Billionaire Michael Bloomberg puts up $500 million to put the coal industry out of business


#1

Michael Bloomberg has pledged half a billion dollars of his own money to end the use of coal. His excuse is the standard progressive line of bull that we only have a dozen years to save the planet.

This “do gooder” is typical for rich people of his stripe. “I made my fortune, now you can’t have your nest egg because I need to make the word safe with socialism.” This clown as spent years trying to repeal the right to bear arms. Now he’s after the jobs of millions of Americans because he thinks he knows what’s best for the world.

What an arrogant little blow hard! At least he’s not like the sinister George Soros who lurks in the shadows with his treachery. He’s out in the open and talks of running for President one day. Hillary Clinton has a better chance of becoming president than he does, which is next to zero.

And to think! He was once elected Mayor of New York City as a Republican!


#2

I don’t understand, what does that mean? Is he giving his money to a protest organization? Is he putting that in development of a “green” energy source?

Where’s the original story?


#3

I have not heard how he intends to do this. He did something similar, presumably with less money, on the gun control issue. Perhaps he’ll get nowhere as he has done in the past. Since others might not agree with me, i will say I can only hope.


#4

Then he could be building more Natural gas turbines for all this means.

Coal does not employ millions of people. It doesn’t even employ 100,000.

The industry is dying, because Coal does not have the energy density nor the cost efficiencies of natural gas. It’s losing the same way whale oil did.


#5

I’ve tried to look this up to get more detail, and I can’t find anything about it. How did you come across this information? Where is the source?


#6

It was on the TV news a few days ago. Politicians and labor unions in West Virginia have already responded.


#7

Figured it out with that West Virginia clue.

You misfired on your target. Michael Blumenthal is in no way involved in this, it’s Michael Bloomberg via his Beyond Carbon initiative. The initiative states the desire to move off coal by 2030. Considering advances in renewable technologies is actually starting to make renewable power generation cheaper than coal, I’m not sure why Bloomberg feels the need to do anything. Coal is being replaced naturally anyway. No point in keeping around a more expensive, and air polluting power generation technology when they are cleaner, cheaper alternatives. Coal is an old, dying technology, and I’m not exactly sorry to see it go.


#8

You are correct. I got the name wrong.

At any rate, Bloomberg is an arrogant little twerp who would the world a favor if he would dedicate his fortune to charitable works to help the sick and needy instead messing with the political system.

At any rate where have you heard that wind and solar are cheaper? “Change naturally” is far better than by government edict. Government often dictates the replacement when it makes its edict and often gets it wrong.


#9

It takes more energy to build, transport, erect and maintain EITHER solar panels or windmill farms than they’ll produce during their expected lifetimes. Sorry, but that’s a net LOSS of energy. Likewise, it takes more energy to MAKE a gallon of ethanol than it will produce when burned as fuel.


#10

I have to wonder about this; if true, then why is the left actively targetting coal use for destruction?


#11

Becausec theyre heavily invested in “green power” and coal is the low hanging fruit of their competition?


#12

Because a vast majority of people believe they have to do something to solve every single challenge. They usually want to use politics to do it, and our word is slightly more suck for it almost every single time. Which challenges require specialized bureaucratic and political solutions depends on which of the three or four mainstream political packages people favor. And they take their information only from approved sources who support their own biases. There is no way that free people acting in free markets could ever solve anything (sarcasm there) – and in some cases they won’t because whatever the problem is, it’s not really a problem. Most political action and activism is a hammer trying to find a nail.


#13

Because it’s not happening “fast enough” for the leftest’s liking. I’m not going to go into the science of the global warming debate here, but most of the power generation technologies that’s becoming or is cheaper in the long run is being switched to also has a much lower carbon footprint, so the leftists want this switch done sooner than later. In my experience, companies tend to think more short term rather than long term and thus the cost of initially switching to a long-term cheaper technology hits to hard in the short term, thus making adoption slower than the leftists would like.

On a personal level, I’m a huge advocate of Thorium reactor deployments and fusion research. Safety of such reactors is great (unlike Uranium) and would provide abundant and cheap power. Leftest crying over ANY nuclear power option because of bad nuclear designs of old is anti-science/technology and has been a huge hiderince in solving our energy problems.