[flagged]
Coal plants in the US are economically dead in the water anyways, their utilization rates are plummetting between renewables and natural gas peakers. Many still operating are subsidized by policitical handouts.
If you want to talk about political decisions, perhaps look at Illinois and Ohio politicians being presecuted for bribery from the power industry for making tax payers pay for uneconomic plants. They are indeed being punished.
"Capture emissions or shut down" means "shut down" since "capture emissions" would increase costs by an order of magnitude or so.
It's just much more palatable framing -- it attacks the problem rather than dictating solutions.
Or perhaps the horse will sing and carbon capture will become reasonably priced. Highly unlikely.
EV bans should be phrased the same way. Rather than banning EV's, set strict pollution standards.
I'm not from the USA. I kept my content brief because I knew I would be censored. I even said don't shoot the messenger!
In my personal viewpoint, shutdown all coal plants tomorrow and send black roses to their accountants.
>Environmental protection policies should be about as controversial as the idea that we shouldn't shit where we eat. If you want to call that politics, then sure, I guess.
The conversation would be interesting if people were allowed to speak. At risk of further punishment I'll elaborate.
Your political side believes this, which is totally fine and good. I even agree with you.
But it's obvious the republicans dont agree with us. This is politics, and now the EPA is going to be heavily deregulated because of this move being done in the election year.
Cool, me neither...
> I even said don't shoot the messenger!
Except you're not really carrying a message from someone else, and that's not a magic incantation shielding your ideas from criticism...
> In my personal viewpoint, shutdown all coal plants tomorrow and send black roses to their accountants.
Cheers to that!
As for the rest, I like to consider myself practically apolitical. I refuse to engage with people who unduly politicize things that should just be scienced. Just because someone wants to claim that creationism vs evolution is a political issue doesn't mean I have to sit and patiently listen to them.
You are upset at my original post for lacking substance. I take the risk of elaborating, expecting further censorship.
But you won't touch the substance, you call me a creationist and dismiss me.
This website is too toxic for me.
If you say or write things in public, you can't reasonably get upset when people engage with you with either criticism or nuance. When someone says anything more complicated than "yes", it doesn't mean you're a victim.
I think if you re-read this thread more carefully, you'll see that we're even pretty much on the same side. /smh