :')

Quote from: IcyWind on November 09, 2014, 09:25:20 PM

You forgot the largest problem.

Spoiler

Canada.

._______________________________________.

I remember when the trailers for Halo 2 were on TV, I was excited as fuck. The first time playing through the campaign was insane. I did not have XBL until 2006, but after I got it, I played Halo 2 multiplayer almost every day.

Your forgot North Korea