Amazulu

I never read your links because I know they will be about the cost edge over coal that gas is giving the US. Henry Hub is now so cheap that US industry now has a massive advantage over other countries - which just goes to show the patheticness of our governments attempts to hobble our businesses with ever increasing energy costs - but hey, never forget about all those green jobs that are going to be created

The massively increasing capability of the US LNG industry means that they can export gas into Asia at a much lower cost than Australia - where is that going to leave us?

Ultimately, coal is a red herring. It is no longer an economical solution for the US but remains so for other countries like India and Australia and Germany and Japan are building new coal power capacity. I posted my link to show that the leader of the western world is now openly questioning the whole premise of climate change - and as this change (if at all it is happening) is not being caused by man, this is very important. If the US turns its back on a lot of green energy, thereby reducing the subsidies needed and hurting the rent-seekers, then where does that leave us and our ridiculous energy policy? If there are renewable solutions that don't need consumer or taxpayer subsidy then go for it but dump everything else.

Trump is questioning the logic and that can only be a good thing

Climate change debate is now reaching hysterical proportions. Rising sea temperatures off the best coast of Australia are causing some coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef. This bleaching does occur from time to time and often does reverse. If you listened to the left and media in Australia, you would think that this is entirely our fault and we are the only ones who can fix it but the reality is that even of this was being caused by man-made carbon emissions (which it isn't) all countries - but especially India, China and the US - are responsible. Therefore only a global fix could sort it out

CF=0 on all your other points

007Steve

...calm down USA, calm down.
After all any man who can fix healthcare in a weekend can surely 'build that wall' in his term.... or maybe 2!

morpeth

A question : the Guardian article says that the Obama plan would have closed "hundreds" of coal-fired plants, so isn't this move by Trump saving jobs of those working at those plants ? Isnt in this instance Trump keeping his promise to coal workers ?

GarryP

Still need the power, so if you close these old, polluting junk piles, you open new gas and solar power stations. In fact not only do you get the job bump from the construction and destruction (hello Zorg) renewables is already considered to provide more jobs than coal.

So Trump has made the job situation AND the climate change situation, worse. Wot a surprise.

007Steve

... Well... another way of looking at this is that Trump only has a maximum of 8 years (unless the Senate declares him Caesar and his family living deities).
Meanwhile we in the UK have just decided to shoot ourselves in the head & pauperise our kids, grandkids & beyond.
See? You're not too badly off after all.

scrubbedexpat098

Europe is in a bloody mess, it might yet turn out to be a bullet dodge of epic proportions.

Amazulu

I personally think Brexit was a bad idea but that's what the people wanted. The UK can survive and prosper outside the EU. There may be bumps along the way but long term they can do okay - as long as government has the right policies

morpeth

New plants do not appear overnight. Who will provide the capital, and who will pay the workers who lose their jobs ? Certainly those who are opposed to the coal plants would hardly dig into their own pockets to give the capital, and replace the workers incomes. I would absolutely love to see all those who claim to be concerned about the environment voluntarily pay towards all this while reducing their use of automobile transportation, and their own carbon footprint.

GarryP

And I'd quite like to see those that profit from polluting the environment and killing hundreds of millions pay. But I'm strange like that, I think those responsible should pay, not the messenger.

morpeth

And if you lost your job because of regulation you would gladly accept that ? I don't think so but seems you would gladly impose that on others. Or accept that any regulation by definition is good.

In any case, some the arguments against what is perceived as over regulation is the effect on jobs and the economy- maybe if people who claim to be concerned banded together to pay directly for the effects of additional regulation, then that would remove the objection to further regulation by businesses, Imagine all those who claim to be concerned about the environment drastically reducing the amount of time they drive cars, getting rid of plastic products they use, reducing any product that has metal in it, paying an additional tax towards the environment adopting solar power even when more expensive.

Gordon Barlow

You're on pretty safe ground, there, Morpeth. Those who claim to be concerned, take their motto from Orwell's cry in "1984": Do it to Julia!
(Those who don't recognise the cry can Google those words.)

Beoz

Keeping it simple "left wing hipocracy"

Amazulu

https://www.theguardian.com/world/li...-pentagon-live

Go the Donald, TLAM their backward asses into next week

Do it again

Beoz

.... and so much for being in bed with Putin.

Amazulu

Even if Trump is, the military and ex-military men who advise him - Mattis, McMaster, Dunsford - some of whom he appointed aren't and never will be. All of them are hawks with a deep mistrust of Putin and Russia

Those who are accusing Trump of being mates with Putin are forgetting that the US is not a monarchy and Trump is not an emperor and there are enough checks and balances in their system to prevent that kind of shit. Some of the crap you read in the media about this is pathetic