The Biggest Source of CO2 You’ve Never Heard Of

October 27th, 2007
submit to reddit Share

Untold billions of dollars have been spent on reducing the CO2 emissions of cars and trucks, with government and private programs researching everything from hydrogen to hybrids. The issue has gotten plenty of attention. People are encouraged to carpool, to buy lightweight and efficient cars and avoid unnecessary driving. Environmental organizations sneer at SUV’s and low carbon fuels like ethanol are being subsidized and produced in vast quantities. There’s no doubt that much effort has gone into trying to address the problem.

But what if there were another source of CO2 which worldwide produced far more CO2 than all the cars and light trucks in North America combined and more than the power generation of most of Europe? What if there were a source of vast amounts of CO2 which did not even have any benefit or produce any usable energy? Something which nobody would ever miss?

There is. And it gets a lot less attention that you might think.

That source is underground coal fires. These uncontrolled fires occur when an underground coal seem with sufficiently porous and fractured material is ignited. Sometimes they are naturally occurring, but more often they are the result of human activity. In areas which have been mined for coal they burn far worse than most natural formations, due to the tunneling which allows in ample oxygen. These fires can burn for decades, centuries or more and not only produce massive amounts of CO2, but also sulfur dioxides, toxic runoff and untold local environmental damage.

Hundreds of these fires burn worldwide, with China having the most of any country, largely due to the dependence on coal for power generation and the inadequate controls on mining methods. In the US, dozens of coal fires burn in Pennsylvania alone. Other states have their share as well. These fires smolder and occasionally flare up to the surface. They poison water tables, kill forests and create dangerous sink holes. The smoke and gasses from such fires can sometimes be seen billowing from openings or seeping from the ground. In Australia, one coal fire, thought to have been caused by lightning, has been burning for six thousand years.

The best known example example is Centralia Pennsylvania. This small coal mining community’s problems began in 1962 when a a fire in the garbage dump spread to the opening of an abandoned coal mine. Early attempts to control the fire failed and before long it had spread deep into the coal seem. From then on, the town faced increasing problems from the fire. Trees died, homes had to be reinforced to prevent them from caving into the unstable burned-out ground. Carbon Monoxide detectors and ventilation systems were installed as gases seeped into basements. The fires caused dangerous sinkholes and unstable ground and created concerns about health problems.

By the 1980′s the town was nearly in ruins and a decision was made by the federal government to buy the properties and relocate residents. Today Centralia is a ghost town. Less than ten full time residents stubbornly remain in the area and the only visitors are a few families who return to the cemetery and the occasional curious explorer.

The problem with such fires is that conventional methods do not work in extinguishing them. The only established method of dealing with underground fires is to dig them out and pour water on the burning material. This is only of use in the smallest blazes. Thus, as in Centralia, the lack of state funding and the federal governments decision to simply write off the town has left the fires burning. There are, however, methods which have been developed or proposed for fighting such fires. Some include cutting off oxygen to the fires by sealing off openings and paving over porous ground. Fissures and crevices could also be targeted by filling them with grout or cement or injecting large amounts of slurry. Extinguishing the flames by methods other than water is also a proposed option. High pressure steam or gases like CO2 could displace oxygen and have been used before in fighting fires. Other methods involve dividing and isolating burning areas by creating underground firebreaks or creating controlled, encapsulated fires to starve the main blaze of oxygen.

Given the severity of the problem, one might think that such possible solutions are actively being perused, but in reality, few resources have been allocated to such attempts to combat underground fires. And so while obvious sources of CO2 like cars and power generation receive most of the attention and efforts to reduce emissions, a less noticable but equally severe source of CO2 burns unchecked in locations around the world. If techniques could be established that could combat these fires effectively, it could be like taking millions of cars and trucks off the road.

More Info:
Coal Fires From Encyclopedia of Earth
BBC: Coal fires are ‘global catastrophe’
Smithsonian: Fire in a Hole
Wikipedia: Mine Fires
Exploring Centralia From Offroaders
The Smoldering Ruins of Centralia

Official History of Centralia Page
Underground Coal Fires a Culprit in Global Warming
Info on Mine Fires

China’s Coal Fires Emit as Much CO2 As US Cars and Trucks
BBC: China’s Dependence on Coal


This entry was posted on Saturday, October 27th, 2007 at 11:45 am and is filed under Bad Science, Enviornment, Good Science, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions

40 Responses to “The Biggest Source of CO2 You’ve Never Heard Of”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    Chinese fires alone consume 120 million tons of coal annually. That’s almost as much as the annual coal production in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Illinois combined. Each year they release 360 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as much as all the cars and light trucks in the United States.

    Can you imagine just what the response would be if uranium mining operations occasionally uncovered working natural reactors like the extinct ones found at Oklo? *

    Just another example of how coal has been getting a free pass and nuclear has been unfairly persecuted.

    *(Yes I know that’s not possible)


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Well it’s more than just that. We hear constantly “We need to cut down on CO2 from cars.” and “SUV’s are causing global warming” how much effort goes into hybirds? battery systems? fuel cells? How often do you hear about carpooling or that you should take mass transit. The issue gets no shortage of attention or funds.

    But coal fires not only cause as much CO2 production but they don’t even benifit anyone. You close down a power plant and you have to either reduce consumption or find an alternate source. But here we’ve got coal burning like crazy and if you stopped it there would be no loss to anyone. Not only that… it’s causing other enviornmental destruction and there’s not even the most rudimentary scrubbing or controls on sluphur or heavy metals.

    Shouldn’t it get at least equal attention as car exhaust? But how much do you hear about efforts to develop methods for fighting such fires?

    There nearly non-existent. Slurry and steam methods have never even been attempted although they could be very effective. No agency has shown real interest! Where are the scientists and engineers working on effective solutions? There aren’t! And putting out all the coal fires seems like a small task compared with replacing all the cars and trucks with some other alternative…


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    DV82XL Says:

    Well of course you are right and I am not saying that an effort must be made to stop these fires, but again it seems that coal is getting a free pass. The nuclear industry would be held totally responsible, and as you say transport is being hounded to lower their carbon footprint.

    The point I am trying to make that mine fires are just another example of how big coal has gotten a free ride from legislation and, it would seem from the environmental movement. To me this is the part of the story that should give everyone pause. No agency has shown real interest – Where are the scientists and engineers working on effective solutions – you say? Indeed, I think that those are very pertinent questions along with wondering why there has been a marked lack of interest from those who make a fuss about other pollution issues.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Yes, coal is… absolutely filthy. If you wanted to create the ultimate dirty fuel what would it be? Mostly carbon, since co2 is the biggest problem for greenhouse gases, and it’s the worst one you get from combustion. You’d want to be sure its just carbon though, and little hydrogen, because that means less co2 and more h2O. Then you might want to throw in some sulfur too, because that’ll create acid rain and also cause horrible respiratory problems. Then a hodge podge of various organic and mostly inorganic compounds. Heavy metals and alike. This will asure the smoke carries other toxic substances and also that it wont ever burn 100%, thus leaving lots of nasty toxic ash. And make it compact so it won’t always burn completely and gives lots of soot.

    And now you have coal, about the worst carbon based fuel you can imagine. It’s so filthy in so many ways. I once asked an anti-nuclear campaign why they didn’t want coal shut down. They saud “We want those shut down too” and that the short term solution was natural gas and the long term was wind/solar. SHESH! There isn’t enough methane in the US and doubtful in the world.

    Yes, coal gets a pass. Maybe because it’s less high profile? Maybe because it’s just too big? You can’t propose closing all the coal plants without giving an alternative. Arguably you can’t with nuclear either… except for maybe coal.

    I made a post here: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=31

    I was in the area around a coal plant (one which has some scrubbing and emission controls… not as much as many but the standard measures). This was to pick up someone from a ferry that had the dock a few hundred yards from the plant. You may have seen menipulated images of nuke plants with a dead flower in front of them or something… this though… no editing needed… the plants were literally brown and withered and the who area had this brown gritty dark dead sort of feel from both the dirt and lack of healthy plants.


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    Nick Says:

    This is one of the most surprising things I have ever heard about global warming. Environmental groups always tell us how important it is to cut down on fuel and not drive cars that are as big and polluting.

    So this is like if you said to them “What would it be like if all the polution from all the cars in America stopped, because they either stopped driving or were converted to hydrogen or something.

    Anyone would say “Oh that would be great. It would make a huge difference.”
    But then you said “What if you could do something that would be equal in it’s co2 reduction?” Because that’s what this is. I mean, think about it. How hard would it be to replace all the cars? A huge deal! So even if figuring out how to put out coal fires is not easy, shouldn’t somebody be trying?

    I mean you’re right about effort. You hear all the time about other stuff but NEVER this. There should be a major effort but there isn’t and nobody talks about it almost ever.

    And it’s not like the fires even serve a purpose. I mean, if you had to stop driving or using electricity, but these fires hurt everyone. I looked on google and some people take notice, but NOT ENOUGH


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    Coal Sucks Says:

    If the people from Greenpeace cared at all they would make this a big issue. Stop making a scene with going to so much damn effort to stop coal going to power plants (as said in the post before).

    They protest in the streets over stopping cars. That’s not going to do anything, be realistic. My advice would be to send the guys from Greenpeace down to Pennsylvania and/or china with some shovels and some cement or some drill rigs and tell them to go start taking care of this.

    I mean, even if they slow it down at least then they do something to help, right? How much does their whining and bitching now help. Tell them to go get their hands dirty


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    Joseph Hertzlinger Says:

    I’m reminded of the classic study On the Feasibility
    of Coal-Driven Power Stations
    .


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    Udo Stenzel Says:

    Well, actually eco-religions aren’t at all about protecting the environment, but rather about assigning blame. Nick, if you really asked an eco-crusader what if the CO2 emissions of all american cars could be avoided without hurting anyone, he’d respond with a straight face that it would be a bad thing because it wouldn’t do anything about America’s addiction to foreign oil and fossil fuels.

    Any religion needs sinners, because sinners tend to pay for absolution, and eco-religions aren’t any different. That’s why they love piddle power (wind, solar, geothermal, wave, biofuels, fairy dust, …), because consuming scarce energy still is a sin, even if it is clean (guess if solar power actually became viable, they’d start to oppose it), why they love natural gas, since emitting some CO2 still is a sin and it is still scarce (they’ll oppose methane hydrate, should it become viable, I’m sure), and why they hate nuclear power, since consuming plentiful clean energy is no sin and there wouldn’t be anyone to point fingers at anymore.

    Eco-crusaders only want your best, and that’s your money. The environment is only their vehicle.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    Vic Wilson Says:

    Your site is about the only thing I’ve been able to find to offer guidance on this subject. Thank you for creating the web site. I hope you can help direct me toward additional information and/or places where I can find more of this info.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Vic Wilson said:

    Your site is about the only thing I’ve been able to find to offer guidance on this subject. Thank you for creating the web site. I hope you can help direct me toward additional information and/or places where I can find more of this info.

    This post has a bunch of links to some of the (few) organizations with an interest in the matter as well as to some methods and information on the issue.

    http://depletedcranium.com/?p=713

    The best serious research and scientific site I have found is this one: http://www.coalfire.org

    Here are a few other relevant sites:

    http://www.coalfire.caf.dlr.de/intro_en.html
    http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~prakash/coalfires/india.html
    https://www.llnl.gov/str/April07/Friedmann.html
    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Coal_fires

    This website also has volumes of information on coal fires, but is especially focused on the one in Centralia Pennsylvania. The fire in Centralia is the best known one in the United States, although it is apparently not the largest. The reason it gets so much attention is that it has caused the complete abandonment of what was once a thriving town. Most of the large fires in the US are not directly under populated areas, although a few others have forced evacuations of inhabited areas:
    http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centralia.htm

    Right now, China has more coal fires than any other country, however India has the most rapidly growing problem. While China produces more pollution from coal seem fires, India has had a much worse problem with the impact on communities because the areas in India that are effected are also densely populated. The Indian government has been forced to relocate a few communities already.


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    Pronatalist Says:

    Uncontrolled coal fires aren’t anything like the end of the world as we know it. Just a curious natural phenonomen.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Well it’s more than just that.

    We hear constantly “We need to cut down on CO2 from cars.” and “SUV’s are causing global warming” how much effort goes into hybirds? battery systems? fuel cells?

    How often do you hear about carpooling or that you should take mass transit.

    The issue gets no shortage of attention or funds.

    But coal fires not only cause as much CO2 production but they don’t even benifit anyone. You close down a power plant and you have to either reduce consumption or find an alternate source.

    I don’t think the issue of uncontrolled coal fires needs much attention or funds. While the raging underground coal infernos are weird, or curious, they grow slowly, and are often out of the way. There just isn’t much reason to think we have to “control” them, rather than just let them do their thing. And I think their CO2 and other emissions are easily within the range that nature can really handle. Fighting volcanos doesn’t seem to get much attention or funding either. Because volcanos are natural and we don’t know of ways to fight or stop them.

    I hear Mars was warming too, showing that warming cycles track most closely with cycles of the sun. But the sun is in a solar minimum now, and there isn’t any global warming. And what there supposed was before, I sure couldn’t detect.

    But since we can’t control these natural CO2 emissions, that’s all the more reason not to worry about the CO2 emissions from cars and factories, so long as it is just harmless CO2, and not any real pollution.

            drbuzz0 said:

    But here we’ve got coal burning like crazy and if you stopped it there would be no loss to anyone.

    But unless the fire is small, or above ground, we just can’t get to it, so stopping it isn’t an option. So why not just accept to let the massive infernos grow naturally wild? It’s bad that so much coal is burning like crazy, but not near as bad as the gloriously futile effort and costs of fighting it. Humans aren’t able nor obligated to impose “control” upon every aspect of nature, especially when cost-benefit analysis tells us it’s so much cheaper to just “do nothing” as the coal fires spread unchallenged.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Not only that… it’s causing other enviornmental destruction and there’s not even the most rudimentary scrubbing or controls on sluphur or heavy metals.

    Then it’s good that often it’s away from the cities where so many people are. Why can’t some aspects of nature just be wild? I see this as an example of how stupid Cap and Trade is, that some level of moderate pollution is just inevitable, with or without the effects of man. Didn’t I read on the YouTube videos about Centralia, of people walking around and exploring, often without even a mask? It’s probably not much worse than being around a smoky campfire, as the wind and air currents often disperse some of the gases. As long as you don’t walk into some vent, the air is usually breathable enough. I would think it could be a bit too dangerous to walk around alone, due to ground subsidance. Safer to bring a buddy to watch your back, and vice versa, in case somebody sinks into the ground?

            drbuzz0 said:

    Shouldn’t it get at least equal attention as car exhaust?

    No, because we can’t control it, and I don’t see why anybody or any government needs necessarily to be held responsible. However, why should nature get a free pass to pollute? No, what about the converse? Maybe the pollution standards have just gone too far. Maybe car exhausts aren’t quite the big deal either, especially away from the biggest cities.

            drbuzz0 said:

    But how much do you hear about efforts to develop methods for fighting such fires?

    How many times did I read something of them spending many $millions, and it did no good at all? The fire spread faster than they could dig it out, or they miss some extent of the fire that’s still spreading.

            drbuzz0 said:

    There nearly non-existent. Slurry and steam methods have never even been attempted although they could be very effective. No agency has shown real interest! Where are the scientists and engineers working on effective solutions?

    There aren’t!

    And putting out all the coal fires seems like a small task compared with replacing all the cars and trucks with some other alternative…

    I don’t advocate hastily replacing all the cars and trucks either, until we get some real better options.

    I did come across an article of interest, which suggests maybe a way to extract some useful energy from the coal fires, before all the coal seam burns up, a way to at least get some human benefit, or a way to mine coal without risking miners to cave ins, and eliminates coal slag piles.

    Underground coal fires offer ‘cleaner’ gas
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/may/30/uknews.energy

    I agree with giving coal gasification a try, and letting them ignite additional underground coal fires. Perhaps by controlling the flow of gases, they might be able to control where and to what extent it burns? But if it gets out of control, then just let it burn wild, and add additional shafts to harvest more of the useful gases as the fire grows unchallenged.

    The real danger, is the harm to the poor, if energy prices soar because of too many unfounded “environmental” restrictions.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    Pronatalist Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    … Most of the large fires in the US are not directly under populated areas, although a few others have forced evacuations of inhabited areas:
    http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centralia.htm

    Right now, China has more coal fires than any other country, however India has the most rapidly growing problem.

    While China produces more pollution from coal seem fires, India has had a much worse problem with the impact on communities because the areas in India that are effected are also densely populated. The Indian government has been forced to relocate a few communities already.

    I suspect that even in India, it’s far cheaper to relocate communities, than it is to stop the fires. So economics says that it isn’t worth the gloriously futile effort.

    But I don’t see why relocations should be forced. Having a raging coal fire below ground, usually isn’t fatal. Shouldn’t people have the choice whether they want to move?

    I would hazard a guess, that “environmentalists” tend to ignore this issue, either because they are stupid and don’t know much about it, or more likely, they think it’s natural so it supposedly doesn’t matter. Or maybe because it harms or inconveniences people, they are in favor of the fires. As enviro-radicals rarely seem to want what’s good for people. It seems an article of faith with them, that if anything is good for people, it just MUST be bad for the environment. No matter whether there be any evidence or proof. That most coal fires aren’t under populated area, that’s quite commonly a reason to ignore even large natural forest fires.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    Pronatalist Says:

            Nick said:

    How hard would it be to replace all the cars?

    A huge deal!

    Then we aren’t near ready to replace all the cars. Respect people to have their choice in being able to own and operate cars safely, using turn signals, and people get rid of the anti-freedom moron Obama bumper stickers.

            Nick said:

    So even if figuring out how to put out coal fires is not easy, shouldn’t somebody be trying?

    Uh, NO. If the coal fires aren’t easy to control, that would be reason not to bother to “control” them.

            Nick said:

    I mean you’re right about effort.

    You hear all the time about other stuff but NEVER this.

    There should be a major effort but there isn’t and nobody talks about it almost ever.

    I talk about it, but I hardly think it’s much a deal, nor a priority.

            Nick said:

    And it’s not like the fires even serve a purpose.

    Why does everything have to serve a purpose? Some things just are?

    Didn’t I read somewhere that we should put out coal fires to protect the environment? Really? Is that the only interpretation? I’m just not convinced they are all that much a threat to much. Maybe coal fires are like PART of the environment. They almost seem like a “life-force,” not a real life, not with a right to live, but something that exists and changes a bit, say like a growing tree maybe. So what’s the real harm in letting huge uncontrollable coal fires grow wild, spreading naturally through coal veins unchallenged? Isn’t that part of the curious reason they are ignored, because nobody wants to do the dirty work of fighting them? If nature felt threatened or God didn’t like them, might they just fizzle on their own maybe?

            Nick said:

    I mean, if you had to stop driving or using electricity, but these fires hurt everyone.

    I looked on google and some people take notice, but NOT ENOUGH

    Yeah, the naturally-spreading underground coal infernos are bad, or at least somewhat inconvenient, but not near as bad as the skyhigh cost of fighting them. There are so many alternative pressing needs for whatever limited money.

    So when somebody gets around to inventing a freeze-ray we can just aim at and penetrate the ground with, then we should put the fires out. Until then, why not leave some things to nature or God? We can’t “control” everything.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Finrod Says:

            Pronatalist said:

    So when somebody gets around to inventing a freeze-ray we can just aim at and penetrate the ground with, then we should put the fires out. Until then, why not leave some things to nature or God? We can’t “control” everything.

    Yeah. And anyway, who are we to go around putting out all those fires God went to such trouble setting underground? How else is He supposed to roast all those awful sinners? I mean… just think about it, people!

    Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Sometimes, they’re just another enemy.


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    Pronatalist Says:

            Finrod said:

    Yeah. And anyway, who are we to go around putting out all those fires God went to such trouble setting underground? How else is He supposed to roast all those awful sinners? I mean… just think about it, people!

    Sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Sometimes, they’re just another enemy.

    Nothing to keep us from putting out all those fires, if only there was an easy enough, cheap enough way to do so. Seems I read that there isn’t. Many of the out-of-control coal fires are already way too large to ever control.

    By all means, put the fires out, if they can be caught early enough, and somebody’s willing to do it. But sometimes abandoned mines catch fire on their own, and who’s around to do anything about it? So on it burns and so let it. Especially in poor places like India, where individuals dig their own coal mines

    Unreported World S17E07 India Children of the Inferno
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDyHyUCZIQc

    It’s not that God wants the fires burning. It’s more that nature, God, and most people, aren’t worried about it. Humans seem to have little respect for nature, and want to “control” everything. Nothing of nature can be “wild” anymore? Why? Sometimes wild is beautiful in sort of strange way. If everything is tamed, then I already know what it looks like, so where’s the marveling at God’s creation? I am no nature-worshiper nor tree hugger. Rather, as a taxpayer, I don’t want to be stuck with the bill for gloriously futile efforts that accomplish little or nothing. I consider an underground coal fire, in much the same category as a mild volcano that we couldn’t hope to control. What’s really wrong with a nice gentle volcano that almost never rumbles, and just seeps some lazy smoke, so long as we aren’t afraid of a major eruption exploding tomorrow? Underground coal fires are slow-burning and very predictable. So why must they be a big deal?

    If lightning flashes across the sky, during a nice nightime thunderstorm, and ignites a forest, is God displeased? Or is that some sort of “wild” display of God’s, in that this world, still remains somewhat wild?

    Why should unchecked underground coal fires necessarily be an “enemy?” Maybe they just are? Just the natural result of living in an oxygen-rich atmosphere.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    Finrod Says:

            Pronatalist said:

    Why should unchecked underground coal fires necessarily be an “enemy?”

    I wasn’t referring to underground coal fires as my enemy. I was referring to YOU.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    drbuzz0 Says:

    My point has generally been that this is something ignored by the enviornmental lobby despite being of a magnitude larger than other issues they are all over. These fires are catastrophic to local areas and even on a global scale, they’re significant. No, they’re not enormous on a global scale, but significant.

    To start putting out a signifficant number of major coal fires using avaliable technology would probably cost a few billion dollars. Spread out over several years and with contributions from a few major governments, that’s not that bad. We could put a big dent in this, at least. It’s totally doable.

    Consider the issues magnitude and the amount of attention and/or funding it gets versus an issue of similar magnitude. How much money, how much lobbying and how much effort goes into something like reducing the emissions of automobiles? If we cut the emissions from automobiles in first world countries by 10% it would not produce as much reduction as putting out all the major coal fires. Yet how much money has been spent on trying to achieve things like this?

    We sink hundreds of billions of dollars (or euro or whatever) worldwide into trying to tackle enviornmental issues with much smaller footprints. We have Greenpeace protesting two ply toiletpaper for God’s sake!

    The thing about these fires is that they are not serving any purpose or benefiting anyone. If you close a dirty power plant, that’s great, but unless you replace it you are left with a power deficit. Yet these serve no good to anyone.

    That makes them a lower hanging fruit than most of the other issues that enviornmental lobbyists go after.

    Lets consider something:

    The estimates for global coal fire emissions go higher than 600 million tons of Co2. Official estimates put Chinese coal fires at 360 million tons per year and India, Indonesia and other Asian countries account for a good 200 million tons more. Throw in the US, Poland, Russia, Australia and others and you’re talking about many millions of tons of CO2.

    Aviation produces about 600 million tons of Co2 and aviation is protested constantly as a source of unnecessary pollution and has a great deal thrown at it in attempts to reduce the footprint.

    If you had a choice of tackling one of the two sources, which one would it be?

    Cutting aviation emissions by 50% would be crippling. It would destroy the economies of tourist-dependent areas, it would reduce the ability of people to travel, it would make rapid transport of time-sensitive goods difficult. There is simply no way you could cut aviation by 50% without dire concequences and trillions of dollars worth of economic devastation. And we would lose the ability to have so many things that aviation brings us, like the ability to see the world and visit friends and relatives who live far away.

    No, dramatically cutting aviation emissions is not going to happen. Aviation is too important for that. But coal fires, that’s much more realistic. Thus it is a “lower hanging fruit”

    Why is there so little in the way of calls to make even a concerted effort at this?


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    Pronatalist Says:

            Finrod said:

    I wasn’t referring to underground coal fires as my enemy. I was referring to YOU.

    Be nice.


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Pronatalist Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    My point has generally been that this is something ignored by the enviornmental lobby despite being of a magnitude larger than other issues they are all over.

    These fires are catastrophic to local areas and even on a global scale, they’re significant.

    I’m not so sure they are so catastrophic on a local level even, as many people refuse to move elsewhere. Or rather, most of the damage has already been done.

            drbuzz0 said:

    No, they’re not enormous on a global scale, but significant.

    Not that significant.

            drbuzz0 said:

    To start putting out a signifficant number of major coal fires using avaliable technology would probably cost a few billion dollars.

    Governments always underestimate the cost, as government does almost nothing well. Especially governments like the U.S. government, that is so busy minding everybody’s business, it has no time to mind its own.

    Sounds to me that only a handful of smaller fires MIGHT be controlled, which are the less significant fires then.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Spread out over several years and with contributions from a few major governments, that’s not that bad. We could put a big dent in this, at least.

    Why should I want us to put a big dent in this? How about putting in a big dent, to get Obama removed for treason? I know so many people who are very upset about how he is ruining our country. How about campaigning against marxist dictators in Africa? How about people working to expose the evils of the rampant contraceptive pushers, and the evil designs of the NWO elitists cabal? Do you want the long list, or the short list, of things that matter far more?

            drbuzz0 said:

    It’s totally doable.

    Maybe if we had infinite money and time?

    I’d rather see humans go to Mars first. I don’t see nature crying for our so-called “help.”

            drbuzz0 said:

    Consider the issues magnitude and the amount of attention and/or funding it gets versus an issue of similar magnitude.

    How much money, how much lobbying and how much effort goes into something like reducing the emissions of automobiles?

    If we cut the emissions from automobiles in first world countries by 10% it would not produce as much reduction as putting out all the major coal fires.

    That doesn’t matter, because to “environmental” extremists, things like science or sound logic doesn’t matter. They mostly care about overlording over us, running up the cost of living for no good reason, making themselves feel self-important with their pompous much talking, and shutting down business and freedom and elevating their positions of power over us.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Yet how much money has been spent on trying to achieve things like this?

    What? Another whining call for more of my money to line somebody else’s pockets? Not speaking of you or your position specifically. I always vote NO on every single Bond issue. The government has WAY TOO MUCH of OUR money now. The working poor can’t afford all this. I have no job anymore due to some of that Obama “change you can believe in.” I’m not in the mood right now, to fund much of anything, especially abstract things that I just don’t see much tangible results from.

    I think people ignore the issue of coal fires, because they are so stupid they don’t even know what the issues are, and because their plates are so full, of things to clutter their minds, that they really don’t need another cause to worry about anyway. I find the fires curious, but no threat to anything major, like world peace or anything like that, and I do not believe that nature nor the environment are threatened by them. We don’t go trying to put out volcanos, I think, for much the same reason people aren’t interested in fighting the growing coal fires. It just wouldn’t make much difference, and it wouldn’t be worth the effort. We don’t send people to Mars yet, because most anybody in the know, knows we just don’t have the technology, probably couldn’t afford it anyway. Right now, the economics and technologies available scream, “It’s far cheaper and practical to send robots to explore Mars.” Robots don’t need a return trip, and don’t need life support.

            drbuzz0 said:

    We sink hundreds of billions of dollars (or euro or whatever) worldwide into trying to tackle enviornmental issues with much smaller footprints.

    That goes to show how stupid and misinformed and manipulated we are, by the mainstream misleadia. We shouldn’t be so worried about the “environmental” issues with much smaller footprints either. Sure, we don’t need to burn our leaves in the city anymore. Cities have too many people living too close together, for it to make sense to have to put up with the smoke. So people seem to agree not to burn their leaves, IF the city will haul our leaves away. But let’s not go overboard. Don’t we have “environmentalists” who want to ban burning wood in your fireplace, backyard grills, and regular lawnmowers without a bunch of stupid pollution controls? These already are issues in some places?, for no good reason. People seem to want to shout, “My cause is bigger than your cause,” with no sense of balance nor fairness. We should be free to have our campfires in the countryside, and smaller reasonable fires in the city. Like some people at my Church had a get-together food party or whatever, at somebody’s house. I saw nothing wrong with them having their little fire pit fire to sit around.

            drbuzz0 said:

    We have Greenpeace protesting two ply toiletpaper for God’s sake!

    That’s where they get names like green nazis, for trying to take us backwards to outhouses, afraid of the progress towards flush toilets, an invention which real purpose as I see it, is to help allow humans to populate far vaster and denser than in the past, in huge cities if need be. I have no respect for eco-terrorists like Greenpeace. If they were for real, they would get into a fight with the “The world is my ashtray” careless smokers, or show up to protest at abortion clinics for murdering the innocent little baby humans. Useless or worse, is what they are.

            drbuzz0 said:

    The thing about these fires is that they are not serving any purpose or benefiting anyone.

    Why does everything have to serve a purpose?

    Did you see the link I posted on another similar thread? I should post it again.

    Underground coal fires offer ‘cleaner’ gas
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/may/30/uknews.energy

    Could this process allow us to obtain some benefit from already burning coal fires? I want humans getting more benefit too. Anyway, I am in favor of allowing them to set additional underground coal fires for this process, reguardless if they can keep them always controlled or not, because think of all the coal miners’ lives and health that can be saved from mine cave-ins, and it eliminates slag heaps. Coal mining is a dirty job, but people want to do it, and need the jobs and income, and we need the cheap energy. I would be willing to explore some alternatives that achieve all these purposes, and it’s better to keep workers on the surface under better conditions. If the coal fires spread, why can’t they just bore more shafts and extract more useful gases, no matter whether the fire be controlled or not?

            drbuzz0 said:

    If you close a dirty power plant, that’s great, but unless you replace it you are left with a power deficit.

    I’m not calling for them to close down power plants. I would like to know who plans to pay me for my spoiled food in my refrigerator, when we start having Obama rolling blackouts. I am among the many hopping mad Americans, about how we are being lied to about Cap and Trade. It would add $1500 to the family energy bill. Do you or I have an extra $1500 lying around, with no better purpose to it but to throw it down some “environmental” black hole? I’ve been attending the growing rash of “Tea Parties” and Cap and Trade is one of the many issues showing up on people’s protest signs. We aren’t near so stupid as the green nazis. We know what impacts our families, but we are still too much ignored. Washington D.C. cult-of-Obama is out-of-control, and we need to reign them in real quick before tyrant Obama leads us into another Civil War, perhaps when the dollar finally collapses under this most reckless Congresses fiscal policies. That’s why states are moving to pass state sovereignity resolutions, to remind this wayward federal government that it is a creation of the states, and we have the right to desolve it, if it is not going to work for the interests of our nation.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Yet these serve no good to anyone.

    So what. I still fail to see why I should pay for yet another thing. Our taxes are too high, so when government gets itself in trouble from overspending and running up massive tax, the politicians dump on us and raise more taxes? Do they really want a revolution? In fact, I’ve heard some talk suggesting that more Americans consider more active tax non-compliance. We just can’t take much more! Tax revenues are already down, and higher taxes will shrink the economy all the more, or maybe drive more of it underground, as we start exploring whether we need to set up barter clubs, for when the fiat paper Federal Reserve Note dollars become totally worthless.

            drbuzz0 said:

    That makes them a lower hanging fruit than most of the other issues that enviornmental lobbyists go after.

    I think the green nazis don’t really care about the low-hanging fruit. Maybe it’s not glamorous enough for them, or maybe they think underground coal fires are “natural.” I think they are. Maybe the eco-fascists are opposed to humans obtaining any benefit, that’s why they don’t care about banning cigarettes and nasty Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons that pollute the body directly.

    But I would agree with a point you seem to be trying to make, that either the “environmentalists” are behaving irrationally, incorrectly prioritizing their concerns, or they aren’t for real and are hypocrites. I would say All Of The Above. The green nazis are a bunch of religious kooks. So many “environmental” problems have been solved, they have become greedy leftists without a legitimate cause anymore. Become in the habit of “crying wolf” again and agains, as a fundraising technique. Like some of these so-called leftist liberal loudmouth Civil Rights activists, who are totally useless. Say like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Lets consider something:

    The estimates for global coal fire emissions go higher than 600 million tons of Co2.

    Official estimates put Chinese coal fires at 360 million tons per year and India, Indonesia and other Asian countries account for a good 200 million tons more.

    Throw in the US, Poland, Russia, Australia and others and you’re talking about many millions of tons of CO2.

    The planet is an enormous place, I see it as rather inconsequential, especially considering the perspective that nature has long been burning off excess hydrocarbons, in a somewhat natural pattern people don’t begin to understand. At any moment, there’s probably 100s of forest fires burning throughout the world. And yet the atmosphere stays in fairly good shape. Nature is somewhat wasteful and not very efficient. Nature has energy and fuels to spare. It’s as if nature is saying, “I have way too much coal. Want some? Have some? I don’t know what to do with it all.” And we are too stupid to even listen, what with all the talking heads trying to get in their sound bite for this or that cause. Green nazis try to sell us on their pagan religion of scarcity. And yet if people worked together to develop their resources properly, we could all be living in air-conditioned mansions.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Aviation produces about 600 million tons of Co2 and aviation is protested constantly as a source of unnecessary pollution and has a great deal thrown at it in attempts to reduce the footprint.

    If you had a choice of tackling one of the two sources, which one would it be?

    Neither. I believe in freedom, and I don’t see much gain in trying to oppose what other people seem to want or need.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Cutting aviation emissions by 50% would be crippling.

    It would destroy the economies of tourist-dependent areas, it would reduce the ability of people to travel, it would make rapid transport of time-sensitive goods difficult.

    Then don’t cut them. But then I really wouldn’t cry if some of these rich yuppies had to do some real work once in a while, rather than playing golf all day. TV sports, what a waste. Tiger Woods doesn’t even have a “real” job.

            drbuzz0 said:

    There is simply no way you could cut aviation by 50% without dire concequences and trillions of dollars worth of economic devastation.

    That’s why I say that moderate pollution within reason is okay. Like sensible Americans, I oppose the terrible Cap and Trade cabal conspiracy. We really need to press in the government legislative debates, to make them tell us what it will cost. When people learn it’s going to cost them something, then they quickly start opposing it. I’m also mad at these oil company ads in favor of drilling more oil or against these new energy taxes. The thing I want to scream at them is, “Where were you before radical tyrant Obama was elected? Why didn’t you warn us while we still had time?” I already knew Obama was bad news. I seriously thought about leaving the country. Unfortunately, not enough Americans yet understood that though. It all seems to be part of a huge NWO (New World Order) cabal conspiracy to weaken the U.S., to bring about their tyrannical unaccountable world government which would leave no place for the refugees to go. I’m for the “natural globalism” of all the nations naturally populating themselves denser and denser and into each other, as I have long stood for parents to be free to have all their precious darling God-given babies. But I must oppose the considation of political power, as this is really a cultural and spiritual war between good and evil. Christians know that people are basically evil and depraved, that’s why we MUST have separation of power and checks and balances in government, to restrain government and keep it accountable to the people. The NWO elitists, seem to claim that if we could eliminate all countries, and make all the world just 1 country, there would be no war, because there would be no separate countries to war against one another. It’s a grand utopian delusion that has 0% chance of working successfully, but then when does the facts matter to today’s false liberals? Their small minds are too confining and unimaginative to be cluttered by little details like facts.

            drbuzz0 said:

    And we would lose the ability to have so many things that aviation brings us, like the ability to see the world and visit friends and relatives who live far away.

    No, dramatically cutting aviation emissions is not going to happen.

    Aviation is too important for that.

    But coal fires, that’s much more realistic.

    Neither is realistic. We can’t even control all of nature’s forest fires, which seem to me to be a far larger annoying problem than underground coal fires. The coal fires are so much better behaved than raging forest fires.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Thus it is a “lower hanging fruit”

    Why is there so little in the way of calls to make even a concerted effort at this?

    I offered my theories as to why. Once the fires grow out of control, they just don’t meet the cost-benefit test of intervening in them. And I really don’t expect India and China or whoever to “control” their coal fires. I have no idea why they would be obligated to. I think most of the damage such fires will likely do, has already occured, so it’s too late to do much anything now.

    I notice in the public thinking, that the days of putting out every forest fire by 10 am, seem a little passé and quaint. Now there’s more thinking as to whether some fires need to be fought at all, or maybe just loosely guided to stay out of areas of value. Forest fires seem to be a natural part of the ecology of forests that humans understandably neglect, or that are too vast to maintain. It’s probably the same with the coal fires, although I don’t see much any good from letting the coal fires burn, other than avoiding the costs of intervention, that often such efforts don’t work anyway.

    “Only you can prevent forest fire fighting.” what Smoky Bear would have said had he been free, quipped some website

    Can you understand what I am saying? I see nothing in it for me, as a taxpayer, to fund every great cause that comes along. I don’t believe it will be the end of the world at all, if the coal fires are allowed to burn on. They’ve burned for decades, maybe a few for 1000s of years, and hardly anybody noticed? Must not be that great a deal then.

    If we don’t leave nature just a tad wild, someday, I’m going to have calendars hanging on my wall, of nature scene photos, of pavement? Of course, maybe that’s irrelevant? Just something I thought of right now. Why does every nature scene have to be green anyway? Why not a little wildness? Some splashes of color of flowers, or maybe the beauty of lightning flashing across the sky. Maybe a few photos with shooting flames from some remote forest burning unchallenged up in Alaska. Or maybe a photo of an eerie glow or some small flames wafting up, from a natural vent from a growing underground coal fire. Why do all my nature scene calendar photos, always have to look so tame? Maybe because most moron Americans are soft, and can’t stomach ideas that make them think. And I don’t even like the great outdoors that much. It’s always too cold, too hot, too windy, too wet, too many pesky biting insects, or too getting sunburned. I’m more an indoor person, a computer/math nerd, one of the few good intellectuals left that’s not trying to destroy the world with pagan disasterous deceptions.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    Pronatalist Says:

    I might as well take issue with the estimates of CO2 emissions as well, as those sound like made-up numbers. I can’t hardly imagine how they would have managed to measure accurately, nor what incentive they would have to be honest rather than inflate their figures.

    Although, from my philosophical perspective, I’m not so sure that the numbers matter so much.

    Then rarely is the whole story told. What’s the normal oxygen emissive rates cummulative globally of all the trees, grass, plants, plankton, etc.? That other side would be needed for comparison, just to know how big is big.

    I do imagine the numbers of ants in the world, is staggering, but compared to what? Compared to what baseline number as to what they “should be?”


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    Pronatalist Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    … The thing about these fires is that they are not serving any purpose or benefiting anyone.

    If you close a dirty power plant, that’s great, but unless you replace it you are left with a power deficit.

    Yet these serve no good to anyone. …

    Even these articles I read convince me that fighting the natural coal fires is a waste of effort.

    However, I would love to see people find some benefit, if reasonably possible.

    Here’s a posting I found that answers several questions as to why that may be difficult to do. Although I don’t mind if boreholes make the fire burn hotter and spread faster, so long as we can tap the energy or gases and get our needed benefits.

    http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=479

    The Smoldering Ruins of Centralia
    Written by Alan Bellows on March 29th, 2006 at 5:15 pm

    Should be the lasting posting, #67.

    Radiatidon #67 December 10th, 2008 5:19 pm

    Like me, he said the fire soon grows past where the pipes have been place. But I thought it was a great answer and covered many useful points, as to the feasibility of seeing whether we can get some benefit from the naturally-growing coal fires burning unchecked.

    And from the YouTube videos about Centralia, the place seems to be a strange tourist attraction of sorts. I would visit myself, if I had any reason to be going that way, but it’s too far away. I wouldn’t mind exploring and learning something.


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    Finrod Says:

            Pronatalist said:

    Although, from my philosophical perspective, I’m not so sure that the numbers matter so much.

    Enemy of science and logic.


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Believe me, I’m very sensitive to the whole idea of government spending unnecessary amounts of money on things, but this is a situation where there is a problem that is not being addressed by almost anyone. The Chinese have made some effort on this front, but not nearly enough. Aside from government, there is very little private effort to go after this.

    I may add that Al Gore has (or had) three billion dollars in his total global warming warchest and that was decided to be spent on “public awareness”. Three billion dollars could have put out a few big coal fires. Hence, I’m not simply saying the governments of the world should pay out for this. Yes, I’d like to see some government expenditure, but even better would be some private groups with deep pockets.

    The country with the most coal fires is China and it produces a good 360 million tons of CO2 annually. We know this because there have been some descent surveys of Chinese fires. India has not been as well surveyed, but it’s problem is growing (where as China’s at least seems to have plateaued). There are reported to be many coal fires in Russia and Eastern Europe, but that’s again an area that has not been as well surveyed.

    We know there are several dozen in the US alone. The issue that bothers me is that there has been very little effort, even here, to try to do anything about it. We have technologies which have potential and many have not even had full field tests. Others do work, but have never been used for some of the long smoldering fires. Nitrogen enhanced foam, for example, has been used successfully and proven much cheaper and faster than other methods, yet it has not been used on the major historic coal fires, only in fires at operating mines. There are companies which have demonstrated steam injection for this kind of thing, but nobody is interested in taking them up on the offer.

    Right now, there’s just limited interest in even trying, but the fact is that these *can* be extinguished or at least kept under control. Even the extremely large ones, the fires which have burned hundreds of miles, can be brought under control and eventually put out. The key to those is “divide and conquer” They have to be contained with fire breaks which can be created by drilling holes and pumping in grout or foam to keep them from growing. Eventually, without new fuel, they can start to slow down and break up, at which point they can be contained further and attacked.

    Yes, it’s a big project, but it’s not an enormous project. It’s not beyond reasonable effort or expenditure to tackle this, or at least reduce it dramatically.


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    Pronatalist Says:

    Oh, but everybody has a good cause, and so taxes go up and up and up, freedom goes down-down, until bloody revolution is the only option left?

    I’ve never seen the U.S. so much on edge, since tyrant Obama has polarized the country, and is rushing with runaway socialism, and the rage is seething just below the surface, about to explode somewhere. Don’t say I didn’t warn you, when whatever hits the news somewhere. George Tiller, the abortion “doctor,” at a Church of all places, that was but a tiny little warning tremor, and this huge problem is being ignored and not addressed. Of course, the government is probably addressing it, labeling all returning soldiers, Christians, prolifers, anybody who cares for freedom as “potential terrorists,” because this current regime is POWER MAD. And that’s only building the rage and budding conspiracy theories against this evil “government.”

            drbuzz0 said:

    Believe me, I’m very sensitive to the whole idea of government spending unnecessary amounts of money on things, but this is a situation where there is a problem that is not being addressed by almost anyone.

    For very good reason I think. It’s just not that big a deal in the greater scheme of things.

            drbuzz0 said:

    The Chinese have made some effort on this front, but not nearly enough.

    Communists are not know for creating prosperity, nor for much useful “environmental” effort. Commies are often so struggling with the basics, keeping people with enough useful jobs, and barely enough income to keep the people from revolting. Even China’s recent growing success with trying capitalism, and rising incomes, many people think could be a temporary experimental ruse to destroy us with our own methods that used to work so well for us.

    Of course, the Chinese don’t have to invest into defeat, economic defeat or whatever, as a ruse to get those pesky Republicans out of office, since they already have 1-Party rule. So they may have an advantage up on us at the moment. And China is a bit too big to be bullied around to get a handle on CO2 emissions, by a bunch of whining “global warming” talking heads. At least Bush had the sense to come out with a pathetic excuse, that we can’t sign on to destroying our economy with some stupid Kyoto protocol, when the Chinese and people of India wouldn’t be subject to it. The reason I wanted Bush to cite, was that the “environmentalists” are radicals and liars and ought to be rounded up and put on trial for treason, or at the very least, racketeering.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Aside from government, there is very little private effort to go after this.

    Why should we taxpayers get suckered into finding every stupid thing, that the often smarter private money can’t be found for?

            drbuzz0 said:

    I may add that Al Gore has (or had) three billion dollars in his total global warming warchest and that was decided to be spent on “public awareness”.

    Well I can understand that. Not near as much freedom can be destroyed, by actually doing something productive. Well until somebody does an environmental impact study upon all the possible or imagined damage caused by all the hot air coming out of Gore’s mouth?

    Gore should have given me that money. I could have done so much more with it. Put up pro-life, pro-large family billboards. Do an “awareness” campaign about the terrible side effects of Big Pharma’s shoddy contraceptive potions and poisons. Maybe even put out a few blurbs upon the dangers of too much Big Brother government, which attracts power-mad false liberals like moths to a light. Imagine all the flowering of freedom that could have come from a far better and more honest “awareness” campaign.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Three billion dollars could have put out a few big coal fires.

    Oh, you mean like the ones most impossible to control? I see. We couldn’t have simply wasted it all, like how Gore did?

            drbuzz0 said:

    Hence, I’m not simply saying the governments of the world should pay out for this.

    You really think $3 billion would be enough? Well I have to admit, $3 billion might make a starter proof program, but then there may be no more money coming?

            drbuzz0 said:

    Yes, I’d like to see some government expenditure, but even better would be some private groups with deep pockets.

    I’d like to cut in line, ahead of you, with more worthy causes, like reigning in our federal government, boosting states rights, and getting back to the Constitution. Even rich people with deep pockets, are getting harder to come by, no thanks to the Obama Depression, which may not ever end until we get these evil tinkering DemocRATS out of office.

            drbuzz0 said:

    The country with the most coal fires is China and it produces a good 360 million tons of CO2 annually. We know this because there have been some descent surveys of Chinese fires.

    And the reason I can trust their made-up estimates is? Although, like I said, in some sense, the numbers don’t matter.

    And I simply do not expect for China nor India nor any other country to have to “control” their uncontrollable coal fires.

    I have long said I agree with China building 1 or 3 more coal-fired power plants a week, because they have a “huge” human population to accomodate, and we have to go ahead with some sort of affordable dependable energy. Or would you prefer they build more nuclear power plants? I think nuclear would be far more attractive, if we didn’t have so many evil rougue states/countries. I simply do not place harsh restrictions on emissions, especially upon CO2 which isn’t really a pollutant, no matter what the enviro-whiners say. Didn’t I read or hear somewhere, that China is overtaking the U.S. as the world’s largest CO2 emitter? Fine with me, as I have never believed CO2 to be any threat to the globe. I have to be a contrarian thinker, because the majority of people are always wrong.

            drbuzz0 said:

    India has not been as well surveyed, but it’s problem is growing (where as China’s at least seems to have plateaued). There are reported to be many coal fires in Russia and Eastern Europe, but that’s again an area that has not been as well surveyed.

    I think India has many bigger pressing problems, say like Pakistan and radical Islam.

            drbuzz0 said:

    We know there are several dozen in the US alone.

    Perhaps a smaller problem here, because of our excessive “environmentalism.” At least in the past, maybe it has been useful for something? Also, a country with more wealth, has more options for dealing with these things, while poorer countries almost always have to always go with the cheapest options, which quickly figures to put “environment” upon the back burner, nearly forgotten. Environment is less important than full bellies for people who are hungry.

            drbuzz0 said:

    The issue that bothers me is that there has been very little effort, even here, to try to do anything about it.

    I’m a pro-life activist. I have just as much right to be bothered by the neglect of my issue. Maybe we all are having this problem. We are increasingly divided, vulcanized, into various special interests, too many stupid educated moron talking heads, everybody screaming for a nonsensical sound bite, and then the mainstream misleadia rarely covers news stories with any depth or accuracy anyway anymore. It all relates to our need for revival and turning back to God. People care more about stupid pet causes, and not enough about their neighbors or about truth.

            drbuzz0 said:

    We have technologies which have potential and many have not even had full field tests.

    If we have all this technology, then the reason we haven’t put a man on Mars is?

    And why aren’t we fighting volcanos while we are at it? It sure would be nice if some little village didn’t have to up and move, any time some rumbling mountain “gets angry.” And then there’s the earthquakes, floods, tornados, hurricanes, incompetent government triggered civil disturbances, and on and on. Why don’t we have weather modification networks, like they mention on Star Trek? Almost never is there ever a tornado, because they supposed impose some control upon the weather. They probably don’t even fight forest fires anymore. Why bother? Just punch up less fireprone weather, and any fire that’s disturbing the citizens, soon obediently fizzles.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Others do work, but have never been used for some of the long smoldering fires.

    Nitrogen enhanced foam, for example, has been used successfully and proven much cheaper and faster than other methods, yet it has not been used on the major historic coal fires, only in fires at operating mines.

    There are companies which have demonstrated steam injection for this kind of thing, but nobody is interested in taking them up on the offer.

    And yet I read of all the failed attempts at Centralia, and now it’s become a strange tourist attraction. It’s not like nature died and packed up its suitcase and left. It’s just different, and tourists love to see the strange different.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Right now, there’s just limited interest in even trying, but the fact is that these *can* be extinguished or at least kept under control.

    But why do we have to? Why don’t you fight the coal fires yourself personally? Maybe take a piss in a smoking vent, and it will just magically go out for you, because it knows you are boss? Not trying to be too cute here, just trying to think of something to say, “Easier said than done.”

            drbuzz0 said:

    Even the extremely large ones, the fires which have burned hundreds of miles, can be brought under control and eventually put out.

    Yeah, probably about as easy as how some stupid TV program on PBS, said we would (magically) terraform Mars for human habitation.

    So how large are the largest single coal fires in extent? I thought I finally came across a website, that claimed 20 km in extent, which would be but a huge fire up to 12 miles wide. Are there really single fires which have spread over 100s of miles across? I can’t see that there’s any stopping that. The fire front could be 500 miles in perimeter, spreading in all directions that there be remaining coal. Or do you mean spread over belt 100s of miles long, several much smaller fires? I would like to see a link to this. Australia has some burning mountain which they say has been burning for 5000 years? Even that’s not that big a fire is it?

            drbuzz0 said:

    The key to those is “divide and conquer” They have to be contained with fire breaks which can be created by drilling holes and pumping in grout or foam to keep them from growing.

    And yet we can’t convince enviros to allow firebreaks in our forests? I don’t see much point in digging up huge trenchs along so many 100s of miles of land, in a gloriously futile effort towards 100% containment, where coal fires are growing almost out “in the middle of nowhere” threatening not much. One thing we could do is mine some of that coal in the path of being later burned, however, the link I recently posted, does suggest some hazards of mining or trying to obtain benefit, too close to the underground coal fire. There can be methane or flamable gas leaks, right close to a possible ignition source, risking explosions, or heavy digging equipment could fall into collapsing voids below. I don’t want to put actual human lives at risk needlessly, as I am not at all convinced that global CO2 emissions are too high for nature to handle.

            drbuzz0 said:

    Eventually, without new fuel, they can start to slow down and break up, at which point they can be contained further and attacked.

    Yes, it’s a big project, but it’s not an enormous project. It’s not beyond reasonable effort or expenditure to tackle this, or at least reduce it dramatically.

    Most all the signs indicate we are close to the Biblical endtimes anyway, and there’s so many severe poverty problems, that we need to be more focused on human benefits and jobs and productive work. I don’t see much any short-term gain from the projects you propose. Not many jobs would be created, and it’s more the low-skilled jobs that are hurting, not the high-skilled jobs for which often too few people are adequately trained already, and I just don’t see the cost-benefit gain. Seems to be that only small coal fires threatening nearby towns, can prove any cost-benefit gain.


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    Pronatalist Says:

            Finrod said:

    Pronatalist said: Although, from my philosophical perspective, I’m not so sure that the numbers matter so much.

    Enemy of science and logic.

    Let’s be fair. I don’t think science has much of an opinion as to whether to fight underground coal fires, other than the math of cost-benefit opportunity cost calculations. I don’t see much sign that nature “cares” one way or another. Nature is very resilient. I easily know this, because I go battle the jungle, every time I start up my lawn mower.


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    DV82XL Says:

            Pronatalist said:

    Most all the signs indicate we are close to the Biblical endtimes anyway, and there’s so many severe poverty problems, that we need to be more focused on human benefits and jobs and productive work. I don’t see much any short-term gain from the projects you propose.

    Well there we have it in a nutshell why nothing you say needs be taken seriously. The Endtimes? This is possibly the most conceited reason to date why we shouldn’t be looking at longterm solution to environmental problems. Because the World is coming to an end to fulfill the drug-induced ranting of some Hellenized Jewish malcontent from two thousand years ago in a book whose place in the canon was still being debated at the time of Bede six hundred years later.

    Never mind the fact that there have been those arrogant enough to think that history ends with them since the idea was put forward. Never mind the fact that there is no more evidence that the world will end as described in Revelations than it began as described in Genesis. No you’re so important that the whole damned word is going end on your watch. Frankly you are welcome to stew in your own delusions, up to the point where it begins to impact the rest of us. Indifference to environmental issues has been a hallmark of Fundamentalist Christianity, because to support it would mean you didn’t think Armageddon was coming. So stupid and narrow-minded are you that you can even see that you are being played politically to keep the worst polluters from changing the way they do business.

    You talk about a revolution coming where your type will turn to violence? Good. Bring it on. You are nowhere near the majority you think you are, just because you can get the vote out on single issues. You are trying the patience of the real majority, and if you want to escalate as you suggest, killing doctors, and firebombing clinics, you might be very surprised at the size of the backlash.


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Pronatalist said:

    Most all the signs indicate we are close to the Biblical endtimes anyway

    Ohhh… well okay then. That’s that.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    Pronatalist Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Pronatalist said: Most all the signs indicate we are close to the Biblical endtimes anyway, and there’s so many severe poverty problems, that we need to be more focused on human benefits and jobs and productive work. I don’t see much any short-term gain from the projects you propose.

    Well there we have it in a nutshell why nothing you say needs be taken seriously. The Endtimes?

    So the times we are in, should have no bearing on decision making? Or you are simply mocking the truth?

            DV82XL said:

    This is possibly the most conceited reason to date why we shouldn’t be looking at longterm solution to environmental problems. Because the World is coming to an end to fulfill the drug-induced ranting of some Hellenized Jewish malcontent from two thousand years ago in a book whose place in the canon was still being debated at the time of Bede six hundred years later.

    Obama is shoving us off the financial cliff into either hyperinflation or the collapse of the dollar, or both, and you’re looking for ever more things to squander money on? And then you mock my view?

    Did I not read the article at the top, and it says the coal fires are uncontrollable? So what part of uncontrollable are we having trouble understanding? Or was I wrong to try to point out the “obvious?”

    Did you see the part where I said nature is resilient? What are you doing to solve the “environmental problem” of the jungle forever trying to encroach upon my yard all the time, so that I have to keep mowing, and digging out ugly weeds, and trimming back bushes? Maybe we could throw $millions of taxpayers’ money at this problem, we could get it fixed?

    Some of the “environmentalists” think it’s okay to let forest fires burn. I agree somewhat in remote places, although I list different reasons than they do. Would you take issue with those “environmentalists” as well? Should we have a all forest fires out by 10am antiquated program again? Just let the forests get overgrown, never allow any ground fires to clean out the forest litter?

    Wildfires are a controversial subject, and probably lots of people have opinions who aren’t experts in the field. But I thought this thread was about coal fires? Is there some “requirement” that everybody just magically agree that coal fires are the most “bad” thing imaginable? Seems to me that government waste, the mad rush towards socialism, corrupt politician incompetentce, are far more bad than a few remote coal fires that most people have never heard of.

            DV82XL said:

    Never mind the fact that there have been those arrogant enough to think that history ends with them since the idea was put forward. Never mind the fact that there is no more evidence that the world will end as described in Revelations than it began as described in Genesis. No you’re so important that the whole damned word is going end on your watch.

    So the endtimes signs don’t matter then? The restoration of Israel. The mad rush to a global currency and NWO tyrannical government. The increasing depravity of man. The falling away of people from faith. You see no Biblical timetable, because you mock the Bible?

            DV82XL said:

    Frankly you are welcome to stew in your own delusions, up to the point where it begins to impact the rest of us. Indifference to environmental issues has been a hallmark of Fundamentalist Christianity, because to support it would mean you didn’t think Armageddon was coming. So stupid and narrow-minded are you that you can even see that you are being played politically to keep the worst polluters from changing the way they do business.

    They are not delusions, you can read for yourself in the Bible. But my point is valid, there are more pressing concerns, and the Rapture of the Church is imminent. Of course I don’t know the date, the Bible implies not trust anybody who claims to, as only God knows. But if you didn’t have a calendar or a watch, you could still see the seasons coming, just by observing the signs around you.

    Defending freedom has been a hallmark of Christianity, while “environmentalists” have increasingly been attacking freedom, getting more and more aggressive to the point of destroying industries and jobs. Ever hear of “Deep Ecology,” in which they get so fanatical as to disparage population and such, and put trees before man? They too often are religious fanatics, even engaging in racketeering, job-destroying expensive litigation, monkeywrenching, and even terrorist acts against property, spiking trees to harm loggers, etc.

    And what do “the worst polluters” have to do with anything? Did you accuse nature of being a “worst polluter?”

            DV82XL said:

    You talk about a revolution coming where your type

    STEREOTYPE ALERT

    will turn to violence? Good. Bring it on.

    What? Do you know something I don’t? “My type” had not told me of any such thing, but since you know so much, why don’t you enlighten me?

            DV82XL said:

    You are nowhere near the majority you think you are, just because you can get the vote out on single issues. You are trying the patience of the real majority, and if you want to escalate as you suggest, killing doctors, and firebombing clinics, you might be very surprised at the size of the backlash.

    The real majority? Now who would that be? The sensible people who voted for McCain/Palin, and not ACORN and dead people voting?

    Escalate? Where have you been? Tyrant Obama is the one escalating.

    Killing doctors? Whatever are you talking about? One who does abortions is no “doctor.”

    And while you are having all this fun making idiotic unsubstanciated accusations, would you include the APOSTATE “Church” where murderer George Tiller was handing out Church bulletins, as among “my type?” Just curious just how you come up with that ridiculously broad stereotypical brush. Seems to me a mark of intellectually laziness. How can anybody be so proud of being stupid on purpose? Do you really want tyrant Obama flushing our economy down the toilet?

    I think it’s fitting it happened at a Church, because much of America’s abortion holocaust can indirectly be blamed upon the Church. I have heard that an abortion clinic could put up a sign that says, “Open by permission of the Church,” and it would be accurate. My Bible says that somebody like Tiller, should have been promptly excommunicated, to say the least. That’s why I call that Church APOSTATE or a false Church.

    When the dollar collapses, it won’t be “my type” rioting in the streets. It will be troublemakers like gangs, ACORN, Feds, etc. But then there are no conspiracy theories are there? Must be nice to live in your rose-colored delusional bubble? Too bad there comes a time for bubbles to pop though.

    Of course like you said, “my kind” may not be all that numerous? So better prepare to fend for yourself, without enough patriots and minutemen to keep us safe? Sorry to have disturbed your slumber (not really).


    Quote Comment
  29. 29
    Pronatalist Says:

    a few questions I missed:

            drbuzz0 said:

    … Even the extremely large ones, the fires which have burned hundreds of miles, can be brought under control and eventually put out.

    Did you mean 100s of square miles? Are there coal veins that large?

            drbuzz0 said:

    The key to those is “divide and conquer” They have to be contained with fire breaks which can be created by drilling holes and pumping in grout or foam to keep them from growing.

    I find it very hard to believe that “fire breaks” 100s of miles long, wouldn’t easily be breached, or go under, at some point, the depth of the bore holes. And how well do all these “foams” penetrate the gaps between the boreholes? And what keeps the fire from simply drying out the foams and burning on, like there’s almost no “fire break” there?

            drbuzz0 said:

    Eventually, without new fuel, they can start to slow down and break up, at which point they can be contained further and attacked.

    Yeah, let’s may sure we spare no expense, and bankrupt the country all the faster? Seems to be a “contained” fire may then slowly fizzle and fade out on its own, once cut off from additional fuel?

            drbuzz0 said:

    Yes, it’s a big project, but it’s not an enormous project. It’s not beyond reasonable effort or expenditure to tackle this, or at least reduce it dramatically.

    Count on the government to turn it into an enormous boondoggle, and then in some way or another, it will probably contribute to the soon-to-come Obama rolling blackouts.

    So who’s going to pay me for the spoiled food anyway, once the blackouts start coming?


    Quote Comment
  30. 30
    DV82XL Says:

            Pronatalist said:

    Killing doctors? Whatever are you talking about? One who does abortions is no “doctor.”

    And while you are having all this fun making idiotic unsubstanciated accusations, would you include the APOSTATE “Church” where murderer George Tiller was handing out Church bulletins, as among “my type?” Just curious just how you come up with that ridiculously broad stereotypical brush. Seems to me a mark of intellectually laziness. How can anybody be so proud of being stupid on purpose? Do you really want tyrant Obama flushing our economy down the toilet?

    I think it’s fitting it happened at a Church, because much of America’s abortion holocaust can indirectly be blamed upon the Church. I have heard that an abortion clinic could put up a sign that says, “Open by permission of the Church,” and it would be accurate. My Bible says that somebody like Tiller, should have been promptly excommunicated, to say the least. That’s why I call that Church APOSTATE or a false Church.

    Your type = see above

    Those that would style themselves Christians while ignoring the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and claim preposterous ideas like the “End Times” and use their warped beliefs to justify outrage. You have passed the point of being able to make any claim on religious tolerance and moved into criminal conspiracy and you will be treated accordingly.

    The rising tide of secularism will sweep you and your kind away, faster if you keep extending opinions that you can take matters into your own hands and commit murder in the name of a Gospel you cannot articulate with any coherence. It can’t be too soon.


    Quote Comment
  31. 31
    Gordon Says:

    How the hell did abortion and families and the end of days get into this?

    A few years ago this kind was usually on a street corner with a cardboard sign. I guess that’s antiquated with the internet and all.

    Look, as far as coal fires go, I’m generally one who thinks the government spends too much money on too many things, but this is a rare example of a place where government money could do a lot of good. In my opinion the government should stop spending money on things like wind turbines and subsidies for god-knows-what pet industry and instead try to spend money on projects that have a high return and benefit the public or society in general and are something that the private sector alone won’t do.

    I think this is an example of where government money could be spent more effectively than on things like “green energy” Have you any idea what money is spent in that area? 10% of the money spent on that (which is billions and billions) could put out a lot of burning coal fires.

    Maybe they can’t be all put out, but many of them can and that alone would help a great deal.


    Quote Comment
  32. 32
    George Carty Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Well there we have it in a nutshell why nothing you say needs be taken seriously. The Endtimes? This is possibly the most conceited reason to date why we shouldn’t be looking at longterm solution to environmental problems. Because the World is coming to an end to fulfill the drug-induced ranting of some Hellenized Jewish malcontent from two thousand years ago in a book whose place in the canon was still being debated at the time of Bede six hundred years later.

    Never mind the fact that there have been those arrogant enough to think that history ends with them since the idea was put forward. Never mind the fact that there is no more evidence that the world will end as described in Revelations than it began as described in Genesis. No you’re so important that the whole damned word is going end on your watch. Frankly you are welcome to stew in your own delusions, up to the point where it begins to impact the rest of us. Indifference to environmental issues has been a hallmark of Fundamentalist Christianity, because to support it would mean you didn’t think Armageddon was coming. So stupid and narrow-minded are you that you can even see that you are being played politically to keep the worst polluters from changing the way they do business.

    Why are there so many hardcore anti-theists in the pro-nuclear blogosphere? IIRC the Armageddonist tendencies in American Christianity don’t even have any basis in the Bible, but are as recent as the 19th century (starting with J.N. Darby).

    Anyway, if I’d been American I would have without a doubt voted for Obama, partly because of the kinds of sentiments expressed here by Pronatalist. Not only had McCain shown himself to be a highly dangerous warmonger, but he was 70 years old and rumored to have cancer. Sarah Palin is one of the Armageddonists…

    As Charlie Stross said, “the world dodged a bullet” last November – no matter how incompetent Obama turns out to be, at least he isn’t aiming to end the world.


    Quote Comment
  33. 33
    Pronatalist Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Your type = see above

    STEREOTYPE ALERT

    So you are saying that I am just like, whatever people are like, of “my kind.” Know what that says to me? Tells me you have a very small mind, and don’t want to take the trouble to understand the many differences among people, and see things in terms of not much more than just 2 groups – us and them. You don’t have a clue as to what reality is.

    What’s this guy’s name? Scott Rotor? Think I’m on his newsletter list? I heard about it, just like you, on the mainstream misleadia. Only I had discernment to label George Tiller’s Church as APOSTATE, because they are not following in the ways of Jesus at all. I clearly remember reading in the New Testament, that somebody was to be put out of the Church, for a much lesser unrepentant sin than abortion. I think the person was fornicating, and their Church didn’t even seem to care, for which they were rebuked, by Paul, I think it was. Paul said to put them out, lest the person corrupt the entire Church. (1 Cor 5:1-8 incest in the Church) But since you have a very small mind, you think we of “my kind” are reading off the same cue cards, and I have some inside track to the likes of Scott Rotor. Either you are a fool, or you think you are being funny, or you are trying to make me angry with your reckless accusations. Which is it? I think the former. In this perilous time for our country, under the cult-of-Obama, it’s very FOOLISH to be so poorly informed as you are. Do you have any clue how to find the contrarian and truer news sources? But then, why should I bother to tell you? You wouldn’t know a conspiracy theory, if it was a snake about to bite you?

            DV82XL said:

    Those that would style themselves Christians while ignoring the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and claim preposterous ideas like the “End Times” and use their warped beliefs to justify outrage.

    You sure are one to talk. How do you dare judge Christians, when you apparently know nothing of the way? Had you read much of anything from the Bible, would you scoff at the Endtimes of which the Bible speaks of so much?

    Don’t you even hear sayings and quotations? “If you aren’t outraged, you aren’t paying attention.”

            DV82XL said:

    You have passed the point of being able to make any claim on religious tolerance and moved into criminal conspiracy and you will be treated accordingly.

    Oh here we go again with the reckless accusations. Does it get you off, making ridiculous accusations against ordinary people, of which you know practically nothing? Are you just another Obama-aton, really to fall down and worship at tyrant Obama’s feet?

    All the far more legitimate conspiracy theories out there, NWO, UN agenda, “the government did it,” Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc., and you just want to make up a new one, against somebody who actually takes the time to talk (type) to you personally, with no evidence at all? Just because your small little mind is about to explode at the first suggestion that there could be a CONSPIRACY out there somewhere? Sorry to have disturbed your fragile little delusional bubble (not really). Sorry to have disturbed your slumber (not really). But better I do it, than you get caught blindsided, by some bombshell in the news, say like government declaring marshall law and tyrant Obama appointing himself President For Life (dictator). Those who know their history, know that evil men who become so popular as Obama has become, are very much like other past very destructive dictators. But then those who don’t know history are condemned to repeat it. What we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.

    Every hear the saying, where there’s smoke, there’s fire? You must be blind if you see no smoke. What? No sense of smell either? Did you know there’s a ammo shortage? It’s not because of crazies out there. People say, “something isn’t right,” and they are buying all they can. Not because they are plotting anything. Only a small stupid mind like that of a liberal, or of yours, would jump to conclusions without considering many alternatives or evidence. But there’s also the matter that if endless government bailouts and printing record amounts of funny money “monetization” of debt triggers hyperinflation, of the sort of Zimbabwee, or the collapse of the dollar, how do we protect ourselves from the gangs running wild in the streets? How are these people going to eat, when the economy collapses? Well many people think they are going to come to yours and my homes, and take whatever we have. And the government track record for managing crises is abysmal. Just look at hurricane Katrina. Of course, you don’t know about such things, because you trust the news from the mainstream misleadia? You don’t know what I am talking about, because you are clueless.

    I told people at work, that there was something wrong with Obama. I don’t get to tell them so much now. Oh, yeah, I have their phone numbers, but why bother? They had their chance. Unless they have a job to offer me, why should I waste any more time with them? Time to make new friends. Why? Some of that “change you can believe in.” My employer liquidated, and left us with no jobs. Not when the economy started tanking when investors figured out who would win the election. Not when Obama was elected. But within a few months afterwards, as government monkeywrenching with the economy accelerated the U.S. hemorhaging jobs. But then I’m a Christian, so I shouldn’t be angry that Obama has over and over violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and is trying to destroy the economy. I should be happy and glad, because he is the false messiah, and has “great intentions,” right? And I should believe this from some critic who knows nothing of the way? I suppose you didn’t know that Obama is a Muslim, and has failed his citizen test that the Constitution says he must meet, to be President. Because you are clueless like the rest of the sheeple. About ready to be sheered, and I mean more than just shaving off some excess wool.

    It’s not just Christians who have seething rage just under the surface, ready to explode somewhere. People are hopping mad about taxes, scared to spend money, have less and less confidence in this government. Corporate bond holders of Obama Motors are being ripped off having stolen from them their secured loans in exchange for far less value, by Obama paying off the unions that helped him get elected, in blatant violation of the law. A few people are wise enough to be drawing down their money from the banks, and stashing it somewhere, fearing that the banking system is far more fragile and has way too little reserves, than we have been led to believe. And unless you have been living in a cave somewhere with no electricity, surely you have noticed the commercials for getting out of worthless paper currency and into gold? But then, that’s right, you have no discernment, so you couldn’t spot a strange trend if it was a snake about to bite you?

            DV82XL said:

    The rising tide of secularism will sweep you and your kind away, faster if you keep extending opinions that you can take matters into your own hands and commit murder in the name of a Gospel you cannot articulate with any coherence. It can’t be too soon.

    Your wishful thinking will do you no good when you are LEFT BEHIND. Of course, you probably don’t even know what I am talking about, do you?

    You sound like the sort that would believe some crazy mainstream misleadia excuse that UFOs took us pesky Christians away from the earth, right before the world goes to somewhere in a handbasket. Of course, if you aren’t quite of “that type,” lay it on me. My mind is big enough to imagine that there might be more than just 2 or 3 “types” of people in the world, unlike your small little mind.

    a tip for you: You might be a bit more persuasive, next time you criticize somebody’s religion, if you actually tried to make a little effort to understand that religion. They do have books on such subjects you know? But then you probably don’t read much do you, as you seem very poorly informed.


    Quote Comment
  34. 34
    Pronatalist Says:

            Gordon said:

    How the hell did abortion and families and the end of days get into this?

    Uh, maybe because the problems of our times, looming economic collapse, is yet ANOTHER reason not to be much worrying about fighting largely irrelevant coal fires.

            Gordon said:

    A few years ago this kind was usually on a street corner with a cardboard sign. I guess that’s antiquated with the internet and all.

    Some months ago, somebody at work wrote me a note on a piece of paper, “The End is Near.” As a joke. Not that they were disagreeing, probably joking that I sound a bit like one of those street preachers. I motioned, go ahead, tape it on my back. I’ll play along for a little while. Why? Because I do sort of want to promote that idea anyway. What do I care what morons think?

    Somewhere, I heard the story, that somebody asked one of those street preachers, You’ve been saying the end is near now for years? We’re still here. So he changed his message. “The end is NEARER.”

            Gordon said:

    Look, as far as coal fires go, I’m generally one who thinks the government spends too much money on too many things, but this is a rare example of a place where government money could do a lot of good.

    I disagree. I’ve read of too many gloriously futile efforts, that failed to stop the coal fires. Apparently some have been successful, so some smaller fires perhaps can be stopped. But I’m very concerned of the massive deficits the government keeps running up, people are already afraid to spend money in a down economy, and for cash-strapped governments to raise taxes upon already tax-burdened taxpayers, is likely to incite REVOLUTION. I do hope that there’s still time for the peaceful sort, of a huge slaughter of incumbents in the next election, but I fear we are fast running of time for a peaceful resolution to the country’s mounting financial crisis that this cult-of-Obama IS CAUSING.

            Gordon said:

    In my opinion the government should stop spending money on things like wind turbines and subsidies for god-knows-what pet industry and instead try to spend money on projects that have a high return and benefit the public or society in general and are something that the private sector alone won’t do.

    But putting out coal fires isn’t glamorous, and where’s the relevance to the U.S., when most of the major out-of-control coal fires are raging in China and India? The U.S. has plenty of problems of its own, without trying to be the phony Savior to the world. I think much of the rest of the world is getting tired of us, and Obama’s incessant pathetic speechs. He has all the markings of a narcissist. You look up narcissism in the dictionary, and it shows a photo of Obama, I heard somebody just say. Did you know the Chinese and the Japanese are DONE lending us money, or so I heard? Foreigners are losing confidence in our ability to repay, hastening the weakening of the U.S. dollar. This is a very real CRISIS, very unlike the natural phenonomen of coal fires which even nature appears rather unconcerned about.

            Gordon said:

    I think this is an example of where government money could be spent more effectively than on things like “green energy”

    At least the “green energy” promises to delivers some productive electricity, which I think is an exxageration, while fighting coal fires delivers nothing but somewhat lower CO2 emissions, which are mostly neglible, as far as most common people can tell. And rarely are the coal fires, anywhere near to where the people are, WHO NEED JOBS.

            Gordon said:

    Have you any idea what money is spent in that area?

    Are you asking me for specific statistics? I am no expert in this subject, but a commentator upon something curious I read on the internet. Of course this isn’t the first website on the matter I have seen, as I have been following the topic of underground coal fires for some time. But I see them in a different light, and not all the gloom-and-doom “The sky is falling” hype of our age. It’s just nature burning off some excess hydrocarbons, which is nothing new really. I would rather see humans get the productive work benefit, but there’s plenty of coal, and we really can’t “control” all of nature anyway.

    Often it cost far less to “do nothing,” than to “do something,” thus, I agree with the past trend of mostly just letting the huge and smaller underground coal fires spread and grow naturally unchecked. They are minor in the grand scheme of things, and not anything like “the end of the world as we know it.”

    One of the most notable U.S. coal fires, is the one that’s been burning for decades in Centralia. I read somewhere that it’s about to, or spreading under an old cemetary, and some old vent pipes quit smoking, because the fire had moved on away from them. They made many costly attempts to stop the fire, and on it burns. However, the fire isn’t all that big, and it doesn’t grow all that fast at all. I hardly think a few old dusty corpses, are even going to notice. Considering the huge costs, it seems they have been right, to just let the fire do its thing, and let the place become a curious tourist attraction. I see on YouTube, all sorts of viewer videos of people exploring the curious smoking vents, and subsidence of the old stretch of highway.

            Gordon said:

    10% of the money spent on that (which is billions and billions) could put out a lot of burning coal fires.

    Maybe they can’t be all put out, but many of them can and that alone would help a great deal.

    A little money here, a little money there, and next thing you know, we have national bankruptcy, collapsed currencies, social turmoil, and an advancement against liberty by the NWO cabal.

    Most of the major coal fires are in China and India, and we are already mostly bankrupt. The Chinese and Japanese are loathe to lend us any more money. So how do we think we can afford to solve all of China’s and India’s minor problems? Maybe if Big Brother U.S. government would stop minding everybody’s business, and get its nose out of everybody’s lives, it might be able to mind its own business a little better?


    Quote Comment
  35. 35
    DV82XL Says:

            Pronatalist said:

    You sure are one to talk. How do you dare judge Christians, when you apparently know nothing of the way? Had you read much of anything from the Bible, would you scoff at the Endtimes of which the Bible speaks of so much?

    I spent years in formal Bible study as a student under French Jesuits, and I have been through the Bible verse-by-verse under their tutelage and it has been my experience that massive majorities of Christian fundamentalists can’t articulate the Gospel with any coherence, because they do not know it as well as they should. Ultimately I see people claiming to be Christians that like you believe more in a cause than a faith.

    I rejected religion because it was obviously built on feet of clay, and nothing of it could be subjected to any proof, but I am astonished at the depth of ignorance of scripture that exists among people claiming to believe in an inerrant Bible. You are one of them.


    Quote Comment
  36. 36
    George Carty Says:

            DV82XL said:

    I spent years in formal Bible study as a student under French Jesuits, and I have been through the Bible verse-by-verse under their tutelage and it has been my experience that massive majorities of Christian fundamentalists can’t articulate the Gospel with any coherence, because they do not know it as well as they should. Ultimately I see people claiming to be Christians that like you believe more in a cause than a faith.

    Well, the Catholics never believed any of that Rapture-Ready crap anyway…

            DV82XL said:

    I rejected religion because it was obviously built on feet of clay, and nothing of it could be subjected to any proof,

    You can’t prove the non-existence of God either – I’d argue though that fundamentalist Christianity is especially vulnerable though because of its insistence on (demonstrably false) young-earth creationism.

            DV82XL said:

    but I am astonished at the depth of ignorance of scripture that exists among people claiming to believe in an inerrant Bible. You are one of them.

    I’m amazed at the American fundamentalists who view the King James Bible as inerrant (as it is written in a language which didn’t even exist in Jesus’s time)!


    Quote Comment
  37. 37
    DV82XL Says:

            George Carty said:

    Well, the Catholics never believed any of that Rapture-Ready crap anyway…

    I’m amazed at the American fundamentalists who view the King James Bible as inerrant (as it is written in a language which didn’t even exist in Jesus’ time)!

    All of this rubbish is seen by the Holy Mother Church as a 19th century American heresy. I agree, and include all of their dogma as well as nonsense.

            George Carty said:

    You can’t prove the non-existence of God either

    Logically that is an irrelevancy. One cannot prove the non-existence of the Hindu pantheon ether, or the Roman, or the Greek, or for that mater, the Great Spaghetti Monster. That doesn’t provide a reason to believe in them ether.


    Quote Comment
  38. 38
    drbuzz0 Says:

            George Carty said:

    Well, the Catholics never believed any of that Rapture-Ready crap anyway…

    All that bull about the rapture was invented in the 1800′s and then adopted by some of the traveling holy rollers in the US and a few in Britain in the early 20th century, taking root in the intellectual badlands of the American South.

    It has NEVER been a central tenate of any major christian faith. No, the Catholics don’t believe it and the Episcopal and Lutheran and other traditional denominations don’t go for that either and the Eastern Orthodox churches never were into that.

    The whole concept is the kind of thing that you don’t find from the televangelists who buy television time at four o’clock in the morning and who generally have a congregation that lives primarily in trailers. It’s also the kind of thing that you see from the kind of churches were people handle rattlesnakes and are missing most of their teeth.

    Not that I really am big on Christianity to begin with, but it’s really the ghetto kind of Christianity that is into that rapture crap.


    Quote Comment
  39. 39
    George Carty Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    The whole concept is the kind of thing that you don’t find from the televangelists who buy television time at four o’clock in the morning and who generally have a congregation that lives primarily in trailers. It’s also the kind of thing that you see from the kind of churches were people handle rattlesnakes and are missing most of their teeth.

    Not that I really am big on Christianity to begin with, but it’s really the ghetto kind of Christianity that is into that rapture crap.

    At least if it is just a feature of ignorant people, this mutation of Christianity shouldn’t be too difficult to eradicate by education.

    (As opposed to Islam, which could only be eradicated by extermination – the history of the Spanish Inquisition proved that forced conversion of Muslims is impossible. That’s probably the main reason why the anti-Islam sentiments you’ve expressed in the past made my blood run cold.)


    Quote Comment
  40. 40
    Mitsubishi Golf Shafts Says:

    If not us, who? If not now, when? These two questions comes in my mind after i read this post. The informations i have read in this website had made me feel confuse.


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string v8MXCw to the field below:

*

Protected by WP Anti Spam