Based on what? For now. But they are being depleted rapidly. We have to move on anyway. Why not now. Gas is cleaner than coal, why not burn it instead? Why not invest in wind farms . . . essentially power from nothing. Most importantly we need to invest in research into the next energy sources, be it zero-point energy, gravity/magnetics, cold fusion, or antimatter. The big breakthrough is coming and it need to be an American breakthrough, not a Chinese or Russian one. Then you have not been paying attention.
I do the math every day. Dude, all that is important is the climate in the human era. And we have excellent data going that going back many thousands of years from ice coring. If you think "math" offers something new here, then tell us your numbers and explain how they are relevant.
How does your data factor population growth over the next 100 years in developing countries? How does your data factor the selling of US coal to China, India, and a host of other countries for them to burn with less regulation? How the fuck do you factor this?
3 reasons. A: Nat gas B: Lower GDP C: Warmer winter's (AKA El Nino) 1. The relationship between economic growth (accumulated wealth over time) and energy consumption (the 2nd term in the formula above) is unalterable and fundamental. See my post Wealth And Energy Consumption Are Inseparable, which describes physicist Tim Garrett's work on the relationship (Wealth = Power). 2. The carbon intensity of the energy upon which economic growth depends is subject to change (the 3rd term in the formula above). In the United States, abundant natural gas has replaced some coal since 2009, and in so far as natural gas emits about 1/3rd as much CO2 as coal, there was a concomitant drop in carbon intensity. However, American (and global) energy consumption is very carbon-intensive, i.e. it depends on burning fossil fuels, so economic growth resulting in higher CO2 emissions always overwhelms reductions in carbon intensity. Also see my remarks on China below. The dream of environmentalists goes like this: humans can continue to grow the American and global economies (measured by GDP$) while achieving dramatic drops in carbon intensity by switching to wind, solar, geothermal and other "clean" renewable sources of energy. However, it is not possible to bring a sufficient amount of "clean" energy (measured in BTUs) into the mix fast enough to get both economic growth and significant reductions in carbon intensity. In short, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can have economic growth—if you can achieve it—and higher CO2 emissions, or you can shrink economies and decrease emissions, as we've seen in the United States since 2008. All other views reflect ignorance or denial. We've got plenty of both here on Planet Earth. http://oilprice.com/Finance/the-Eco...een-Economic-Growth-and-Carbon-Emissions.html
using your logic we could also tell rape victims that since they cannot stop it to go ahead and enjoy it, tell soldiers on the battlefield that people are going to die in war no matter what so they might as well go into battle without a helmet or flack jacket, tell those who are born into poverty that there will always be poverty in the world so they might as well just accept it. it's called leadership, Pride. you are correct that we cannot make the chinese or russians abide by our rules but if we resign ourselves to living by their rules, then we can assure ourselves that we will never be better than them. why are you so willing to throw your hands up in the air and say, "Oh well....?"
Yea sure, rape and climate change are one in the same. Good one. Offer a viable real global solution that has real merit and has a real chance and I would support it. There is no such thing. So take your pick, lower emissions at the cost of growing the economy. That is your pick.
What I am saying is that instead of wasting money on a failed global solution (because there isn't one), use that money to better America. That can be in the form of making current technologies better, safer, and more efficient. What the US plans to do, is simply add emission regulations which effectively rule out new coal plants. I know what you will say about moving to Nat Gas, and really that is fine, however if you are going to sit there and bitch about Climate change, then the selling of all that coal to these other counties would erase the gains we have made and would make. It is a simple fact that we burn coal cleaner here than anyone and there are even newer means in which we can store the C02 emissions underground to help with oil exploration. Another point is that while energy is cheap, we would be silly to not use this time to allow for research and development of "greener" technologies rather than push for extra tax money off fossil fuels.
