How much pollution do we cause when barbecuing with charcoal, and wood?
None, if charcoal comes from natural origins and with wood none too because the combustion between natural charcoal and wood creates smoke with ashes that contains only minerals that are used and recycled by nature to produce more oxygen! If charcoal comes made with syntethic chemicals it will be a great problem because it liberates smoke with chemicals that only will aid to produce what is called: "Acid Rain" and that is a big problem! Everything that comes from natural ways are good and those from chemicals always going to be bad and problematic! Good Luck and hope this answer helps you to solve your doubt in the best way possible! See ya, stay green, stay ecological! Cheers!
Why do liberals hate coal miners?
It’s not so much they hate them, they just don’t care.Coal is a convenient enemy for the green mafia, it’s a big fat target but the fact of the matter is we have a LOT of coal, the United States is basically the Saudi Arabia of coal, and we are shipping it to a lot of places around the world, including Red China.Coal is cheap and plentiful, that’s why about a third of our electricity comes from coal and about 60% of China’s does.If you drive through West Virginia, as I have, it’s fascinating (and a bit disheartening) to travel through coal country. In towns with active coal mines the places are lively with shops open and people around. The towns where the mines have closed are dying.The notion of retraining someone who has spent 20 or 30 years in the mines is silly (to be nice about it). He knows mining, his father and grandfather were probably miners, and most all of the jobs for 100 or more miles around are either mining jobs or dependent on mining.Again, the liberals don’t hate coal miners, they just couldn't’ care less, if they think about them at all they want to see them unemployed so they will feeding at the government trough and more likely to vote for Democrats.
Why do liberals hate me?
Simple: When fascist cannot argue an issue or position they will attack the person. A perfect example is Mark Foley. No one ever proved he sent any inappropriate instant messages. Mark Foley was on camera on the floor of the house with no electronic device in his hand at the time several messages were sent. A hacker claimed responsibility for brute forcing Mark Foley's AIM password and sending the messages. The hacker claimed that Foley was a hypocrite since he was Gay and had never come out of the closet so Foley deserved to be ruined. Mark Foley never voted against any gay rights legislation. Foley was known as a crusader against child abuse and exploitation. To some people, NAMBLA for example, protecting children is a horrible thing. In my opinion the hacker who went after Foley was a child molester. Fascists will always attack a person without evidence when that person opposes their ideology. In this example Foley opposed the hackers preference for sexual relations with children. Another perfect example are the attacks against people for spelling or punctuation errors on these boards. Like many who oppose the liberal demophytes fascism I have had to hide my questions and answers since fascist groups have formed that use reporting in an attempt to censor all of a person's questions or answers. Fascists who cannot argue or debate an issue will always attack the person or their communication skills. To the uneducated fascist accuracy or logic is unimportant. The only thing that matters is attacking and censoring those who oppose their ideology. NAZIs and Jews, Democrats and African Americans (Genocide by slavery and opposing civil rights), it does not matter. Humiliation, personal attacks, violence, Fascists will always try and force others to stop telling the truth.
Do wood fired power plants generate as much pollution as coal or oil burning plants?
Do wood fired power plants generate as much pollution as coal or oil burning plants?Wood fired power plants generate more of some pollutants and less of others per unit energy. Wood as fuel is carbon neutral not including the harvest and transport emissions. Ironically, wood has 10% or so of coal mercury emissions and heavy metals in it because of historical coal mercury emissions being absorbed by the trees. Particulate pollution tends to be higher from wood burning.We need to stop using wood, coal, oil or petroleum as fuels. There is a much better solution: Solar and wind backed with hydro and hydrocarbons from recycling our wastes.We really should not use crops as fuels when we dump our wastes at high costs and environmental damage, plus high methane GHG. Solar pv panels are 100’s of times more efficient than wood for converting solar to energy. Solar is many times cheaper than wood and cheaper than coal or oil.Use solar and wind, the cheapest energy available for the bulk of our energy needs, and get the hydrocarbons we need for reserve grid fuels, long haul transport and chemical feed stocks from recycling.Brian Donovan's answer to Can solar power become a major power source in the coming 20 years? If so, why? If not, what are your ideas?Only waste should be used to cover the demand for hydrocarbons not replaced by solar, wind and hydro. Recycling the hydrocarbons from wastes can be a sealed chamber, clean electrically powered process with an efficiency of about 95%. The wastes are pyrolyzed and the metals are separated from the char. Waste recycling will be our only source of hydrocarbons once we stop using fossils. Even if the outputs are burned, they burn hotter and much of it can be used in combined cycle gas turbine to achieve the highest efficiency, over twice incineration energy. The particulate pollution is dramatically reduced by using the gases from pyrolysis. The fuels can be conveniently stored and transported.Brian Donovan's answer to What are the advantages of biofuels?
Why do liberals hate america?
Liberals are by definition never happy with how things are/were. They DEMAND change. More change, faster change, change for the sake of change. If it's not broke, let's change it so we can "Fix" the system. They seek to FORCE change because change is good for them. They are the party of Super rich white men and young, low information college students. They rise to power on the feel-good votes of students just out of college who have spent the last 4 years being brow beaten by liberal propaganda till they accept it. Liberals also get a large percentage of minority and low income votes because they are the party of Handouts, free stuff and welfare. The Liberals buy votes by offering MASSIVE government programs to subsidize generational poverty. They talk a good game about helping the poor, but the poor help them far more by staying poor and continuing to vote democrat.
Will liberals push for a ban on soda pop since all of those tiny bubbles release CO2 into the atmosphere?
More likely they will try to ban it because "it makes kids fat, and we have to save the children". Of course that is retarded, but all liberal policy is. Actually it is liberals that make kids fat by forcing them to sit in government indoctrination centers for 6 to 8 hours per day and ban any kind of physical activity for that time. Liberals would rather have fat children than take the chance that little Billy might not get picked for dodge ball and have his feelings hurt. The worst thing that ever happened to children, the poor, elderly, blacks, etc. is liberalism.
Why do conservatives not realize that pollution affects them just as much as it does liberals?
I am not sure this is even true.Consider the following map. You will notice that Democratic counties are disproportionately on the coast. When it comes to sea levels, I highly suspect that based on New York, Miami, and the California Bay area alone that Democrats are the greatest losers here.Also consider how much of the action on air pollution was because of the high levels of smog in the cities. Conservatives are more likely to live in the suburbs or in the country and because there is a lower density of pollution there, they would be less impacted. Using the same gasoline powered vehicle would be less likely to create a noticable haze in typically conservative areas.We can jump around and debate what should be included in the definition of pollution and conservative areas would have more pollution from things such as pesticides and fracking fluids and I admit that I do not definitely know for a fact that liberals are more impacted by pollution than conservatives, but I have a hunch that they are. Progressives often discuss the environmental correlations with race, which is where poor black people in the USA live in more polluted areas. Blacks vote disproportionately Democratic. It is a hunch on my part, but a reasonably good one.2. Conservatives see direct benefits from the cause of the pollution.Coal workers vote conservative now that Trump has promised them support. Do they deny that coal pollutes? Not likely. But they also earn a living digging it out of the ground, a living which they likely cannot replicate anywhere else. Same with oil and gas. The salaries in oil and gas are (or at least were) higher than virtually every other comparable jobs besides technology (and that comes with the high cost of living in Silicon Valley, while oil is often in low cost places). Farmers would see their yields decline if pesticides were banned. Factory workers would see their jobs heading to China if the cost of disposing of toxic wastes at the factory became too high.In many cases, conservatives face a much higher cost for stopping pollution than liberals, specifically their jobs and incomes.
Do liberals know conservative ideas are superior?
Okay, I’ll bite. I’m not a liberal, so I don’t know what they “know”, but I had to answer the replies that have been made so far. I really don’t recognize the “conservatives” that you all seem to “know”. All the conservatives that I know (and that is a fair amount) are very kind, caring people and it seems to me that most would agree with a lot of what you have posted on here… they just disagree with the method to get there. All the “conservatives” I know thinks that fighting child poverty is essential, that making sure everyone has access to and can afford basic healthcare is also very very important, that having a well educated populous (via both college and technical school) is also essential, and that technology can be a huge blessing and should be used well and wisely. And there are many other things I know we would agree on. It just seems to me, and most conservatives I know, that having the government take care of all that just doesn’t work, and taxing people to contribute to a system that just doesn’t give the results wanted is just wasting people’s money. Now the ideas a lot of “conservative” leaders have put forth seems not to work all that well either. And a lot of those ideas have been co-opted to pad a lot of rich people’s pockets as well. To me, the ideal would be that communities take care of those in their communities - that those who “have” contribute what they can to those in need in such a way that those who receive are taught and mentored so that they, too, can become good, happy, contributing members of society. That requires that good people develop good local programs and give of their time and resources to help others. I know it’s a bit Utopian, and the way society is today, I doubt it would work, but “trickle down” and “big government” obviously don’t work either. I don’t know what the answer is, but I know that the way it is now, with “liberals” and “conservatives” refusing to listen to and work with each other is a recipe for disaster. I truly believe that most members of both groups want the best for people as I stated at the beginning, and wish that both groups would acknowledge that, and work towards a solution that truly works.
Why do liberals call anyone who disagrees with them stupid?
If you think Obama was born in Kenya, you're an idiot. If you think Obama is a 'secret Muslim' who...eats pork, drinks alcohol, swears, doesn't pray appropriately, believes in a woman's right to choose, killed Bin Laden....you're an idiot. If you think Obama is the anti-christ, you're an idiot. If you believe in "Death Panels" your'e an idiot. If you think massive tax breaks for billionaires creates jobs, you're an idiot. If you thought Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP, you're massive idiot. If you think Planned Parenthood sells baby parts for profit, you're an idiot. If you think voting to repeal ObamaCare over 50 times, for a total of 50+ million dollars spent - you're a fool and an idiot. If you think 'winter' is proof that climate change is a hoax, you're an idiot. I could go on and on and on and on.
What will liberals/democrats feel and think if Trump got elected as a president for the second time?
It would mean that the Pax Americana has ended definitively. It could mean the end of US hegemony. It could even mean that the US is headed towards the dustbin of history.It’s valuable to consider the historical perspective. No empire, no great power in the entire history of human civilization has ever lasted. All have been temporary, and there is no justification - other than jingoism - to think that the US will be different.The US emerged as the world’s foremost superpower in the mid 20th century largely by accident and default. By accident, two oceans isolated the continent from the battlefields of Europe and Asian thus protecting is manufacturing facilities. The continent was also rich in natural resources. Antisemitism and intolerance forced some of the most brilliant intellects to escape Europe and come to the US. The British empire was essentially bankrupt and the countries of Europe and Asia had been devastated by the most destructive conflict then ever recorded.Those countries have now fully recovered. The US driven by Wall Street obsession with short-term profits has been steadily off-shoring its manufacturing. The rise of movement conservatism with its insistence on laissez faire economics and failed economic theories and what is operationally social Darwinism has been accompanied by a rise in anti-intellectualism and denial of science promulgated by corporations anxious to protect their profit margins. In other words, those factors that gave the US its competitive edge no longer exist.Large corporations and the wealthy for monetary gain and hostile foreign powers (like Russia) for geopolitical gain have been deluging the electorate with misinformation and disinformation and generate divisions within US socitey. Meanwhile, life expectancy, upward mobility and public education,continues to decline.