Electricity Is Becoming Unbelievably Expensive as the US Power Grid Decays Into Ruin

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So it's really just a crisis of transparency and accountability... interesting.

It's not a crisis at all.  It's just another opportunity for the snake oil peddlers to line their pockets and fill out their expense accounts. 

This is why nobody including you has ever been able to produce actual science demonstrating this is a crisis OR that there's anything we can do as a country that would actually make a substantial difference. 

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This is why nobody including you has ever been able to produce actual science demonstrating this is a crisis

You asked for evidence of the climate situation being a crisis. Now you're moving the goalposts and looking for a specific set of circumstances, like a photo of a pangolin fùcking a bat in a wet market or something.

[BeaverFever]

On 9/4/2025 at 11:46 PM, CdnFox said:

No.  They're things we need to adapt to but ,,, hate to break it to ya but we've always had wildfires, and there's always been droughts etc. 

IF there's going to be more then you cope with it. But that's not a crisis. 

By that definition there has never been a crisis and crises don’t exist, because humans always cope with anything that happens.  Can you name one thing in history that meets your definition of a crisis because people couldn’t “cope” with it?

The natural disasters are more and they’re more severe and accelerating. Some places will be so subjected to droughts fires floods etc that it will no longer be practical to live there. 
 

On 9/4/2025 at 11:46 PM, CdnFox said:

Not the consensus.

Hoax was the consensus at the time. Conservative opinion has shifted in the face of reality even they can’t deny. 
 

On 9/4/2025 at 11:46 PM, CdnFox said:

And the inconvenient truth was thoroghly debunked and not allowed to be used for education because it has so many falsehoods.

No it was not “thoroughly debunked” nor was it banned from being used for education. The court case you’re referring to found that the central claims of the documentary were “broadly accurate” even if a few of the example details Gore provided overreached.
 

For example if you say drinking bleach is bad because it will kill you instantly when the fact is you will die in a hospital several days later and some people even managed to survive, it doesn’t mean you’re a liar and your claim that drinking bleach is deadly has been “debunked.”  Furthermore the court agreed the film should still be used in education albeit with clarification where gore’s specific examples don’t align with mainstream scientific consensus. 
 

The main claims of the film were all upheld, specifically (per chatgpt):

 

1. Global temperatures are rising.
   The court accepted Gore’s evidence that average global surface temperatures had increased over the 20th century.
2. Human activity is the primary driver.
   The film’s claim that rising greenhouse gases, especially CO₂ from fossil fuels, are responsible for most of the observed warming was upheld as accurate.
3. Melting of Arctic sea ice and glaciers.
   The court agreed these were well-documented phenomena linked to global warming.
4. Sea level rise is real (though not 20 feet imminently).
   While Gore’s timescale was off, the court accepted that sea levels were rising and would continue to rise due to climate change.
5. More extreme weather events are expected.
   The IPCC had already linked warming to an increased risk of extreme events, even if attributing specific storms (like Katrina) was not settled science.
6. Spread of diseases and health impacts.
   The court accepted that climate change could contribute to the spread of infectious diseases and create public health challenges.
7. General warnings about risk.
   The judge said Gore’s advocacy message — that unchecked climate change could cause severe global impacts — was not inconsistent with the consensus, though some details needed qualifying.

 

On 9/4/2025 at 11:46 PM, CdnFox said:

And once again.....  not a single drop of actual science from you on the subject. Which is what we've come to expect from the left. Nothing to say it's a crisis and nothing to say anything we can do will substantially impact that crisis.

How does one “scientifically” prove something is a crisis????  Seriously it begs the question. 

The science that climate change is real, human caused, and results in rapidly escalating deadly disasters is settled science. 
 

And it’s hilarious that you would even suggest “not a drop of science” is typical of the left when the left is the only side who actually believes in science while the right is constantly attacking science and making one baseless claim after another on any range of topics from anti-vax batshit to bogus claims of election fraud and fentanyl to certain forum members making absurd claims like Nazis being socialists and indigenous people dying off from European diseases having nothing to do with the arrival of Europeans, to saying Carney was photographed with Epstein and admittied to being his acquaintance …. the right always makes up bogus crap without offering any evidence for their nonsense because there is none. . I mean look who is Trump’s Health Secretary is. 

 

On 9/4/2025 at 11:46 PM, CdnFox said:

As far as i can see climate change will require we adapt and there's always transitions when the climate changes (go read up on the 1300's if you want to see how badly climate change affected people in the past) BUT:

a) we're more able to adapt today than ever in our history so it shouldn't be a problem, 

As I mentioned earlier, by this definition there is no such thing as a crisis because humans can adapt to anything. But let me ask you this:  who is going to pay for all that adaptation?  Upgrading and replacing all our infrastructure is going to mean spending billions and billions of tax dollars and you people don’t like that. It means new laws and regulations around things like water use and outdoor burning and building codes so on, you people don’t like that kind of thing either.  And people in the countries that aren’t able to do those things are going to mass migrate here and you people won’t like that either.  Your insurance premiums will go through the roof and nobody likes that.  Your belief that somehow the problem will solve itself so we should all just stop paying attention to it and pretend it doesn’t exist is pretty silly. 
 

On 9/4/2025 at 11:46 PM, CdnFox said:

b) many of the changes will actually benfit canada so, silver lining. 

c) i've seen nothing to suggest anything we can do at all in canada will make even a slight differrence in climate change ,

That’s a silly argument. The only way to have a p1ssfree hot tub is for all bathers to stop pissing. Your argument is you saying you’re going to keep pissing because your p1ss alone makes up only a small percentage of the total p1ss  and you’re encouraging all the other pissers to have the same mentality, effectively it’s a pact for all the pissers to keep on pissing.. Instead of leading by example and encouraging others to do the same you want to follow the lowest common denominator and denying a problem exists. 
 

On 9/4/2025 at 11:46 PM, CdnFox said:

d) if it were a real threat those who advocate for it would take it seriously. Instead we get 'inconvenient truth' that turns out to be 'inconvenient lie', we ban chinese ev's in canada for economic reasons to make the states happy even tho it would make transitioning much easier and affordable for many and the big plan that was going to solve all our problems was a carbon tax, which did zero and they KNEW it would do zero. 

We live in a democracy and our politicians are not immune to political pressure, they do not have dictator powers.
 

The carbon tax was never supposed to “solve all our problems” and didn’t “do zero” either those are totally false claims. As someone who gets all worked up when perceiving even the tiniest inconsistencies in any statements from  ”the left” as horrendous lies, you shouldn’t take such liberties with the facts 

 

On 9/4/2025 at 11:46 PM, CdnFox said:

Hell the 'climate people' and 'environmental activists' are still shunning nuclear power.

That’s not true at all, that debate got settled in favour of nukes being the lesser of 2 evils a decade or 2 ago. It’s been a REALLY LONG TIME since I’ve seen any anti-nuke stuff coming from any environmentalists. 
 

 

 

[CdnFox]

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

You asked for evidence of the climate situation being a crisis. Now you're moving the goalposts and looking for a specific set of circumstances, like a photo of a pangolin fùcking a bat in a wet market or something.

Oh look who's lying again to try to cover up his inability to back his lies up with facts   LOL

I, and several others, asked you very specifically  for actual science that proves or demonstrates that "Climate change" is a crisis and that anything we could do would make a substantial difference. 

Nothing has moved.  And yet in all this time you've come up with nothing. the best you have ever come up with is propaganda pages saying that the science exists somewhere and that we've read it and just trust us, it's a crisis.  Without actually linking to the science or explaining how they came to that conclusion. 

There does not appear to be any kind of climate 'crisis' NOR does there seem to be anything we COULD do that would substantally impact the climate change we're seeing.  IF you had anything you'd have supplied it long before now 

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I, and several others, asked you very specifically  for actual science...

It is a scientific fact that the IPCC exists. It can be proven very specifically and geographically. The address is 7 bis Avenue de la Paix, Geneva.  

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

By that definition there has never been a crisis and crises don’t exist, because humans always cope with anything that happens.  Can you name one thing in history that meets your definition of a crisis because people couldn’t “cope” with it?

The natural disasters are more and they’re more severe and accelerating. Some places will be so subjected to droughts fires floods etc that it will no longer be practical to live there. 
 

Hoax was the consensus at the time. Conservative opinion has shifted in the face of reality even they can’t deny. 
 

No it was not “thoroughly debunked” nor was it banned from being used for education. The court case you’re referring to found that the central claims of the documentary were “broadly accurate” even if a few of the example details Gore provided overreached.
 

For example if you say drinking bleach is bad because it will kill you instantly when the fact is you will die in a hospital several days later and some people even managed to survive, it doesn’t mean you’re a liar and your claim that drinking bleach is deadly has been “debunked.”  Furthermore the court agreed the film should still be used in education albeit with clarification where gore’s specific examples don’t align with mainstream scientific consensus. 
 

The main claims of the film were all upheld, specifically (per chatgpt):

 

1. Global temperatures are rising.
   The court accepted Gore’s evidence that average global surface temperatures had increased over the 20th century.
2. Human activity is the primary driver.
   The film’s claim that rising greenhouse gases, especially CO₂ from fossil fuels, are responsible for most of the observed warming was upheld as accurate.
3. Melting of Arctic sea ice and glaciers.
   The court agreed these were well-documented phenomena linked to global warming.
4. Sea level rise is real (though not 20 feet imminently).
   While Gore’s timescale was off, the court accepted that sea levels were rising and would continue to rise due to climate change.
5. More extreme weather events are expected.
   The IPCC had already linked warming to an increased risk of extreme events, even if attributing specific storms (like Katrina) was not settled science.
6. Spread of diseases and health impacts.
   The court accepted that climate change could contribute to the spread of infectious diseases and create public health challenges.
7. General warnings about risk.
   The judge said Gore’s advocacy message — that unchecked climate change could cause severe global impacts — was not inconsistent with the consensus, though some details needed qualifying.

 

How does one “scientifically” prove something is a crisis????  Seriously it begs the question. 

The science that climate change is real, human caused, and results in rapidly escalating deadly disasters is settled science. 
 

And it’s hilarious that you would even suggest “not a drop of science” is typical of the left when the left is the only side who actually believes in science while the right is constantly attacking science and making one baseless claim after another on any range of topics from anti-vax batshit to bogus claims of election fraud and fentanyl to certain forum members making absurd claims like Nazis being socialists and indigenous people dying off from European diseases having nothing to do with the arrival of Europeans, to saying Carney was photographed with Epstein and admittied to being his acquaintance …. the right always makes up bogus crap without offering any evidence for their nonsense because there is none. . I mean look who is Trump’s Health Secretary is. 

 

As I mentioned earlier, by this definition there is no such thing as a crisis because humans can adapt to anything. But let me ask you this:  who is going to pay for all that adaptation?  Upgrading and replacing all our infrastructure is going to mean spending billions and billions of tax dollars and you people don’t like that. It means new laws and regulations around things like water use and outdoor burning and building codes so on, you people don’t like that kind of thing either.  And people in the countries that aren’t able to do those things are going to mass migrate here and you people won’t like that either.  Your insurance premiums will go through the roof and nobody likes that.  Your belief that somehow the problem will solve itself so we should all just stop paying attention to it and pretend it doesn’t exist is pretty silly. 
 

That’s a silly argument. The only way to have a p1ssfree hot tub is for all bathers to stop pissing. Your argument is you saying you’re going to keep pissing because your p1ss alone makes up only a small percentage of the total p1ss  and you’re encouraging all the other pissers to have the same mentality, effectively it’s a pact for all the pissers to keep on pissing.. Instead of leading by example and encouraging others to do the same you want to follow the lowest common denominator and denying a problem exists. 
 

We live in a democracy and our politicians are not immune to political pressure, they do not have dictator powers.
 

The carbon tax was never supposed to “solve all our problems” and didn’t “do zero” either those are totally false claims. As someone who gets all worked up when perceiving even the tiniest inconsistencies in any statements from  ”the left” as horrendous lies, you shouldn’t take such liberties with the facts 

 

That’s not true at all, that debate got settled in favour of nukes being the lesser of 2 evils a decade or 2 ago. It’s been a REALLY LONG TIME since I’ve seen any anti-nuke stuff coming from any environmentalists. 
 

 

 

Most of what you wrote is stupid.  So i'm going to go through it quickly. do better next time 

- the fact this isn't a crisis does not mean there's no such thing as a crisis  A crisis is a sudden and crutial change which will drastically alter the course of history in this case. It is not something we could easily adapt to. A giant meteor striking the earth is a crisis.  This is not a crisis.

natural disasters are SLIGHTLY increasing, and if we know they may get worse we have time to adapt. Not a crisis. 

The film was full of lies and completely discredited. You can't say well it was half true' and expect to be taken seriously. It was a political opportunist pile of garbage made by a man who's personal carbon footprint was larger than most towns. The conclusions in the film built on each other. It would be like saying  "a man died, he was stabbed, joe had the knife and admitted killing him, joe is guilty of murder"  and then saying "well, the part where joe had the knife and confessed is false but the rest of it is true!!!!  So joe is still guilty!!!! Nope, doesn't work that way. 

It was a joke and you're a joke for defending it 

And repeating your stupidity about there being no such thing as a crisis doesn't make it less stupid, It makes it MORE stupid. 

As to who's going to pay for adaptation, in the case of Canada one way or another it's the people.  And it will be 10 times cheaper than any 'climate change tax' and 100 percent more effective 

No matter what happens people ALWAYS have to foot the bill to deal with changes in their environment, whether it's short term (like it gets colder in the winter and you need to stay warm) or long term (like there will be more forest fires and you better adapt to that and increase your fire fighting capacity.) 

But we just spent 10 years basically tanking our economy on climate change with taxes and other initiatives and by not selling oil to other countries and we still have forest fires. We haven't made a single difference and yet it has cost us a fortune and put our country in severe economic disadvantage which is now being exploited by our neighbor.

It would have been vastly cheaper to adapt and much more effective and our economy would be stronger for it

 

Your hot tub analogy is beyond stupid. Our hot tub currently has 9 billion people in it. Someone's going to p*ss. There is no opportunity for it to be p*ss-free. But aside from being a gross and weird example that frankly makes me question elements of your sexual fetishes this is far more complex than that. The factors that lead to global warming are not simple. It's not like you can say if I release one more pound of greenhouse gas I get one more degree of global warming. It's nothing so simple.

So the only thing pissy here is your analogy. If you can't show that something that we can do will actually significantly reduce global warming then what you are saying is nothing we can do will reduce global warming.

 

And if you're saying that the liberals somehow paved to political pressures and didn't pursue global warming initiatives i'll call you a liar to your face. You are so full of shit it's amazing. They didn't do anything substantial because they didn't want to and they didn't want to because they didn't believe there was a problem. What they did do was to raise money to line their own pockets and exploit the fears of the weak-minded in the public. For 10 years the public was all in on any climate change initiative that the government wanted to do and yet the only thing they did was attacks and refuse to sell oil and natural gas to other countries because it would have increased the wealth of the west

And yes the carbon tax was supposed to solve all our problems. It was hailed again and again as the flagship climate control change mechanism of the liberals. It made zero difference. All it did was line the liberals pockets and weaken our economy

As to nukes,  it was LAST YEAR that the ndp in bc repassed a law banning any nuclear energy from british columbia. Leftist groups FREQUENTLY speak out against nuclear energy.  

You're out of touch. Again. 

And at the end of the day, you used a lot of words to say "i can't actually prove it's any kind of crisis or that we can do anything about it'.    And the left fails again. 

Edited September 6, 2025 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It is a scientific fact that the IPCC exists. It can be proven very specifically and geographically. The address is 7 bis Avenue de la Paix, Geneva.  

 

That isn't a scientific fact. It's just a fact. 

And once again, you've got nothing

"Show us science that proves there's a crisis or that we can do anything about it"

"ummm.... err...  well there's this building that exists somewhere..... DERP!"

Well done kid. You're a credit to the left. 

[eyeball]

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

A crisis is a sudden and crutial change which will drastically alter the course of history in this case.

AGW is a sudden crucial event that is altering the course of history.

 

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That isn't a scientific fact. It's just a fact. 

So is the rapid onset of AGW, and the evidence that's a crisis is the IPCC.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

AGW is a sudden crucial event that is altering the course of history.

So produce the science that shows that.  You've been asked for it a billion times.  It seems it doesn't exist.  So no, it isn't. 

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So is the rapid onset of AGW, and the evidence that's a crisis is the IPCC.

No it isn't. The IPCC is evidence that people will lie for money. Which should make you feel like a twat for doing it for free all the time  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So produce the science that shows that. 

Go talk to the folks at 7 bis Avenue de la Paix, Geneva.

They'll show you lots.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The IPCC is evidence that people will lie for money.

What lies, what money?

You don't even know what the word lie means.

[Legato]

45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Go talk to the folks at 7 bis Avenue de la Paix, Geneva.

They'll show you lots.

 

I did and they gave me a coupon for free ice-cream. On the back of the coupon was a message

"Use if it gets warm, if it gets cold, use at someone's birthday party".

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Go talk to the folks at 7 bis Avenue de la Paix, Geneva.

I did, they say you're a liar.  Now what  🙄🙄

Quote

They'll show you lots.

Then why can't you?

Quote

What lies, what money?

Theirs and yours  for the first part, ours for the second

Quote

You don't even know what the word lie means.

Anyone who's ever communicated with you knows what the word lie means. 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I did, they say you're a liar. 

You went to Paris and back in four hours?

You're lying.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

You went to Paris and back in four hours?

You're lying.

Of course CdnLIAR is LYING all the time.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

You went to Paris and back in four hours?

You're lying.

No i'm not, go there and ask them   LOLOL

33 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Of course CdnLIAR is LYING all the time.

Aww muffin, still traumatized from the last time i caught you out in your bullshit i see   LOL 

Your salty tears are always delightful  

[Nationalist]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No i'm not, go there and ask them   LOLOL

Aww muffin, still traumatized from the last time i caught you out in your bullshit i see   LOL 

Your salty tears are always delightful  

Its rather remarkable when you think about it. One day a or some "scientist(s)" noted that adding elements to the atmosphere can create a general warming affect. A correlation was found in the amount of carbon we burn for energy. Ergo...carbon bad. 

The problem the "greenies" have is...they panic and do dumb sh1t. Plus...the primary source of energy currently happens to be...carbon burning. So...objections to any interference in the carbon business is...semi-expected.

So after 20-some-odd years of fear porn and inflationary actions against carbon, it's turning out that, while it's quite plausible that carbon burning has had an affect on earth's climate, it appears evident there is no reason to...panic.

Indeed the carbon sources and burning methods are much cleaner today as a result of technological advances. We can also build "mini-nuke" generators now. Instead the "greenies" dot our farmers fields and fishing fields with...windmills and mirrors. How truly pathetic.

@Greenies...Your panic and subsequent lies to propagate this economic and social disaster has produced nothing of benefit.

Go back to the drawing board.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Its rather remarkable when you think about it. One day a or some "scientist(s)" noted that adding elements to the atmosphere can create a general warming affect. A correlation was found in the amount of carbon we burn for energy. Ergo...carbon bad. 

The problem the "greenies" have is...they panic and do dumb sh1t. Plus...the primary source of energy currently happens to be...carbon burning. So...objections to any interference in the carbon business is...semi-expected.

So after 20-some-odd years of fear porn and inflationary actions against carbon, it's turning out that, while it's quite plausible that carbon burning has had an affect on earth's climate, it appears evident there is no reason to...panic.

Indeed the carbon sources and burning methods are much cleaner today as a result of technological advances. We can also build "mini-nuke" generators now. Instead the "greenies" dot our farmers fields and fishing fields with...windmills and mirrors. How truly pathetic.

@Greenies...Your panic and subsequent lies to propagate this economic and social disaster has produced nothing of benefit.

Go back to the drawing board.

I once heard it said that while indiana jones was a great movie, the truth is Indiana had no impact on the story at all. If he wasn't there, the germans would still have found the medalian, would have still found the ark, would still have opened it and would still have all died.  Nothing he did changed anything despite all the action. 

Environmentalist's are the same way. Nothing they do makes anything better, technology still advaces without them and we still get cleaner energy over time, and at the end of the day we're still going to have to cope with exactly the same climate change.  Nothing has changed in the slighest. 

IF they really cared they'd push for more breaks for research and development of new tech and make sure nobody was stupid enough to slow our economy down by trying to 'tax' climate change out of existence. 

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I once heard it said that while indiana jones was a great movie, the truth is Indiana had no impact on the story at all. If he wasn't there, the germans would still have found the medalian, would have still found the ark, would still have opened it and would still have all died.  Nothing he did changed anything despite all the action. 

Environmentalist's are the same way. Nothing they do makes anything better, technology still advaces without them and we still get cleaner energy over time, and at the end of the day we're still going to have to cope with exactly the same climate change.  Nothing has changed in the slighest. 

IF they really cared they'd push for more breaks for research and development of new tech and make sure nobody was stupid enough to slow our economy down by trying to 'tax' climate change out of existence. 

Exactly.

Stupid is as stupid does.

[BeaverFever]

On 9/7/2025 at 11:40 PM, CdnFox said:

I once heard it said that while indiana jones was a great movie, the truth is Indiana had no impact on the story at all. If he wasn't there, the germans would still have found the medalian, would have still found the ark, would still have opened it and would still have all died.  Nothing he did changed anything despite all the action. 

Environmentalist's are the same way. Nothing they do makes anything better, technology still advaces without them and we still get cleaner energy over time, and at the end of the day we're still going to have to cope with exactly the same climate change.  Nothing has changed in the slighest. 

IF they really cared they'd push for more breaks for research and development of new tech and make sure nobody was stupid enough to slow our economy down by trying to 'tax' climate change out of existence. 

Sorry, Climate change is not just going to solve itself and the adjustments are not just going to be minor tweaks we can worry about when they happen. 

The adjustments will take decades and cost trillions of dollars and as with any change there are going to be winners and losers  

It also not correct to suggest we can continue to emit an unlimited GHGs indiscriminately and infinitely without further consequences  Your comments sound like “the damage is already done so why bother”  but that’s not a correct assessment  Further emissions can cause even further warming  

Just about every feature of your modern standard of living is the result of government regulation and/or subsidies or both. Government builds the roads and the free market then drives on those roads.  Governments builds airports and the air travel system  and then the free market is able to offer you a commercial flight. Government estalishes housing standards and them the free market is able to build you a house. And so on.   The big nation building government projects in the first half of the 20th century set the blueprint for the world you take for granted today and similarly will need to lead the shift to clean energy and to adapt to the damage we’ve already caused. 

[BeaverFever]

Back to one of the points of the original thesis of this thread, Trump is making things WORSE due to his ignorance and ideology. Consider the major renewable energy project he just canceled permits for:

-Cheap electricity guaranteed to be  HALF the average US price GONE

-project that was 80% completed now scrapped 

-BILLIONS of private investment dollars already invested now lost

-THOUSANDS of jobs lost

 

 

 

Meanwhile in Canada :

 

 

Edited September 18, 2025 by BeaverFever

[herbie]

Trump's anti-environment anti-green march back to the steampunk era is beyond belief. Meanwhile touting AI and huge data centers that are rapidly becoming THE main cause of soaring consumer electricity prices. Crypto mining centers consume as much power as small towns!

[User]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Back to one of the points of the original thesis of this thread, Trump is making things WORSE due to his ignorance and ideology.

You are not serious people. Canada continues to ship off their coal to be burned by China. 

You sit here crying over a few windmills in the US while China built more coal plants and your own dumb country pretends to be green because they ship the coal to be burned by China instead of themselves. 

This is why no one believes you climate change chicken littles. 

[BeaverFever]

30 minutes ago, User said:

You are not serious people. Canada continues to ship off their coal to be burned by China. 

You sit here crying over a few windmills in the US while China built more coal plants and your own dumb country pretends to be green because they ship the coal to be burned by China instead of themselves. 

This is why no one believes you climate change chicken littles. 

As has already been explained to you, 90% of Canadian coal exports is METALLURGICAL coal used in steel-making , not thermal coal which is used for energy  

Besides even as we are weaning off and managing the realities of what’s left of the thermal coal lobby and their conservative shills, that’s a world away from Republican attempts to INCREASE coal. If you can’t tell the difference between someone trying to do as little as possible of something with a goal of eliminating it and someone trying to do as much as possible with a goal of increasing it, you’re dumber than I thought. 
 

And as has already been explained to you this thread isn’t primarily even about the environment ots about America shitty electrical grid being made even shittier by an incompetent president at a time when electricity demands will increase exponentially, especially due to data centres, AI/quantum computing, aluminum manufacturing and EVs.   You’re on the titanic and Captain Trump is drunk and steering for the ice berg. 

Edited September 18, 2025 by BeaverFever

[gatomontes99]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Back to one of the points of the original thesis of this thread, Trump is making things WORSE due to his ignorance and ideology. Consider the major renewable energy project he just canceled permits for:

-Cheap electricity guaranteed to be  HALF the average US price GONE

-project that was 80% completed now scrapped 

-BILLIONS of private investment dollars already invested now lost

-THOUSANDS of jobs lost

 

 

 

Meanwhile in Canada :

 

 

By your premise, renewable energy should make things cheaper. @robosmith posted an article that more than half of electricity comes from renewable now...so why did it get more expensive? 

Edited September 18, 2025 by gatomontes99

[User]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

As has already been explained to you, 90% of Canadian coal exports is METALLURGICAL coal used in steel-making , not thermal coal which is used for energy  

Yes, as you often do, you ran away from the discussion where it was explained to you that makes it worse when it comes to methane. Burning metallurgical coal to make steel continues to release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Like I said, you chicken little climate alarmists are full of shit.