The coal industry v everyone else: who will win? | David Ritter | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Those horrible coal people who provide electricity for us simply must be stopped.
The planet must be saved, so all lefties need to turn off their electricity, stop buying any food or manufactured goods, and bankrupt the coal industry. What are they waiting for? The planet’s survival depends on all progressive-minded people immediately halting their fossil fuel electricity purchases.
The astonishing consistency of human religious fanaticism. The enemy of your god is evil, and must be overcome. Still.
Good point Steve. Research has led to the finding that lifecycle CO2 emissions of corn ethanol are worse than gasoline and that most other sources of ethanol aren’t much better than gasoline. Yet I see no mention of this by Obama or his merry band of progressive green corporatist rent seeker/donators. In fact Obama wants to raise the ethanol fuel standard to 15% which would actually increase CO2 emissions while pushing food inflation higher as using corn for fuel accomplishes both. So in the US, progressives actually support more CO2 emissions from corn ethanol and the war on coal is nothing more than a progressive political prejudice and oppression, which is what progressives are all aboout.
Sundance, you really can’t mix Obama in with the progressives. Most of us are totally disgusted with the guy.
If you haven’t noticed, he’s acting like all politicians of either party. The Ds and the Rs have both insisted that corn ethanol be subsidized in every farm bill they pass for one glaringly obvious reason: the Iowa primary. They’re too cowardly to risk offending the largest corn farmers, who over the years have grown used to getting handsome government subsidies.
Ask any actual progressive and he’ll tell you he’s against all forms of corporate welfare– and the corn subsidy in particular. It’s well known that it takes as many therms to turn corn into fuel as you get out when you burn it in your engine. And it’s not as good a fuel as gasoline. It depletes good topsoil, maintains a dead zone in the Gulf and causes us to make far too much fertilizer, just to keep cranking out corn no one will be eating. Plus, it runs up the cost of food worldwide, US corn being a fungible staple on the world market.
So don’t blame us. Blame the Ds and the Rs who make it happen. (BTW Cato has an excellent article on the ethanol scam.)
It took a long time for huffpo progressives to flip flop on ethanol. If progressives had not supported it for so long, we wouldn’t be subsidizing it now.
Thankfully Pimentel knocked some sense into their heads.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/the-iowa-state-fair-ameri_b_61912.html
“Gaia hates coal”
Welcome to the Westboro Church of AGW!
http:www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/grace_notes/something_wonderful_georg_1.php
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=6142
The Orthodoxies of a Cult
Posted on June 27, 2013
by Terry Scambray
New Oxford Review
I haven’t met a single lefty who says we should just turn off our electricity. But most informed people would agree that the cheapest and easiest way to minimize our impact on the planet would be to economize, and increase our energy efficiency.
In fact we have just done so in my state, to the degree that the electric provider is requesting an increase in the rates they charge their customers. So even an energy investor can’t say the program of saving energy is a bad approach. Even when they don’t sell us our juice, they still make money.
Besides, designing and building smart buildings is a good way to create first rate JOBS. And isn’t that what our politicians always tell us when they want to screw us to the wall? They say but it’ll create JOBS. The difference is, energy efficient building programs really do.
Increasing energy efficiency does not necessarily minimize our impact on the planet. People may just drive more with a more efficient car, etc.
And designing and building smart buildings does not necessarily create jobs. By forcing companies to do that, you are destroying jobs elsewhere in the economy or preventing them from being created in the first place. You just can’t see those missing jobs, so it looks like a net gain in jobs. That works out great for politicians, but not for the rest of us.
It’s an old argument, Joe. We shouldn’t make zippers because it would damage the button industry. And we shouldn’t explore other energy possibilities (of which we have one or two very good ones) because it might damage Big Coal.
If you were to actually look into the issue, you’d find that over the years coal companies have been producing more and more coal with fewer and fewer employees. Whereas it’s very well known in this country that whenever you develop newer technologies you stimulate the need for new jobs. And not just crap jobs– high paying, high tech jobs.
You’re straining your argument when you talk about people “forcing” companies to develop new approaches. If you hadn’t noticed, that’s all a progressive company ever does– find new ways to put out more or better for less.
Right now, for example, the older coal-fired generating plants are getting torn down when they reach their end-life. And are being replaced by brand-new, cleaner, more efficient gas-fired plants. Describe to me, please, how this will produce a net loss in jobs.
You have no idea of what you are talking about A 1300 MW combined cycle natural gas fired plant will have about 45 employees. The same size coal plant has over 250. Lemme see, is that a net job loss or not? And those old plants were paid for and those investments are being abandoned and costing more money to tear down. That new, more efficient plant? Don’t get me wrong, they are marvels of efficiency, but that same 1,300 MW plant will add over $1 billion to the customers to replace what they had already paid for. Result? Everyone’s power costs go up.
This is going to sound monstrous and very offensive to your very well affected progressive sensibilities, but efficiency (viability) of production is defined by how much productivity you can get with the least operators not by achieveing the same productivity with more operators. You and the all of the operators will all end up out of a job when the plant shuts down.
The article presents energy producers as enemies of the people. Greens are the enemies of the people.
Greens are the enemies of the people? Very simplistic, Steve. Actual Greens are not quite the people you say they are. Very few Luddites in the entire bunch. What’s being said in the article is that coal is the worst among our choices, the most environmentally destructive per usable therms obtained. (And modern mining methods have even eliminated most jobs.)
Energy efficiency would be a much better way to perform the same amount of work for less expense and fuel. Natural gas, solar, geothermal where appropriate, are all much better than coal.
Next-gen nuclear would be best of all. Now would be a good time to get started on it.
Coal is the only option we have now to keep the world powered up at the present time, making it the best and only option,
Or we could drop coal, have hundreds of millions freeze and starve to death, and watch the rapid destruction of our forests from people trying to stay warm.
Fukushima would like to have next Gen nuclear.
No one’s dropping coal right now, for exactly the reasons you state. Other than our current abundance of natural gas we don’t have alternatives up our sleeve. But I think it would be a very good idea to get some alternatives up and running as quickly as possible.
The Chinese, who are far, far more dependent on coal than we are, are thinking in exactly those terms. They know coal is bad. But a nationwide industrial shutdown would be far worse. Are we in agreement on that?
Coal lifted mankind out of the dark ages, and it continues to keep society running. Only a complete lunatic would see that as being anything but good.
If we could power our cities on Fairy Dust, that would be even better than renewables.
Michael M, Sorry I’m not buying. Progs ARE the PROBLEM. The whole green complex is their baby through and through. They’ve flushed $billinons and $billions down the sewer with this crap. As far as electricity consumption normal market forces (supply & demand)will take care of increasing or trimming production. It doesn’t require the micro-management of you people.
Do you know any self professed progs that are not D’s, green party, communists, or socialists?
Joe, allow me to point to a big problem you’ve never considered.
You think you know everything there is to know about some kind of scary people, who go by a hundred names but who are all exactly alike. They are Commies, they are Islamist radicals, they are terrorists, they are liberals, they are socialists and they are Democrats. No difference between any of them. They’re all the Devil’s spawn sent from Hell to plague humanity.
How do you know all that? Because your trusted media, like this site, whispers in your ear that it’s so. The only trouble is, caricatures like the people you imagine hardly exist in real life. And since you’ll never actually read their stuff, you’ll never know that. All you’ll ever read is articles people like Steve search the web for day and night. Ones they think will prove their point.
Please describe the “billions and billions” these evil genies have flushed down the sewer. Sure, the federal government (anything but a progressive force) has spent a few billion on basic research. But it’s mostly things that have military applications. Yet we benefit from those expenditures. The internet, for instance. One of those wasteful federal projects.
If our basically conservative federal government had spent more on researching solar energy, for instance, we would not be behind China now. We just can’t compete, because they paid more attention to it than we did. Solyndra didn’t turn out to be a profitable venture simply because the Chinese out-cheaped us on solar and they couldn’t capture the market. Does this mean we should never put any money into basic research or promising startups? I don’t think that’s been proven.
“If our basically conservative federal government had spent more on researching solar energy, for instance, we would not be behind China now.”
Bullcrap michael. My brother works at NASA and updates me on their soalr work as one of his work buddies is a lead on NASA solar research. I was told five years ago by my brother (and Ray Kurzweil) that solar would be viable without subsidy by now. Guess what? We are still ‘five years’ away.
We are pouring billions into a hole. We need the Wright brothers, and not Sam Langley.
Do you recollect what the waterways and lakes looked and smelled like in the 60’s & 70’s?
We’ve come a long way and it is the thought processes of todays progressives that are unbalanced to the point of being idiotic, not to mention irrational.
Fossil fuels and coal are the best thing ever developed and short of nuclear and geo-thermal, there are no other answers, right now.
Saving the planet is the new psychosis!
Good point Chewage.
I actually was part of a crew that cleaned up the first Scenic American Riverway, in my youth. It was full of cars, refrigerators, washers, dryers, tires, and anything else you might find at a junkyard. It took years of cleaning to get it all, but we did, and it is now a spectacular showpiece.
Bjorn Lomborg detailed the massive improvements we have made over the last century in his book ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World’. Bjorn has also pointed out that the money we spend on the AGW fairy tale is enough to feed, clothe, shelter and offer medical aid to every human being on Earth. This is how we know Greens are indeed the enemy of humanity.
Chewage: You’re reminding us that our waterways used to be filthy back in the 60s and 70s, and in the very next sentence you’re telling us “progressives” are idiotic and irrational? I assume by that you mean the Greens, people concerned about maintaining the integrity of the planet we live on.
Who do you think was responsible for that cleanup? It was environmentalists making their case successfully to a progressive Republican president. Dick Nixon.
You should find a copy of Wally Hickel’s book, Who Owns America? He tells you how all that PROGRESS came to be. A responsible party decided we needed to clean up our act– and did something about it.
I was responsible for that clean up. Along with churches and boy scout troops. I don’t recall seeing a single hippy lift a finger.
Nice sound-bite, Gate. We’re five years away from solar and always will be? Cute.
Except that the average cost of one kWh in this country is twelve cents. And here’s a solar plant going on line as we speak that can provide a kWh for only 5.79 cents.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Very-Macho-Solar-Stat-5.79-Cents-per-Kilowatt-Hour
Coal’s cheap too. But coal gets the benefit of some very big subsidies. For one thing it doesn’t have to pay for more than a tiny fraction of the damage it does to coal counties, and coal miners’ lives.
And how come Germany, a place not known for it’s sunny skies, has been increasing solar use as a share of the national energy grid, while at the same time weaning the industry from the subsidies it’s been earning while it was young.
That’s the way every country progresses (there’s that word again). You subsidise an infant industry until it can walk on its own. Then– unlike what we’ve done with coal and oil– you remove the training wheels so it can stand on its own.
The fossil fuel industry has a controlling hand in US politics. And at their suggestion, solar in this country is being made to fail.
Who has a ‘sound bite’? 😆
If it is sooo cheap, why does it need subsidy?
And the mining?
And the area effected?
You are a dope. A victim of self imposed ignorance.
http://coastalcare.org/2011/09/china-solar-company-pledges-toxic-waste-cleanup/
http://romaniatacuta.ro/wp-content/baotou-toxic-lake
As the founder of Greenpeace has said; the organization has been hijacked by insane people who nothing about the cause they’ve been brainwashed into believing.
I’m talking about irrational thinking and group think…
Our planet is capable of supporting 16 billion and the fossil reerves are not endless, but they’ll get us by until the next magnetospheric reversal!
“Progressives” are NOT about progress. They are trying to take us back to the oldest and most failed form of government. There is nothing ‘progressive’ about leftist ideas, they have failed time and again since the dawn of time.
Gator, I see you’re having trouble with the printed page again. The reason solar still needs subsidies in this country is that it has to compete with well-established energy sources like coal. Which has subsidies. I would level the playing field by removing all fossil fuel subsidies so we could find out how much it really costs. Then solar could compete.
In Germany, the point to my comment was that solar has become a mature energy source. So they are removing its subsidies.
The rest of your comment is not well fleshed out:
“And the mining? And the area effected?”
What about them?
I see you are still an idiot…
“Gator, I see you’re having trouble with the printed page again. The reason solar still needs subsidies in this country is that it has to compete with well-established energy sources like coal. Which has subsidies.”
Bullshit michael, we have covered this. Coal gets zero subsidy, they get no taxpayer funding at all. Period. Quit lying.
“In Germany, the point to my comment was that solar has become a mature energy source. So they are removing its subsidies.”
Fine, as long as they are not adding any taxes to coal.
“The rest of your comment is not well fleshed out”
“And the mining? And the area effected?”
What about them?”
Sorry, I forgot just how utterly ignorant you are, get your mom to help you figure it out.
I see you are still an idiot…
“Gator, I see you’re having trouble with the printed page again. The reason solar still needs subsidies in this country is that it has to compete with well-established energy sources like coal. Which has subsidies.”
Bullshit michael, we have already covered this, quit lying. Coal receives ZERO subsidies, they get no taxpayer funding.
“In Germany, the point to my comment was that solar has become a mature energy source. So they are removing its subsidies.”
Then let’s make it level and apply taxation and permits etc… evenly.
“The rest of your comment is not well fleshed out:
“And the mining? And the area effected?”
What about them?”
Sorry, I forgot how uttery ignorant you are, have your mom help you figure it out.
Coal subsidies:
1) Externalities:
“The subsidies the nuclear and fossil-fuel industry receive — and have received for many years — make their product “affordable.” Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their “externalities.” Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.[18]
“Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal’s waste stream. He found that the “life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually”. These are costs the coal industry is not paying and which fall to the community in general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase the price of coal-fired electricity.[18]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
2) Direct subsidies:
“Federal coal subsidies are forms of financial assistance paid by federal taxpayers to the coal and power industry. Such subsidies include direct spending, tax breaks and exemptions, low-interest loans, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, grants, lost government revenue such as discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, and federally-subsidized external costs, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up due to the negative effects of coal use.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies
3) Lost revenues from coal leases:
“A 2012 report by Tom Sanzillo of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis concluded that, since 1982, the Fair Market Value (FMV) lease process administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) provided a $28.9 billion subsidy to coal producers and utilities in lost royalties and bonuses. The bids by coal companies for federal coal leases did not match the estimated market value of the reserves, which the report attributes to the increasing privatization of the federal leasing system and lack of government oversight.”
Same source.
4) Foregone revenues and direct spending
“The study U.S. Government Subsidies for Energy Sources 2002-2008 was released in September 2009 by the Environmental Law Institute. The report was authored by Adenike Adeyeye, James Barrett, Jordan Diamond, Lisa Goldman, John Pendergrass, and Daniel Schramm, and funded by the Energy Foundation.[9]
“The report calculated lost government revenues by each fossil fuel sector:
“The study included the following major conclusions:
1. The vast majority of federal subsidies for fossil fuels and renewable energy supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel.
2. The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.
3. Subsidies for renewable fuels, a relatively young and developing industry, totaled $29 billion over the same period (almost half of which went to biofuels).
4. Subsidies to fossil fuels generally increased over the study period (though they decreased in 2008), while funding for renewables increased but saw a precipitous drop in 2006-07 (though they increased in 2008).
Same source.
There are dozens to hundreds of pages available to anyone googling “coal subsidies”. They include such things as coal’s depletion allowance, easy capital-gains treatment and preferential (discounted) leasing arrangements on public land. Coal runs the show, and pays for nothing.
“Such subsidies include direct spending, tax breaks and exemptions, low-interest loans, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, grants, lost government revenue such as discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, and federally-subsidized external costs, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up due to the negative effects of coal use.”
The only thing listed that is a ‘subsidy’ is the ‘claim’ of direct spending. My guess is that this group includes government spending on utilities as ‘direct spending’, and until proven otherwise, we can safely say that there is no proof of taxpayer monies being given to these industries.
Nice hand waving. Do you practice often? 😆
PS – Nice touch running to Soros for ‘data’. 😆
He makes the Koch brothers look like two bit chumps, with the money he spends!
Nice try… #1 Your insinuations that progs are something other than they profess to be and demonstrate themselves to be is quite de rigueur for leftie dissemblers. We all know what the left is about. I don’t need some kind of hagiography from your likes. You’d be astonished by how much I know about the”progressive” movement apparently more than you.
#2 Solyndra is just the tip of the ice-berg of green boon-doggles. There’s all kinds of lists on the net of BHO (progressive) administration’s green failed gambles, which easily reach into the $billions. Don’t try to rope the military into this. The military interest in renewables goes as far as the progs have been able to foist it upon them.
#3 I’m not going to fall for the Margaret Mead routine regarding the PRC’s interest in solar, which is basically just to export to the artificial market created by the progs in the west. I work in mfr’ing and I’ve been to China +dozen times over the years. News flash; they ain’t “going green” anytime soon. This solar crap has been touted by you people since the late 60’s. Give everybody a break already.
RE: Michael – “The only trouble is, caricatures like the people you imagine hardly exist in real life.”
Interesting, I just watched a few dozens caricatures yell “Allahu Akbar” while cutting the head off a Catholic priest in Syria… Jack Anderson, Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, twelve Nepalese, thousands more.
How many caricatures does it take to produce reality?
Energy producers should not be required to take on people who try to shut down their business as customers. Let them sit in a dark and cold for a while and ponder their sins.
I agree completely and would go further at the risk of sounding like a leftie dictator…don’t allow them to use anything related to oil or electricity for a month or so. Make them come crawling back to modern life with a pledge to never whine about oil or coal or electricity again.
Progs are always going on about carbon taxes and external costs for coal. What about the external benefits of coal? If carbon is to be taxed shouldn’t coal producers also be eligible for a percentage of all of the ancillary c0mmerce made possible by coal?
Anyway coal producers aren’t going to pay any carbon taxes. They will just collect carbon taxes from the consumers (John Q. Public) by way of higher costs for coal. You better believe that’s exactly what the progs tell the coal producers when they object to the taxes. I’ve been there.
I think if you take a close look you’ll find that the people talking about carbon credits and so forth are really politicians– NOT progressives. Carbon credits are really just a way to allow energy producers to keep on polluting… so long as they pay the government for the privilege.
There may very well be a few dumb progressives who buy that argument. But those with any sense understand that that approach does not reduce pollution, it enables it. And energy producers would just tack the extra expense onto their customers’ bills in any event. So the net result– if the folks in Washington ever were so foolish as to pass a carbon-trade bill– would be that electricity would be more expensive. And that US-made products would be less competitive on the world market.
Something tells me you will ignore what I’m telling you here– because it’s more fun just to think your straw men are dumb, evil or both. But believe me, there’s no love on the left for carbon credits. They’re a bad idea all around.
As for external benefits from coal, they may be familiar to you but they aren’t to me. So I’d appreciate your itemizing those benefits. All I know about is the external costs of coal. Go out to eastern Kentucky and see what it’s done to the land there. Not to mention what it’s done to the miners’ health, after coal has used them up and left them broke and wheezing in a trailer somewhere. Coal’s not pretty stuff. It destroys people.
Solar and wind both require rare earth minerals, mining. Coal mining effects a very small area in comparison, and CAN be reclaimed…
“California’s proposed Blythe plant will require a whopping 7,000 acres of Mohave Desert in order to deliver 2,100 GWh per year. The area of a coal plant producing the same output will typically be one square mile (640 acres) or less.”
http://grist.org/article/2010-11-17-which-has-bigger-footprint-coal-plant-or-solar-farm/
Gator, this is incredible BS. There are various ways to make a solar collector, but one of the best is with germanium– NOT a rare earth. And it’s never mined for itself. It always occurs in some other ore, typically zinc. So its footprint is zero.
Coal scars, on the other hand, can be easily seen from space. Hop over to Google Earth and see how widespread are the consequences of mountaintop removal. It is by definition an incredibly invasive technique, as coal mostly occurs in thin seams over wide geographic areas. You remove the mountain, dump it in the stream, remove the coal layer and then plant grass. That’s called “remediation”.
There’s another thing. Suppose you did make your solar cells with rare earths. These normally occur in a mineral called monazite. And what is the principal constituent of monazite? Thorium… key ingredient for the most promising of liquid-salt reactor fuels. So you’d mine principally for the thorium, then use your rare earths for magnets, lithium-ion batteries and other electronic uses. Anything left over (and that would be unlikely) could be used to make solar collectors.
Look up LFTR technology and you’ll see the fuel source for the latter part of this century. It’s being explored now by China, India, Norway and a few other places. But the US? The fossil fuel industry has been sinking this unwelcome competition far below the public’s event horizon. So no one even knows it exists. It’s classified now as a hazardous radioactive substance with no known uses. And we have huge piles of it sitting around.
Then disconnect from the grid and do not accept any subsidies. WTF would be your reason for pushing your religion on everyone else?
Solar arrays can be seen from space.
Wind farms can be seen from space.
License plates can be seen from space.
Quit waving your hands. 😆
RE: michael – “…one of the best is with germanium– NOT a rare earth. And it’s never mined for itself. It always occurs in some other ore, typically zinc. So its footprint is zero.”
LOL.
You reveal how little you know about germanium. Cerium, a rare earth element is 68ppm crust abundance, is much more abundant than germanium, at 1.6ppm crust abundance.
Even more laughable, the highest concentrations of germanium are found in the very thing you hate. Coal. If you stop mining coal, you stop mining the largest source of germanium. Welcome to catch-22
Get a degree before pontificating your nonsense. You only reveal your ignorance.
RE: michael – “…one of the best is with germanium– NOT a rare earth. And it’s never mined for itself. It always occurs in some other ore, typically zinc. So its footprint is zero.”
LOL.
You reveal how little you know about germanium. Cerium, a rare earth element is 68ppm crust abundance, is much more abundant than germanium, at 1.6ppm crust abundance.
Even more laughable, the highest concentrations of germanium are found in the very thing you hate. Coal. If you stop mining coal, you stop mining the largest source of germanium. Welcome to catch-22
Get a degree before pontificating your nonsense. You only reveal your ignorance.
Mike M,
You don’t see coal’s ancillary benefits? Basically look around at almost every single man made item that exists in your universe. Coal or some other fossil fuel played a role in creating it and/or delivering it even your precious windmills and solar panels. I know that you think that coal plants just run for no reason just so your imagined EEVILLL robber barons can poison poooor workers, but how did poor folks fair before coal came into use? Life was a bowl of cherries, right? FOH
There are progressive pols. They are the ones that want carbon taxes, and there are conservative pols that don’t want carbon taxes. There’s no need being obtuse about it.
Mikey M is going to tell us BHO, Algore, and Julia Gilliard don’t have the progressive bonfides that he does.
Joe, you said what I was thinking. If you are talking about an analysis to include the negatives of external costs, then you shouldinclude the external positives. Funny how that never seems to occur with these talking points……
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352832/green-dreams-america-coal-africa-robert-bryce
Let’s see… Obama is against coal power plants in USA but for it in Africa? I guess that is really wealth distribution…
That’s consistent with his lack of consistency.
I think coal should be sold as high quality antique biomass. How green is that?
😀 LMAO outstanding!
“Look up LFTR technology and you’ll see the fuel source for the latter part of this century. It’s being explored now by China, India, Norway and a few other places. But the US? The fossil fuel industry has been sinking this unwelcome competition far below the public’s event horizon. So no one even knows it exists. It’s classified now as a hazardous radioactive substance with no known uses. And we have huge piles of it sitting around.” – Mikey M.
—————————————–
Progressive pal, Mikey M, fond of assigning fear on Imaginary caricatures to other people is quite the little conspiracy theorist, but don’t point out that he’s the only one peddling caricatures on this thread. There may be a fossil fuel executive hiding under your bed or maybe a conservative carbon tax proponent- WTF?
Hear hear!
A tip of the glass to “michael” who finally offered a completely truthful unassailable fact!