Michael Bloomberg Announces a New Initiative To Phase Out Coal in 25 Countries (nytimes.com) 40
Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City and now a special envoy on climate change for the United Nations, announced a new international plan on Monday to help 25 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America phase out coal by 2040. From a report: The announcement from Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire philanthropist who has given more than $500 million to help end coal use in the United States, did not include a new financial pledge. Instead, he said, the initiative will focus on helping develop business plans, national policies and technical resources that countries need to mobilize big-dollar investments in clean energy.
The alliance of governments -- under a partnership with Bloomberg Philanthropies and Sustainable Finance For All, a United Nations body -- will concentrate on countries where energy demand is projected to grow, and where renewable energy potential is plentiful. Coal is the single largest source of planet-warming emissions and still a major source of energy generation in many nations. At the same time, attracting private-sector dollars for wind, solar and other renewable power has been a challenge, particularly in developing countries. The group's goal is to see coal plants retired in many developing countries by 2040, with some wealthier countries ending coal use by 2030.
The alliance of governments -- under a partnership with Bloomberg Philanthropies and Sustainable Finance For All, a United Nations body -- will concentrate on countries where energy demand is projected to grow, and where renewable energy potential is plentiful. Coal is the single largest source of planet-warming emissions and still a major source of energy generation in many nations. At the same time, attracting private-sector dollars for wind, solar and other renewable power has been a challenge, particularly in developing countries. The group's goal is to see coal plants retired in many developing countries by 2040, with some wealthier countries ending coal use by 2030.
the war with Russia may just keep coal alive! (Score:2)
the war with Russia may just keep coal alive!
The war with Russia won't keep coal alive! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's wrong. The war is likely causing a surge in coal use in Europe right now, and to a lesser extent other regions, as a quick substitute for Russian gas and oil is needed. However, for the long term, the war has vastly accelerated the move to renewables in Europe. This winter and possibly next are coal's last big rush. After that, it will decline even faster than it would have without the war.
Re:The war with Russia won't keep coal alive! (Score:5, Insightful)
and then nuclear power will be needed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nucular. N-U-C-U-L-A-R. Learn to spell, dumb ass!
Only if you are imitating George W. Bush, aka "43"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Here [researchgate.net] is a graph of Chinese coal usage.
Nitpick: That chart is ten years old.
China is doing even worse today, compared to the rest of the world.
China is building more than half of the world's new coal power plants [newscientist.com].
Re: (Score:2)
So, tell us, are you, or anyone you know, a coal miner? How would you feel if they built a coal-fired power plant, with its smokestacks, upwind of where you live?
Let me note that in the early 70s, in the US, there were 778k people engaged in mining. As of a couple years ago, it' 77k. No, I didn't mistype, that's one-tenth as many.
And while we're at it, I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to google how much coal has been used, year over year, in the last 30 years.
So, WTF is your personal interest i
He's a private citizen (Score:1, Troll)
I'm really sick of these people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time with a stable income and
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Since the advent of the written word, the wealthy have always had disproportional access to disseminating their speech. It's why if you or I get on Twatter and say "Vote blue!", almost nobody sees it, but if Elon Musk vomits something about his favored political party, it reaches an audience of millions. If you're not rich or famous, no one is seeing your speech. Maybe if you're incredibly lucky someone rich or famous will re-share your post and it goes viral, but you may as well just go buy a lottery ti
Re:He's a private citizen (Score:4, Insightful)
That's such an awesome example because there is no fundamental difference between Elon Musk's Twitter account and yours. People actively choose to follow the celebrity Twitter accounts. It's like everyone now has their own TV station, all with equal reach, yet most people still watch the same 5 channels. It's a fascinating social experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't eat a balance sheet? Elizabeth Warren is up to the task. Or so she thinks.
https://elizabethwarren.com/pl... [elizabethwarren.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I know I've said it elsewhere here, but somebody like Bloomberg coming forward and trying to set up policy for countries, even countries he has nothing to do with, is all part of America's profit before all else mentality. We've spent so long convincing ourselves that the only motivation that works in life is money, and that money is the be-all/end-all of all of human existence, that we've started creating cults of worship around any who manage to amass large sums of money themselves. We (the collective, so
Re: (Score:2)
Why is he announcing anything?
Advertising.
Did I miss something?
Nothing of consequence. $500M is, as you have noticed, chump change.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need for him to say anything. Rich people have a habit of making announcements and press outlets have a habit of listening to them. But, it is his money and he's free to do with it as he pleases, assuming everyone else is willing to go along for the ride.
The article itself is paywalled, so it's not clear if it is only his $500 million involved. It's also unclear if Mr. Bloomberg himself knows how to actually replace coal with anything, or if he's contracted all the know-how out to someone else
Re: (Score:3)
Why is he announcing anything? Did I miss something?
Yes, you missed reading the summary.
Did we anoint this guy king or God emperor?
"We" anointed him to be an envoy for the UN.
Nothing he does has anything to do with climate change
Addressing climate change is precisely what he was appointed to do.
Oh no... (Score:1)
Joe Manchin is going to be so... pissed at Bloomberg too [cnn.com] -- for looking to solar, wind and other renewables instead of coal going forward. But the changeover will take a few years, so Manchin can breathe easy -- well, not as easy as w/o coal, but ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Are any of those countries buying coal from the United States?
Hey Little Mikey, are China and India on board? (Score:2)
If not you're wasting your time and money.
Re: (Score:2)
If not you're wasting your time and money.
I wish I had Mod points to +1 your post
Developing Nations are Not the Ones Burning Coal (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a good thing to start with a country where the goal is somewhat achievable and move to larger consumers of coal after some experience. It's much easier and shows that it can be done. And as developing nations, any energy infrastructure investment is not likely to be wasted or redundant. Their energy needs are growing faster than most.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a good thing to start with a country where the goal is somewhat achievable and move to larger consumers of coal after some experience.
Not really. A country-by-country process makes little sense since it doesn't matter where the coal is burned.
A better strategy is to spend resources where they will make the biggest difference.
The most cost-effective way to reduce coal consumption is to stop building new coal plants and install wind, solar, and nukes instead. Then we only have to pay for the incremental price difference, which is often near zero.
Set the example (Score:3)
I feel like we saw what will happen to the people of a country in the vaccum created by legislating coal out of business without a specific pathway to remployment. Drug abuse, depression, economic collapse, health problems, familal issues, etc.
Any plan for shutting down coal should address these issues and specifically avoid the pitfalls we already know will reasult from not doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Most coal jobs have disappeared because of automation, not because of falling demand.
Most coal mining occurs in remote areas with lousy infrastructure and substandard schools. No new industries are going to move there and create new jobs. The solution is for these people to move somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. They can get jobs in natural gas extraction. In the US at least, natGas has done more these last couple decades to "kill coal" than legislation ever has. The only issue is that those jobs tend to be in the Dakotas versus West Virginia and Kentucky. But when the hell did "moving to where the jobs are" stop being something we did in this country? It must be fairly recent, because I've done exactly that myself... twice... since graduating. And college itself was a case of "moving to there the schoo
Musk *was* my Hero. Could Bloomberg be ? (Score:2)
This initiative looks very good for the world, but I don't know much else about Bloomberg beyond the terminals, and Google didn't show anything awful.
Is Bloomberg a Good guy ?
Horse-faced Lesbians (Score:2)
Here 'ya go:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Stop and frisk ? Trying to prevent people from killing each other ? Good.
Convicted of "harrassing women" but never put on trial let alone convicted ? That's the norm for male public figures these days.
TL; DW.
Is there anything there to put me off him ?
Its not that complicated (Score:2)
Just sell your coal to China, and buy electricity in return.
Please stop the help (Score:1)
I'm announcing a new initiative (Score:2)
My initiative is to phase out Michael Bloomberg by 2024.