Environmentalists Propose $50 Billion Buyout of Coal Industry - To Shut It Down

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,977
Reputation
4,416
Daps
89,067
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
"What's $50 billion among friends, right? At least Felix Kramer and Gil Friend are thinking big, so there is that. The pair have published an somewhat audacious proposal to spend $50 billion dollars to buy up and then shut down every single private and public coal company operating in the United States. The scientific benefits: eliminating acid rain, airborne emissions, etc). The shutdown proposal includes the costs of retraining for the approximately 87,000 coal-industry workers who would lose their jobs over the proposed 10-year phaseout of coal. Since Kramer and Friend don't have $50 billion, they suggest the concept could be funded as a public service and if governments can't do it maybe some rich guys can — and the names Gates, Buffett and Bloomberg come up. Any takers?"
 

A.R.$

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
8,249
Reputation
650
Daps
21,186
I would think it would take more than $50 billion to pull this off.
 

Domingo Halliburton

Handmade in USA
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
12,616
Reputation
1,370
Daps
15,451
Reppin
Brooklyn Without Limits
I would think it would take more than $50 billion to pull this off.

if we talk just US companies (who only pretty much just concentrate on coal) you could probably buy the biggest producers of coal out in the US. If we're talking the international energy conglomerates who are some of the biggest coal producers here like BHP, exxon, chevron and royal dutch shell then no.
 

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,319
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,746
Id rather promote the genesis of clean coal tech or responsible nuclear energy
 

Hiphoplives4eva

Solid Gold Dashikis
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
42,423
Reputation
3,805
Daps
152,090
Reppin
black love, unity, and music
Wouldn't that money be better spent building alternative energy sources or some new infrastructure?

But that would require actual hard work and innovative thinking, something most code pink liberals aren't capable of. Its much easier to propose outlandish propositions like this one for the sole purpose of garnering attention than to actually come up with viable alternatives.
 

unit321

Hong Kong Phooey
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
22,214
Reputation
1,815
Daps
23,103
Reppin
USA
"What's $50 billion among friends, right? At least Felix Kramer and Gil Friend are thinking big, so there is that. The pair have published an somewhat audacious proposal to spend $50 billion dollars to buy up and then shut down every single private and public coal company operating in the United States. The scientific benefits: eliminating acid rain, airborne emissions, etc). The shutdown proposal includes the costs of retraining for the approximately 87,000 coal-industry workers who would lose their jobs over the proposed 10-year phaseout of coal. Since Kramer and Friend don't have $50 billion, they suggest the concept could be funded as a public service and if governments can't do it maybe some rich guys can — and the names Gates, Buffett and Bloomberg come up. Any takers?"
Buying it and ending coal production is the equivalent of an oil embargo on crude oil from all countries in the world. What is everyone going to use to fuel cars, trucks, buses, trains, boats, planes, helicopters, vehicles that use gasoline or diesel as fuel and motor oil as lubricant? SOL.

Aside from getting replacement jobs for all the coal workers, what is going to replace the coal-fired generators? A lot of people don't know how much electricity is still generated using coal. Outside of that, there's hydro-electric and nuclear power plants. We are talking brown outs and black outs of epic proportions across the US. It would create a huge demand for gasoline, diesel, or LP generators. What, that would create more pollution to replace the coal-fired generator pollution. It takes years of planning, development, and actual contruction to have a working nuclear plant or hydroelectric plant. Felix and Gil are dreamers and idiots.

We do need to decrease our reliance on coal though. A better solution in my opinion is to create more hydroelectric power dams and kick the nature lovers to the curb. Forget about the effects it has on relocating the homes of wild animals and birds, it's cheap and clean energy compared to nuclear and coal.
 

unit321

Hong Kong Phooey
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
22,214
Reputation
1,815
Daps
23,103
Reppin
USA
Id rather promote the genesis of clean coal tech or responsible nuclear energy
Clean coal tech already exists. The waste and toxic gas are captured and buried. The volume of waste generated is not on the public's radar.
Responsible nuclear energy already exists. A lot of people are afraid of 3-mile-island/Chernobyl nuclear meltdowns but safety precautions are in place. Although the probability is lower now than in the past, the probability of a meltdown is not to 0%.
 

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,319
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,746
Clean coal tech already exists. The waste and toxic gas are captured and buried. The volume of waste generated is not on the public's radar.
Responsible nuclear energy already exists. A lot of people are afraid of 3-mile-island/Chernobyl nuclear meltdowns but safety precautions are in place. Although the probability is lower now than in the past, the probability of a meltdown is not to 0%.
Genesis was the wrong word. How about execution? Those clean coal plant mockups floating around are pretty sweet.
 
Top