America Takes Its Biggest Step Yet to End Coal Mining (msn.com) 162
The Washington Post reports that America took "one of its biggest steps yet to keep fossil fuels in the ground," announcing Thursday that it will end new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, "which produces nearly half the coal in the United States...
"It could prevent billions of tons of coal from being extracted from more than 13 million acres across Montana and Wyoming, with major implications for U.S. climate goals." A significant share of the nation's fossil fuels come from federal lands and waters. The extraction and combustion of these fuels accounted for nearly a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 2005 and 2014, according to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey. In a final environmental impact statement released Thursday, Interior's Bureau of Land Management found that continued coal leasing in the Powder River Basin would harm the climate and public health. The bureau determined that no future coal leasing should happen in the basin, and it estimated that coal mining in the Wyoming portion of the region would end by 2041.
Last year, the Powder River Basin generated 251.9 million tons of coal, accounting for nearly 44 percent of all coal produced in the United States. Under the bureau's determination, the 14 active coal mines in the Powder River Basin can continue operating on lands they have leased, but they cannot expand onto other public lands in the region... "This means that billions of tons of coal won't be burned, compared to business as usual," said Shiloh Hernandez, a senior attorney at the environmental law firm Earthjustice. "It's good news, and it's really the only defensible decision the BLM could have made, given the current climate crisis...."
The United States is moving away from coal, which has struggled to compete economically with cheaper gas and renewable energy. U.S. coal output tumbled 36 percent from 2015 to 2023, according to the Energy Information Administration. The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign estimates that 382 coal-fired power plants have closed down or proposed to retire, with 148 remaining. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized an ambitious set of rules in April aimed at slashing air pollution, water pollution and planet-warming emissions spewing from the nation's power plants. One of the most significant rules will push all existing coal plants by 2039 to either close or capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide emissions at the smokestack.
"The nation's electricity generation needs are being met increasingly by wind, solar and natural gas," said Tom Sanzillo, director of financial analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an energy think tank. "The nation doesn't need any increase in the amount of coal under lease out of the Powder River Basin."
"It could prevent billions of tons of coal from being extracted from more than 13 million acres across Montana and Wyoming, with major implications for U.S. climate goals." A significant share of the nation's fossil fuels come from federal lands and waters. The extraction and combustion of these fuels accounted for nearly a quarter of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions between 2005 and 2014, according to a study by the U.S. Geological Survey. In a final environmental impact statement released Thursday, Interior's Bureau of Land Management found that continued coal leasing in the Powder River Basin would harm the climate and public health. The bureau determined that no future coal leasing should happen in the basin, and it estimated that coal mining in the Wyoming portion of the region would end by 2041.
Last year, the Powder River Basin generated 251.9 million tons of coal, accounting for nearly 44 percent of all coal produced in the United States. Under the bureau's determination, the 14 active coal mines in the Powder River Basin can continue operating on lands they have leased, but they cannot expand onto other public lands in the region... "This means that billions of tons of coal won't be burned, compared to business as usual," said Shiloh Hernandez, a senior attorney at the environmental law firm Earthjustice. "It's good news, and it's really the only defensible decision the BLM could have made, given the current climate crisis...."
The United States is moving away from coal, which has struggled to compete economically with cheaper gas and renewable energy. U.S. coal output tumbled 36 percent from 2015 to 2023, according to the Energy Information Administration. The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign estimates that 382 coal-fired power plants have closed down or proposed to retire, with 148 remaining. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized an ambitious set of rules in April aimed at slashing air pollution, water pollution and planet-warming emissions spewing from the nation's power plants. One of the most significant rules will push all existing coal plants by 2039 to either close or capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide emissions at the smokestack.
"The nation's electricity generation needs are being met increasingly by wind, solar and natural gas," said Tom Sanzillo, director of financial analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an energy think tank. "The nation doesn't need any increase in the amount of coal under lease out of the Powder River Basin."
Courtesy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It ain't called "courtesy", it's called "competitive advantage", with all resulting connotations ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is why we are going to have to make climate change a cause for trade restrictions and sanctions.
Unfortunately we can't even get that stuff done for stuff like genocide, so it's not looking very promising.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are these "we" that you're talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Every nation, and especially the big trade blocs like the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll hardly see large trade restrictions from EU towards its major commercial partners in the absence of a war or something. Ze Germans are groveling in front of Xi and Putin even on the third year of WW3.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU certainly does need to do more. They do use tariffs though, against both China and the US. With the US it's mostly tit-for-tat though.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason EU has used impactful tariffs so far has been to protect some lobby, typically agricultural. The stuff done on general principles is usually talk, not action.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other options too. RoHS has been quite successful in forcing China to remove hazardous materials from products manufactured there.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
AliExpress and Temu are their own thing, but the stuff you get from e.g. LCSC is legit and has to be, because otherwise engineers here won't be designing it into products as those products themselves would not be RoHS, and the CE mark could really come back to bite them. I've seen it happen.
Re: (Score:2)
In the cases where it happened they knew what they were doing. Boss said it needed to be cheaper, engineer told the factory in China that it needed to be cheaper, factory told the engineer they could use non-RoHS parts, and the engineer agreed.
In another case they switched to cheaper batteries without properly checking the spec or testing them. Had to do a full recall and it cost a fortune because the devices were essentially bombs in need of diffusing at that point.
Learn from the Japs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and they are right, it'd be a shame if cheap and tough US steaks destroy the Tajima gyu I love so much.
Wait, no! They sell US meat (pork, beef, poultry) in every Japanese supermarket and quite a few steakhouses I've been to :)
And I've never seen sniffing dogs in airports helping confiscate jerky from passengers, even when I've had the misfortune to fly in on US airlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they are right, there's no point to import a shitton of unserviceable "cars" that last one winter. What you gonna do with all that garbage.
I mean, just look at the ruzzkie car market, which is flooded by Chinese EV and ICE junk.
The videos of Chinese car "engineering" are funnier than the ruzzkie crash ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we are going to have to make climate change a cause for trade restrictions and sanctions.
Unfortunately we can't even get that stuff done for stuff like genocide, so it's not looking very promising.
This is why I continue to say that we, esp. the entire western world, needs to put on a slowly rising tax on all locally consumed goods/services. It also needs to be based on what is the WORST part/sub-service in terms of that nation's/state's DIRECTION of emissions. Screw the levels. We no longer have time to dick around with that. Instead, by simply focusing on directions of several years of emissions, we can get all nations to at least stop growing theirs, and ideally, drop theirs. It will also lead to n
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we are going to have to make climate change a cause for trade restrictions and sanctions.
Against the developing world? Classy.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully we can help them avoid our mistakes, and China proves that it is possible to peak way lower than we did, but yeah, ultimately it will have to be enforced if for some reason they refuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Your absence of humanity makes climate change seem conceivably preferable.
Re: (Score:2)
If we look at economics, then America would continue to mine coal.
However, the real issue is that it is stupid for ANY nation to increase burning of FF. We need ALL nations to drop their emissions, not just the west.
And no, no nations 'extended' anything to America.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at economics that throws out the external costs of coal.
Globally fossil fuels recieve seven trillion dollars annually in public subsidies. But that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the costs it is allowed to pawn off on other parties. If fossil fuel users had to pay the externalized cost of pollution, then the world would be running on nuclear power right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor countries need to build everything - coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro. They are so behind they cant afford to ignore coal. Plus most of the emissions caused by US consumers is not even counted against US as the manuf
Re: (Score:3)
First off, poor nations can and should STOP building new coal power plants. Sadly, China continues to push for that so that they have a place to dump their coal at.
Secondly, the issue is China. China continues to grow theirs. Just last year, they added 565 MT output to their previous ~14,000,000,000 MT of CO2 emissions. IOW, they added more than what all of the poor nations did. They added more than what western nations could cut.
China is the issue. The
Re: (Score:3)
[iea.org]
Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.1% in 2023, increasing 410 million tonnes (Mt) to reach a new record high of 37.4 billion tonnes (Gt). This compares with an increase of 490 Mt in 2022 (1.3%). Emissions from coal accounted for more than 65% of the increase in 2023.
Emissions in China grew around 565 Mt in 2023, by far the largest increase globally and a continuation of China’s emissions-intensive economic growth in the post-pandemic period. However, Chi
Also... (Score:2, Interesting)
sells oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/29... [npr.org]
Call me a sceptic but I reckon the rate of CO2 emissions from the USA into the global atmosphere is increasing, not decreasing, even if they have got elections coming up & are desperate to distract voters for the globally unpopular genocide they're taking part in in Gaza.
Re:Also... (Score:5, Insightful)
...plans to open more public land to drilling
Drilling for oil and gas is still a necessity. Coal mining is not.
American gas and oil are displacing Russian fuels on the world market, and that is a good thing.
Gas has half the CO2 impact of coal. We need more of it to bridge the gap while we roll out more wind, solar, and batteries.
Transportation will run on oil for decades to come. It is better to produce it at home than to buy it from our geopolitical adversaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, coal is essentially dead and not become of government interference. All those coal jobs that politicians promise won't happen without subsidies and other corporate charities. All those low-tax politicians are hypocrites when they turn around and demand that failing industries be propped up.
Re: (Score:2)
Not buying gas from Russia has directly resulted in more coal & lignite use.
The obvious solution to that is for the West to produce more of our own gas.
Disclaimer: I drive an EV and have solar panels on my roof, but I still heat my house with gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When my AC dies (it's from 2008, so I suspect soon) I'll be doing both. A heat pump solution for my climate (Michigan) with a nat gas backup because why wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than building yet more infrastructure to ship more expensive gas from the USA across the Atlantic, why not just speed up the transition to renewables? How is sinking even more time & money into gas going to help reduce CO2 emissions? Why not just build more wind, solar, tide, geothermal, etc., & unify the Eu
Re: (Score:3)
why not just speed up the transition to renewables?
That will take decades.
Europe needs gas now. If they don't wanna get it from Russia, the obvious alternative is LNG from America. It's better to trade with friends than enemies.
Why not just build more wind, solar, tide, geothermal, etc.
Calm down. We're work'n on it. It won't happen overnight.
You can't just slap down solar panels. You need infrastructure and storage. That takes time.
Why delay that by building even more gas projects
Cutting off gas immediately will collapse the EU economy, lead to Russian victory in Ukraine, and mean electoral success for populists and demagogues. That will be the end of progress on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not buying Russian nat gas DID result in more coal/lignite usage. However, what REALLY caused that was you nutjobs pushing to shut down drilling in the north seas. There was plenty of nat gas there to solve all of Europe's issue.
The other one was a small minority of ppl being able to shut down nuclear power in Germany. That single action harmed Germany and Europe almost worse than did cutting russian O&G. Canada, America and Australia were able to increase ou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Advanced economy GDP grew 1.7% but emissions fell 4.5%, a record decline outside of a recessionary [iea.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is, that wind/PV has pushed nat gas generators in the same way that coal was pushed when you nut jobs fought to kill nuclear. Even now, when you accomplish killing a nuclear power plant, what replaces it? Small amount of wind/PV combined with LARGE, in fact, VERY LARGE, nat gas power plants.
And not surprising that you would push another bad study.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Also... (Score:2)
The fact is that we have been building more renewables than ever, yet the consumption from them is slowing or reverting. This is the same trap that Germany has found itself in over the past decade or so, they, on paper, have the capacity to provide 300% of their total energy consumption (if the plants were 100% available) from renewables, yet after an initial sprint, they have been stuck around 13% ever since. What happened is that with the excesses it occasionally produces, they literally pay consumers and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure killing coal and nuclear pushes nat gas, not adding wind/PV.
We need not just more wind/PV but also more grid storage (including V2H/V2G EVs) and long distance transmission lines to completely replace nuclear, coal, and natural gas. Phasing out coal is a big step forward for sustainability. We should continue whittling away at natural gas and keep existing nuclea
Re: (Score:2)
"Call me a sceptic but I reckon the rate of CO2 emissions from the USA into the global atmosphere is increasing, not decreasing,"
I don't call you a sceptic, I just call you completely wrong: https://data.worldbank.org/ind... [worldbank.org]
Imports will go up (Score:3)
For this to work, there have to be tariffs on importing fossil fuels and tax incentives for switching to cleaner fuels, otherwise it is nothing more than virtue signalling.
Re:Imports will go up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Imports will go up (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is mostly dying because it isn't economically viable.
Cheap shale gas is kill'n coal.
If you add on the cost of shipping for imported coal, it will die even faster.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why would anyone import coal when it's more expensive than renewables? That's the biggest thing happening here, coal is being priced out of the market.
If there are to be incentives, they should be to help get even more renewables online. Grid upgrades, storage, tariffs that make it more attractive for consumers to install solar and shift their usage to off-peak times, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If there are to be incentives, they should be to help get even more renewables online
Don't worry, solar/wind is already the most subsidized source of electricity (X10 compared to nuclear for instance).
Plus we have now mostly externalized the production of solar panels/wind turbines to China, because they can produce them and sell them for a cheap price. So that those subsidies are sent almost directly to China. Which is producing those solar panels/wind turbines mainly by burning coal over there.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you even measure nuclear subsidies? You literally can't put a Euro amount on free unlimited insurance, because it's not for sale at any price and the liability is potentially trillions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In theory the owners are paying for it via taxes, at least in some countries. They are subsidised of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Subsidies have a well-known definition and can be compared across different means of electricity generation. I don't understand why you want to obscure this fact.
Especially since I was supporting your point: there are more incentives today (through subsidies) to increase the adoption of renewable energy sources. Isn't that what you were advocating for?
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear plants are built with consumption guarantuees, it's very hard to convert that to a subsidy.
Re: (Score:2)
You ask for more incentives to build renewables. Studies show that more subsidies go toward renewables than any other energy source, indicating that the focus on renewables is at its highest, which is a good thing. I don't understand why you are upset about that.
Of course, if the focus were on CO2 reduction, it would be more efficient if subsidies were evenly split between nuclear, solar/wind, and hydro.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I dispute it's always easy to determine subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That won't save coal. We will get to the point where we need very little to no coverage for gaps in renewables, and what we do need will be provided by gas because it is cheaper and cleaner than coal.
Nuclear is going the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Imports will go up; NOPE (Score:2)
BUT, coal is a different matter. All other forms of electricity can replace coal and all are cleaner. Most are
So 2039, is it. So there is no hurry then. (Score:2)
We can delay doing anything for another decade. And then we can shift that because "that goal is too ambitious".
Well. The only good thing is that this skill gate (which climate change clearly is) will not let a bumbling, incompetent and greed humanity through. The mix of people we have here is just not viable long-term.
Coal-fired Implications. (Score:3)
Well, sure is a good thing nearly half the coal in the United States was only used for fueling raging keggers for the national fraternity known as Hi Drunka U. After all, we wouldn’t want to think there were any other “major implications” to worry about or advertise. Other than perhaps a inside look at a politicians investment strategy into renewables.
No matter how bad a planet might need it, you only look corruptly ignorant trying to sell Green that hard. Shutting down coal is a strategic goal. Turning it into a tactical one with the nuclear option, will certainly ensure you get people’s attention. The kind of attention that turns a nation of voters against you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what you are talking about but the supply of coal in the US largely exceeds the demand. Coal plants are closing all over the US which means less demand in the future as that was the last real use of coal left.
end new coal leasing in the Powder River Basin, "which produces nearly half the coal in the United States.."
I have no idea how you don't quite understand the concept of producing a Supply is here. As in the other half of the Demand that is currently asking for it.
Last year, the Powder River Basin generated 251.9 million tons of coal, accounting for nearly 44 percent of all coal produced in the United States. Under the bureau's determination, the 14 active coal mines in the Powder River Basin can continue operating on lands they have leased, but they cannot expand onto other public lands in the region...
And quite frankly, what you were actually sold here, was a non-expansion. Not a shutdown or even shrinking of current operations of any kind.
Yeah, we'll find out what the 'last real use' of coal will be; ironically fueling EV power stations, IF we ever actually get that grid installed to feed any transition from fossil fuels. It's currently rolling ou
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how you don't quite understand the concept of producing a Supply is here. As in the other half of the Demand that is currently asking for it.
Coal demand is elastic. As the price of coal rises or falls, demand decreases or increases. This isn't true of all commodities, but it's true of all commodities that have alternatives. In this case, coal's primary use is power generation and there are many alternatives. A crucial alternative is natural gas, which produces far less CO2 than coal per kWh generated, and is also a better solution than coal for addressing the intermittency of PV and wind, which are the cheapest and lowest-emitting alternative
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why at the same time the Biden administration is moving to reduce the supply of (and therefore demand for) coal, it is moving to increase the supply of natural gas.
I would argue that reducing supply is the result of reduced demand and not the cause of it. If the Biden administration did nothing, coal mines and coal plants would still be closing down. And in this case, it is not reducing supply as much as not insuring increased supply in the future.
This is not really any different in other industries that become obsolete. For example, the whale oil industry did not decline because countries imposed bans on killing whales in 1986. Almost a century before that happened,
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why at the same time the Biden administration is moving to reduce the supply of (and therefore demand for) coal, it is moving to increase the supply of natural gas.
I would argue that reducing supply is the result of reduced demand and not the cause of it. If the Biden administration did nothing, coal mines and coal plants would still be closing down. And in this case, it is not reducing supply as much as not insuring increased supply in the future.
Given that mines close for various reasons, preventing new ones from being opened will reduce supply. Maybe fast enough to keep the price from dropping fast enough to induce more demand -- possibly even fast enough to increase the price and thereby reduce demand even further. In the do-nothing alternative world, unless there was actually no financial incentive to open new mines, opening new mines would reduce price and induce demand. If there actually is no financial incentive to open new mines then Biden
Re: (Score:2)
Given that mines close for various reasons, preventing new ones from being opened will reduce supply.
1) The main reason is there are fewer coal plants so there is less demand. There is no need to launch a multiyear study to determine the reasons. 2) Current mines automatically did not run out of coal supply immediately with this announcement. There is still coal to be mined in existing leases.
Maybe fast enough to keep the price from dropping fast enough to induce more demand -- possibly even fast enough to increase the price and thereby reduce demand even further.
Coal is being outpriced by gas because gas plants are cheaper to run. That's all there is to that. No need for a lengthy analysis on pricing.
In the do-nothing alternative world, unless there was actually no financial incentive to open new mines, opening new mines would reduce price and induce demand.
Again, the cost of running a coal plant is more than a gas plant. You seem t
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea how you don't quite understand the concept of producing a Supply is here. As in the other half of the Demand that is currently asking for it.
What part of year after year, demand is dropping (hence less need for supply) is hard for you to understand? As with coal plants, coal mines are shutting down due to LESS demand for coal.
And quite frankly, what you were actually sold here, was a non-expansion. Not a shutdown or even shrinking of current operations of any kind.
Again, nothing is happening directly with current leases, however, mines shutting down due to lack of demand is not affected by the fact there will be no new expansions or new leases on federal lands.
Yeah, we'll find out what the 'last real use' of coal will be; ironically fueling EV power stations, IF we ever actually get that grid installed to feed any transition from fossil fuels.
1) Please tell what new use of coal would exist in the future OTHER than power plants. Locomotives, ships, home heating, busi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Biden/Goon squad are going to lose votes in Montana/Wyoming over this. Oh. Right. They were not going to get any in the first place.
Ever wonder if an Administration's actions are just crazy enough to believe they don't actually care about securing votes and are bailing out just before letting it all burn, only to blame it ALL on the next guy in charge?
I don't.
Economics (Score:3)
It's nice to imagine we could effectively decide to do this and take strong action towards that goal, to see the best way forward and cooperate to make it happen. ...but my understanding is that coal was already on its way out 'naturally' in the US as it was becoming less competitive with other forms of energy generation due to pre-existing economic forces.
If there's political action against coal happening in the US, that would lead me to believe that coal isn't important enough any longer to be a major voting issue and the politicians involved have decided it will now help them more than hurt them in the next election cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
1) what was killing off coal, was cheap nat gas.
2) until O&G has alternatives for all its various uses, it makes no sense to kill it off in terms of Nat. Sec.
3) keep in mind that not only LICE/HICE transportation uses O&G, but heavy chemical use comes from O&G. In fact, with killing coal, chemical usage of O&G will increase, not decrease.
OTOH, Coal has alternatives in ev
Re: (Score:3)
Coal was already on its way out because of the rapid fall in natural gas prices from the late 1990's on, thanks the the introduction of fracking, which opened up massive new gas fields all over the USA. The price drop was so substantial they're now using natural gas to make gasoline and motor oil, of all things!
Given that natural gas doesn't have the oxides of sulfurs, particulates and heavy metals in the exhaust, that's why many older coal-fired power plants are being phased out.
great for the environment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is intelligent (Score:2)
What made NO SENSE was shutting down O&G production. Why not? Because there was no alternatives for chemical or burning in transportation. The ONLY place that had a clean/cheaper alternative was electricity making, and nuclear is cheaper, even though far left nut jobs continue to shut these down.
it will be overturned if (Score:2)
Doing it all wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You end reliance on coal for energy by providing alternatives that are equal or better on cost, reliability, safety, and whatever other metrics people care about.
Or by killing the subsidies that make a costly, polluting and unsafe option "viable".
Re: (Score:3)
I love how the nuclear power fans always come out of the woodwork every time Slashdot posts anything remotely climate change related.
They have to know that after the Fukushima disaster in 2011, there is zero political capital left to approve new nuclear plants. The public fear might be overblown, but it's real and it will prevent any new nuclear fission projects to ever make it past the planning phase. Mod me down if is makes you feel better, but I think that in the back of you mind you know that what I'm s
Re: This isn't how to end burning coal. (Score:2)
And these are direct worker deaths, not some seagull getting lung cancer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Nuclear has a much better track record, even when comparing worldwide nuclear to just US coal, which is a comparison tilted against nuclear. People who are afraid of nuclear because of that reactor in Japan that failed in a generally safe manner almost 15 years ago have a lot more to be s
Re: (Score:2)
In his last attempt at acting like a president, that asshole told us he would be saving coal. However, more coal miners lost their jobs and their companies went bankrupt because he can only focus on one bight shiny object at a time.
Maybe he will cancel global warming like DeSantis recently did for Florida, and thus preventing the state from becoming part of the Atlantic Ocean. I'm surprised no one thought to do this before, seems like an obvious solution.
Arthur Weasley of Harry Potter put it best: do not tr
Give in the the Dark Side (Score:2)
Emperor Palpatine, as far as we can tell, did away with coal.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump bragged about savng jobs at one company, keeping jobs in America, while simultaneously that same company was offshoring jobs in a different division. For the world's greatest deal maker, Trump seems to be easily duped.
Re:OMG!11!! (Score:5, Informative)
Biden is old and he's been looking in poor health for some time, will Biden be President for life?
Biden hasn't shown any particular inclinations to try to be president when he didn't get the votes for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will be elected President for life on November 5, 2024
Well, if elected then he'd be 78 years old when sworn into office so there may be a lot of truth in that. While he appears in good health now, and people have been known to live into their 90s, he's at an age where health can take a dive real quick. President Biden is 81 years old so if we heard tomorrow that he died peacefully in his sleep would anyone be surprised? Or suspect any kind of foul play? Biden is old and he's been looking in poor health for some time, will Biden be President for life?
While they're both (too) old, at least one of them has a competent set of advisors and staff around him and not just a group of adulating yay-sayers [cnn.com],North Korean-style.
That aside, I don't understand the focus on Biden's health while there's little focus on Trump's? Biden looks physically fitter than Trump, and Trump seems to be unable to string together coherent sentences or follow a rational chain of arguments... dementia, maybe? While Biden is also too old, the age difference is small enough that one ca
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's the Fox talking point. They're not about news, they're about getting someone elected that can result in a lot of views and advertising dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, when Biden was 78, Trump claimed that was too old to be president. Trump is nothing if not inconsistent.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden's been looking in poor health? Really? Links, please, and Faux Noise or OAM are invalid. So's the Daily Fail.
And Biden obeys the law, so that at the end of his next term, he'll obey the Constitution - you know, where after FDR, the GOP rammed an amendment to limit all Presidents to two terms?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"And now, Donnie, I'm gonna grab you by the pussy, and you'll let me do anything, just anything".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans had a chance just by nominating a moderate. Or at least, nominate someone who isn't a known liar and criminal. Remember when they bitched about Hillary being the presumptive nominee even before votes were cast; now this time they're all for having Trump be nominee and forget why they hated when democrats did that. MAGA is far too extreme, and all decent moderates in the GOP were pushed out for not being election deniers.
It will be bad if Biden wins but we'll get through it. But it will be an
Re: OMG!11!! (Score:2)
Re: OMG!11!! (Score:2)