Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY.

2 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Markle

Markle

THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY

Really, they do, some have said as much on this forum. Deprive them of inexpensive coal powered power plants is far more sensible and force them to wait for a solar panel or wind machine to drop out of the sky.

POSTED ON MARCH 18, 2016 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ENERGY POLICY
ANOTHER EPIC GREENFAIL
The number of people in the world who can be said in “energy poverty,” that is, with little or no modern energy available, is around 3 billion. About 1.5 billion people, according to some estimates, have no electricity at all, and most of the three billion rely on extremely low-tech or non-tech sources of energy for basic needs of cooking and warmth, meaning they burn, wood, straw, or dried animal dung. The smoke and air pollution from these low- and no-tech energy sources are terrible for human health, and for the local environment (especially if people are chopping down every tree in sight).

Naturally Western eco-imperialist do-gooders are horrified at the idea of building power plants, dams, and electricity grids for the world’s poor, and offered as their magic solution “Clean Cookstoves,” complete with a “public-private partnership” launched by Hillary Clinton! These mini-stoves were supposed to provide “clean and cheap” energy for very poor people in the developing world. Almost 30 million of these magic stoves have been distributed since 2010.

Here’s what the Washington Post reported about them last fall:

Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves.

That’s not the only problem with the stoves. Some perform well in the lab but not in the field. Others crack or break under constant heat. The best cookstoves burning clean fuels won’t protect poor families from disease if those who use them continue to cook over open fires as well — which many do. “They’re not the big solution, unfortunately, that we thought they were going to be,” says Rema Hanna, a Harvard economist who led “Up in Smoke,”the most extensive field study to date on this subject. . .


“We know what works,” says Kirk Smith, the Berkeley professor, who has worked on cookstoves for 35 years. “It’s gas or electricity or both. Why are we pushing these strange new gadgets that we never use here?”

There’s really no mystery here, is there?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/another-epic-greenfail.php

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY

Really, they do, some have said as much on this forum.  Deprive them of inexpensive coal powered power plants is far more sensible and force them to wait for a solar panel or wind machine to drop out of the sky.

POSTED ON MARCH 18, 2016 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ENERGY POLICY
ANOTHER EPIC GREENFAIL
The number of people in the world who can be said in “energy poverty,” that is, with little or no modern energy available, is around 3 billion. About 1.5 billion people, according to some estimates, have no electricity at all, and most of the three billion rely on extremely low-tech or non-tech sources of energy for basic needs of cooking and warmth, meaning they burn, wood, straw, or dried animal dung. The smoke and air pollution from these low- and no-tech energy sources are terrible for human health, and for the local environment (especially if people are chopping down every tree in sight).

Naturally Western eco-imperialist do-gooders are horrified at the idea of building power plants, dams, and electricity grids for the world’s poor, and offered as their magic solution “Clean Cookstoves,” complete with a “public-private partnership” launched by Hillary Clinton! These mini-stoves were supposed to provide “clean and cheap” energy for very poor people in the developing world. Almost 30 million of these magic stoves have been distributed since 2010.

Here’s what the Washington Post reported about them last fall:

Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves.

That’s not the only problem with the stoves. Some perform well in the lab but not in the field. Others crack or break under constant heat. The best cookstoves burning clean fuels won’t protect poor families from disease if those who use them continue to cook over open fires as well — which many do. “They’re not the big solution, unfortunately, that we thought they were going to be,” says Rema Hanna, a Harvard economist who led “Up in Smoke,”the most extensive field study to date on this subject. . .


“We know what works,” says Kirk Smith, the Berkeley professor, who has worked on cookstoves for 35 years. “It’s gas or electricity or both. Why are we pushing these strange new gadgets that we never use here?”

There’s really no mystery here, is there?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/another-epic-greenfail.php

Total bullshit, foisted by Markle who's only concern is continued profits for the coal moguls. His advocacy for providing coal fired electrical energy for 1.5 Billion people completely disregards the very real health hazards produced by that much coal being smoked. There are a number of alternative energy sources that are less polluting than coal, including natural gas -- which, as we've already shown -- costs less than coal as an energy source.

What Markle wants, is poisoned air, streams and rivers and cares less about how many poor people his money making endeavor kills or debilitates. Markle has never cared a whit about the well being of poor people -- this is the guy who laughs at other people's hardships, and who glories right here in the forum about pissing people off. You think this twisted corporate flunky gives a hoot for primitive, impoverished folks? LOL!

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY

Really, they do, some have said as much on this forum. Deprive them of inexpensive coal powered power plants is far more sensible and force them to wait for a solar panel or wind machine to drop out of the sky.

POSTED ON MARCH 18, 2016 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ENERGY POLICY
ANOTHER EPIC GREENFAIL[/b][/i][/size]
The number of people in the world who can be said in “energy poverty,” that is, with little or no modern energy available, is around 3 billion. About 1.5 billion people, according to some estimates, have no electricity at all, and most of the three billion rely on extremely low-tech or non-tech sources of energy for basic needs of cooking and warmth, meaning they burn, wood, straw, or dried animal dung. The smoke and air pollution from these low- and no-tech energy sources are terrible for human health, and for the local environment (especially if people are chopping down every tree in sight).

Naturally Western eco-imperialist do-gooders are horrified at the idea of building power plants, dams, and electricity grids for the world’s poor, and offered as their magic solution “Clean Cookstoves,” complete with a “public-private partnership” launched by Hillary Clinton! These mini-stoves were supposed to provide “clean and cheap” energy for very poor people in the developing world. Almost 30 million of these magic stoves have been distributed since 2010.

Here’s what the Washington Post reported about them last fall:

Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves.

That’s not the only problem with the stoves. Some perform well in the lab but not in the field. Others crack or break under constant heat. The best cookstoves burning clean fuels won’t protect poor families from disease if those who use them continue to cook over open fires as well — which many do. “They’re not the big solution, unfortunately, that we thought they were going to be,” says Rema Hanna, a Harvard economist who led “Up in Smoke,”the most extensive field study to date on this subject. . .


“We know what works,” says Kirk Smith, the Berkeley professor, who has worked on cookstoves for 35 years. “It’s gas or electricity or both. Why are we pushing these strange new gadgets that we never use here?”

There’s really no mystery here, is there?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/another-epic-greenfail.php

[b][size=24]Total bullshit, foisted by Markle who's only concern is continued profits for the coal moguls. His advocacy for providing coal fired electrical energy for 1.5 Billion people completely disregards the very real health hazards produced by that much coal being smoked. There are a number of alternative energy sources that are less polluting than coal, including natural gas -- which, as we've already shown -- costs less than coal as an energy source.

What Markle wants, is poisoned air, streams and rivers and cares less about how many poor people his money making endeavor kills or debilitates. Markle has never cared a whit about the well being of poor people -- this is the guy who laughs at other people's hardships, and who glories right here in the forum about pissing people off. You think this twisted corporate flunky gives a hoot for primitive, impoverished folks? LOL!

Once again I am reminded of the wonderful, warm glow radiating from all the hate and vitriol bottled up in my Progressive good friends.

THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. BaskingintheWarmth-1-1

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY

Really, they do, some have said as much on this forum.  Deprive them of inexpensive coal powered power plants is far more sensible and force them to wait for a solar panel or wind machine to drop out of the sky.

POSTED ON MARCH 18, 2016 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ENERGY POLICY
ANOTHER EPIC GREENFAIL[/b][/i][/size]
The number of people in the world who can be said in “energy poverty,” that is, with little or no modern energy available, is around 3 billion. About 1.5 billion people, according to some estimates, have no electricity at all, and most of the three billion rely on extremely low-tech or non-tech sources of energy for basic needs of cooking and warmth, meaning they burn, wood, straw, or dried animal dung. The smoke and air pollution from these low- and no-tech energy sources are terrible for human health, and for the local environment (especially if people are chopping down every tree in sight).

Naturally Western eco-imperialist do-gooders are horrified at the idea of building power plants, dams, and electricity grids for the world’s poor, and offered as their magic solution “Clean Cookstoves,” complete with a “public-private partnership” launched by Hillary Clinton! These mini-stoves were supposed to provide “clean and cheap” energy for very poor people in the developing world. Almost 30 million of these magic stoves have been distributed since 2010.

Here’s what the Washington Post reported about them last fall:

Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves.

That’s not the only problem with the stoves. Some perform well in the lab but not in the field. Others crack or break under constant heat. The best cookstoves burning clean fuels won’t protect poor families from disease if those who use them continue to cook over open fires as well — which many do. “They’re not the big solution, unfortunately, that we thought they were going to be,” says Rema Hanna, a Harvard economist who led “Up in Smoke,”the most extensive field study to date on this subject. . .


“We know what works,” says Kirk Smith, the Berkeley professor, who has worked on cookstoves for 35 years. “It’s gas or electricity or both. Why are we pushing these strange new gadgets that we never use here?”

There’s really no mystery here, is there?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/another-epic-greenfail.php

Total bullshit, foisted by Markle who's only concern is continued profits for the coal moguls.  His advocacy for providing coal fired electrical energy for 1.5 Billion people completely disregards the very real health hazards produced by that much coal being smoked.  There are a number of alternative energy sources that are less polluting than coal, including natural gas -- which, as we've already shown -- costs less than coal as an energy source.

What Markle wants, is poisoned air, streams and rivers and cares less about how many poor people his money making endeavor kills or debilitates.  Markle has never cared a whit about the well being of poor people -- this is the guy who laughs at other people's hardships, and who glories right here in the forum about pissing people off.  You think this twisted corporate flunky gives a hoot for primitive, impoverished folks?  LOL!

Once again I am reminded of the wonderful, warm glow radiating from all the hate and vitriol bottled up in my Progressive good friends.

THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. BaskingintheWarmth-1-1

[b][size=24]lAt last you're actually right! Yes, people like me absolutely hate bloodsuckers like you whose only interests are filling the wallets of the ultra rich with total disregard for peoples' health and physical well being. It figures you enjoy such hatred. Consider: what kind of person enjoys pissing others off? You got it ... an asshole.

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY

Really, they do, some have said as much on this forum.  Deprive them of inexpensive coal powered power plants is far more sensible and force them to wait for a solar panel or wind machine to drop out of the sky.

POSTED ON MARCH 18, 2016 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ENERGY POLICY
ANOTHER EPIC GREENFAIL[/b][/i][/size]
The number of people in the world who can be said in “energy poverty,” that is, with little or no modern energy available, is around 3 billion. About 1.5 billion people, according to some estimates, have no electricity at all, and most of the three billion rely on extremely low-tech or non-tech sources of energy for basic needs of cooking and warmth, meaning they burn, wood, straw, or dried animal dung. The smoke and air pollution from these low- and no-tech energy sources are terrible for human health, and for the local environment (especially if people are chopping down every tree in sight).

Naturally Western eco-imperialist do-gooders are horrified at the idea of building power plants, dams, and electricity grids for the world’s poor, and offered as their magic solution “Clean Cookstoves,” complete with a “public-private partnership” launched by Hillary Clinton! These mini-stoves were supposed to provide “clean and cheap” energy for very poor people in the developing world. Almost 30 million of these magic stoves have been distributed since 2010.

Here’s what the Washington Post reported about them last fall:

Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves.

That’s not the only problem with the stoves. Some perform well in the lab but not in the field. Others crack or break under constant heat. The best cookstoves burning clean fuels won’t protect poor families from disease if those who use them continue to cook over open fires as well — which many do. “They’re not the big solution, unfortunately, that we thought they were going to be,” says Rema Hanna, a Harvard economist who led “Up in Smoke,”the most extensive field study to date on this subject. . .


“We know what works,” says Kirk Smith, the Berkeley professor, who has worked on cookstoves for 35 years. “It’s gas or electricity or both. Why are we pushing these strange new gadgets that we never use here?”

There’s really no mystery here, is there?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/another-epic-greenfail.php

Total bullshit, foisted by Markle who's only concern is continued profits for the coal moguls.  His advocacy for providing coal fired electrical energy for 1.5 Billion people completely disregards the very real health hazards produced by that much coal being smoked.  There are a number of alternative energy sources that are less polluting than coal, including natural gas -- which, as we've already shown -- costs less than coal as an energy source.

What Markle wants, is poisoned air, streams and rivers and cares less about how many poor people his money making endeavor kills or debilitates.  Markle has never cared a whit about the well being of poor people -- this is the guy who laughs at other people's hardships, and who glories right here in the forum about pissing people off.  You think this twisted corporate flunky gives a hoot for primitive, impoverished folks?  LOL!

You are that one who demands that 3 BILLION people continue in utter poverty, cooking with straw, wood and dung rather than clean efficient, cheap coal.

What a guy!

THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. Df90cd4e-6fa6-4f6b-9a69-bf1dcd331d86_zpseushzur7

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY

Really, they do, some have said as much on this forum.  Deprive them of inexpensive coal powered power plants is far more sensible and force them to wait for a solar panel or wind machine to drop out of the sky.

POSTED ON MARCH 18, 2016 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN ENERGY POLICY
ANOTHER EPIC GREENFAIL[/b][/i][/size]
The number of people in the world who can be said in “energy poverty,” that is, with little or no modern energy available, is around 3 billion. About 1.5 billion people, according to some estimates, have no electricity at all, and most of the three billion rely on extremely low-tech or non-tech sources of energy for basic needs of cooking and warmth, meaning they burn, wood, straw, or dried animal dung. The smoke and air pollution from these low- and no-tech energy sources are terrible for human health, and for the local environment (especially if people are chopping down every tree in sight).

Naturally Western eco-imperialist do-gooders are horrified at the idea of building power plants, dams, and electricity grids for the world’s poor, and offered as their magic solution “Clean Cookstoves,” complete with a “public-private partnership” launched by Hillary Clinton! These mini-stoves were supposed to provide “clean and cheap” energy for very poor people in the developing world. Almost 30 million of these magic stoves have been distributed since 2010.

Here’s what the Washington Post reported about them last fall:

Of those 28 million cookstoves, only 8.2 million — the ones that run on electricity or burn liquid fuels including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ethanol and biogas — meet the health guidelines for indoor emissions set by the WHO. The vast majority of the stoves burn wood, charcoal, animal dung or agricultural waste — and aren’t, therefore, nearly as healthy as promised. Although these cookstoves produce fewer emissions than open fires, burning biomass fuels in them still releases plenty of toxins. “As yet, no biomass stove in the world is clean enough to be truly health protective in household use,” says Kirk Smith, a professor of global environmental health at the University of California at Berkeley and the leading health researcher on cookstoves.

That’s not the only problem with the stoves. Some perform well in the lab but not in the field. Others crack or break under constant heat. The best cookstoves burning clean fuels won’t protect poor families from disease if those who use them continue to cook over open fires as well — which many do. “They’re not the big solution, unfortunately, that we thought they were going to be,” says Rema Hanna, a Harvard economist who led “Up in Smoke,”the most extensive field study to date on this subject. . .


“We know what works,” says Kirk Smith, the Berkeley professor, who has worked on cookstoves for 35 years. “It’s gas or electricity or both. Why are we pushing these strange new gadgets that we never use here?”

There’s really no mystery here, is there?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/another-epic-greenfail.php

Total bullshit, foisted by Markle who's only concern is continued profits for the coal moguls.  His advocacy for providing coal fired electrical energy for 1.5 Billion people completely disregards the very real health hazards produced by that much coal being smoked.  There are a number of alternative energy sources that are less polluting than coal, including natural gas -- which, as we've already shown -- costs less than coal as an energy source.

What Markle wants, is poisoned air, streams and rivers and cares less about how many poor people his money making endeavor kills or debilitates.  Markle has never cared a whit about the well being of poor people -- this is the guy who laughs at other people's hardships, and who glories right here in the forum about pissing people off.  You think this twisted corporate flunky gives a hoot for primitive, impoverished folks?  LOL!

You are that one who demands that 3 BILLION people continue in utter poverty, cooking with straw, wood and dung rather than clean efficient, cheap coal.

What a guy!

THE GREENIES HERE BELIEVE THAT 3 BILLION PEOPLE, COOKING AND HEATING WITH WOOD, STRAW AND DUNG IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. Df90cd4e-6fa6-4f6b-9a69-bf1dcd331d86_zpseushzur7


Why should the 3 billion folks you refer to utilize energy from burning coal when they could be using energy from natural gas? At a lesser cost!! You're beating a dead horse again Markle... LOL

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum