Trump White House Chief Economic Advisor Declares War on Coal

Gary Cohn

Gary Cohn, Chief Economic Advisor to President Trump. By World Economic Forum – originally posted to Flickr as Gary D. Cohn – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2010, CC BY-SA 2.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Breitbart – White House National Economic Council director Gary Cohn has just re-opened the US Government’s war on coal.

Gary Cohn Relaunches War on Coal: Fuel from America’s Heartland ‘Doesn’t Make Much Sense Anymore’

White House National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs banking executive, has reopened the U.S. government’s war on coal in direct contravention of directions from President Donald Trump.

“Coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock,” Cohn said in Europe on Air Force One, while speaking for the White House to the press, the New York Times’ Brad Plumer noted.

“Natural gas, which we have become an abundant producer, which we’re going to become a major exporter is, is such a cleaner fuel,” Cohn continued.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/26/gary-cohn-relaunches-war-on-coal-fuel-from-americas-heartland-doesnt-make-much-sense-anymore/

Frankly I’m getting very disappointed about this kind of thing. The Trump Presidency is supposed to deliver the straight shooting leadership we’ve all been waiting for, the White House administration which doesn’t have to be continuously reminded about the President’s campaign promises.

A chief economic advisor who despises coal has no place in the government of a President who expects future support from coal country.

Advertisements

273 thoughts on “Trump White House Chief Economic Advisor Declares War on Coal

  1. Which woodpile wasv this Gary Cohn creature hiding under? A chief economic advisor who thinks Global Warming/Climate Change is not a scam has no place in he Trump Administration. Coal is still King.

    • Gas is cheaper than coal as long as you do NOT export too much and have a high pressure gas pipeline nearby linked to a long term gas reservoir. Exposure to the export price will raise the domestic price. Building a pipeline is expensive. Finding any large reservoir not surrounded by rent seekers is difficult.

      Treating coal with solvents will separate volatiles held in the coal pores. A large percentage of volatiles is oil. In all about 550 Trillion barrels world-wide.

      Coal will also allow the production of low cost hydrogen.
      Hydrogen can be transported as ammonia or made up where required to “load” fuel cells.

      Coal will allow the low cost production of humates and nitrogen based fertilizers (urea).

      Yes, coal will remain King. Only rent seekers and the weak minded are CO2 worriers. The rent seekers want government payoffs. Politicians want the weak minded vote.

      • Natural Gas is cheap right now but like all commodities is prone to cyclical prices. It can and will get expensive again. Very expensive. Just like oil got cheap again after every analyst and expert claimed that we would never see it under 100$ a barrel again in our lifetimes for some reason.

      • Nicholas Schroeder on May 27, 2017 at 6:25 am
        Since when did coal develop pores? Ammonia, yeah no hazards there. Clueless.

        Electricity, yeah no hazards there?
        Stoves, fireplaces, yeah no hazards there?
        Gas heat in homes, yeah no hazards there?
        Any form of travel (auto, rail, ship, plane), yeah no hazards there?
        Life itself, yeah no hazards there?

        There’s different forms of cluelessness, sir.

      • Ammonia, yeah no hazards there.
        ===========
        so true. without ammonia most of the food you eat would be impossible to grow.

        “It’s the most efficient and thus most environmentally friendly choice. Farmers use ammonia to obtain the element nitrogen. … In fact, according to one estimate, to maintain soil fertility without such man-made sources of nitrogen, the 11 million tons of industrially created nitrogen that US farmers use each year, much of it supplied as ammonia, would have to be replaced by manure from approximately 1 billion additional cattle. Those cattle would require another 2 billion acres to feed. That feed demand would take roughly the entire continental United States.”

        http://nebraska.farmergoestomarket.com/index.php/recent-stories/13-technology/62-translating-food-technology-why-annhydrous-ammonia

      • “Nicholas Schroeder May 27, 2017 at 6:25 am
        Since when did coal develop pores? Ammonia, yeah no hazards there. Clueless.”

        Well, your comment certainly qualifies.

    • Paris has a 100 trillion $ price tag that is likely grossly understated since its really another road map to UN agenda 21 world domination. All the usual “expert” mediators see either the power, money or both in the structure as they save not just the “workers” but the entire world.

      “Climate” is just the latest soap box with all the usual demagoguery that made the 20th century special both in human caused fatalities and loss of individual freedoms around the world in the name of “progress”.

    • This just indicates that a lot of big money is profiting on the global warming scam. What purpose would this idiot have in summarily denouncing the use of coal? Send this DemoncRat back to Goldmen Sucks.

      • re: “Send this DemoncRat back to Goldmen Sucks.” Shawn Marshall

        Not “Goldman Sucks” for heavens sake, but Gold in Sacks!!!

        Dan Kurt

      • Fire and Forget (him). Yes, natural gas is a good deal today. We also have a lot of coal, and contradicting the boss on a political item is not good in many ways.

    • Which woodpile was this Gary Cohn creature hiding under? He was a former Goldman Sachs banking executive. He received a handsome severance from Goldman Sachs to the tune of $285 million and has had interests in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China valued in the millions. He has been nicknamed “Globalist Gary” and “Carbon Tax Cohn.” Do you think he might be a globalist tool? I do. Trump is a pragmatist who has many globalist contacts. You cannot be certain that he will always do what he has promised to average Americans.

    • Another scientific, engineering genius. Why we don’t have a power grid executive to advise Trump defies logic. Coal is the perfect base load fuel…..everyone with any power/grid sense knows that. Nat Gas generators are used to respond to peak loads because they have a 10:1 turndown ratio.
      They are also utilized to back-up solar and windmill wet dreams. I’m almost to the point of despair with the idiots that surround the POTUS. He will not be re-elected if he looses his base…load (sarc).

    • Here’s an interesting comment on Trump from a Reuters article following the G7 meeting this week: “‘He came here to learn. He came here to get smart. His views are evolving which (sic) exactly as they should be,’ Trump’s economic adviser Gary Cohn said on Friday.”

      My guess is that “He came here to get smart,” won’t sit well with President Trump, especially coming from one of his underlings. And Cohn should have stopped with “His views are evolving,” as well. Adding “exactly as they should be,” implies that Cohn is better-versed on the issue than his boss (who has a lot to learn), which might or might not be true but, again, probably won’t sit well with the president.

      The Left seems to have set its sights on Jared Kushner now, and, by extension, on Tillerson and Cohn. Could this end up being yet another example of the Left eating its own?

    • the oil and gas industry would very much like to see the end of coal, and thus give them a monopoly in the market. Goldman Sachs knows the market value of a monopoly to fleece the average citizen.

    • Assuming he is only addressing the economics, then it is true that coal sometimes makes less economic sense than natgas. That is not a war on coal, it is just the current reality. If he is advocating for closure of modern, efficient coal plants due to the current SCC (social cost of carbon), then the decision is going to be wrong. Let economics dictate is a good rule to follow, but you need to use true costs.

    • Goldman Sachs a/k/a the Great Vampire Squid. Undoubtedly he thinks that there is more rent money and crony capitalist opportunity available under the Paris non-Treaty, than otherwise.

      He knows that if it is not duly rejected by the Senate and formally denounced by the President, the Supreme Court will order the US Government to enforce it and to pay multiple Gigadollars over to the UN to be distributed to needy third world kleptocrats whose countries are suffering from climate.

      Those kleptocrats will need the Vampire Squid to invest their money in places not run by kleptocrats, who would steal it all.

      Just remember, that, although you can be too thin, you cannot be too rich or too cynical.

  2. White House National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs banking executive

    ==================================================================

    I thought he should be advising how to run the U.S. government in a cost efficient manner, or how to get the economy going. What’s he doing talking about energy policy? Shouldn’t his energy policy advise be limited to getting the most energy for the dollar?

    SR

    • This is not bad. Thus, uneconomic energy production will be sorted out by itself. And Trump is right. There can be no general long-term financing of energy production by the state, because such attempts are doomed to failure. Here we can “learn” from the “Soviet Union” (which for this reason no longer exists).

    • I am shocked Trump would say such a thing as he has no understanding of a free market in any of his other positions. So, it is probably meaningless as is most of what he says.

      • Trump, like any other capitalist, is bound by the economic policies established by government. In modern America that means an economy largely federally controlled for the benefit of profrsssional politicians and their current owners.

    • Kruel Hunter.

      A capitalist and Conservative like Donald Trump knows that big governments and the consequent excessive regulation etc, slows down an economy for all.
      Who do you think bear the brunt of this?
      The normal people and the small businesses that employ them.
      If you knew anything about actual economics, you would understand this.
      Trump is unique and historic in that he is doing, probably for the first time in history, all the things that will decrease government and benefit the normal people of America. This is why he won the election FFS.

      Cheers

      Roger

  3. I do not want a banker from New York city deciding what sort of fuel I can use anymore than I want a law specifying the maximum flow of my shower head or or what type of light bulb I must use. I voted for Trump hoping he would free us from these sorts of insects. President Trump, take five gallons DDT to your next cabinet meeting and use it!

    • There are all kinds of reports of infighting in the Trump administration. I think the result will be not quite an example of Pournelle’s iron law of bureaucracy. The net result will be the wrong people in power.

      • Can reports on “infighting” be trusted from a media that seems to be determined to see the administration fail? Watching CNN, it sure appears like 85-90% of the programming is related to negative coverage of Trump. They should be required to register as a political entity.

      • Trump’s modus seems to be to surround himself with disparate voices to get a broad view on issues . But Cohn’s views seem quite shallow . Coal has and will have enormous niches where it is the most economically sensible and sustainable choice , transportation , not environmental factors being the determinant .

      • I don’t know that I’d take anything from Iran State TV (PressTV) as Gospel, without verification from some more credible source — if one can think of one.

        However, infighting in the Administration seems a lot more likely than that there is none. (Partly because it’s rather the norm, is it not?)

      • Julie near Chicago May 27, 2017 at 3:42 pm

        I don’t know that I’d take anything from Iran State TV (PressTV) as Gospel, without verification from some more credible source — if one can think of one.

        Good catch. I clearly wasn’t paying attention. Here’s a link from politico.com. Here’s one from salon.com.

        I’m not sure where the original story came from but clearly lots of them use the same sources and quotes.

    • There’s actually a good opportunity here. Cohn made that statement about all the wind and solar we’re now generating.

      The opportunity: Someone needs to take him to task, following one of his wind/solar statements, and ask him how he can justify the carnage that wind power (and some solar) is visiting on bird life, including eagles and hawks. Show him a representative picture at the same time and question him with the tone a liberal would employ with an Exxon or BP executive following an oil spill.

      Because Cohn works for Trump, the Left will assume he’s one of the “bad guys” and will be reflexively against nearly everything he stands for. The cognitive dissonance among many liberals on viewing such an encounter could prove exceptionally useful. Maybe some MSM outlets would even be so confused that they’d actually show it. The same encounter might also educate Cohn and Tillerson, and maybe even Jared and Ivanka just a bit.

      • I don’t know whether you’ve ever checked the population stats on US eagles? No decline whatever…

    • “….take five gallons DDT to your next cabinet meeting and use it…?” Really, informed opinion about the myths of a pesticide which controlled Malaria for many years prior to William Ruckelshaus’ political decision. “….the possible harm from DDT is vastly outweighed by its ability to save children’s lives….” “In 1970, the National Academy of Sciences wrote in a report that ”to only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT” and credited the insecticide with saving half a billion lives.” However, today’s ban of DDT has resurrected malaria again, “….Each year, 300 to 500 million people worldwide get malaria…” Check out this interesting article from the NY Times.

  4. The Trump Presidency is supposed to deliver the straight shooting leadership we’ve all been waiting for,

    Is that really what you expected? Oh Dear, what a disappointment for you Eric.

      • “Hillary would have been worse.” Yeah sure. Constantly relying on the Hillary reference to make Trump look good is a fool’s errand.

        Hillary lost the election, remember? And Trump won it. People who voted for Trump, for whatever reason, need to own up to their own behavior. They put Trump into the White House – now they can look at themselves and their own responsibility for this debacle.

      • scraft1, the election was down to two bad choices. Like it or not, Trump was the least bad of those two choices.

      • Hillary would have been worse….

        She’s coming across as that nasty old aunt everyone has

      • I never had any “nasty old aunts”. I never even had one that blatantly bent the law for her own profit.

      • Eric, there’s a way to win this argument with the Donald.

        And, it’s prefaced with three simple questions.
        1) What is the carbon footprint of the Miss America contest?
        2) What is the carbon footprint of Rosie O’Donnell?
        3) Would the Donald prefer the (larger) carbon footprint of the Miss America contest or the (smaller, but monstrously obnoxious) carbon footprint of Rosie?

    • He’s doing just fine, considering the wall of manufactured hatred that he’s up against. If you get your info from CNN you would think that the world is ending.
      He has done quite a bit considering the amount of time he has been in office.
      The main goal of the media is to separate Trump from his base. It won’t work. Only Trump himself can do that.

      • “He’s doing just fine, considering the wall of manufactured hatred that he’s up against. If you get your info from CNN you would think that the world is ending.”
        And if you get your news from Fox you would think he was a choir boy. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.

  5. The Kushner/Ivanka/Tillerson faction, again.

    Very close to the brink with the base. For those who argue climate isn’t a populist issue should read those climate article boards at Breitbart. I sure hope Bannon passes them on and up.

    I can’t say it’s as emotional as immigration but it’s right there and existential politically for the President.

    When you’re an outsider you can’t betray your base. There just isn’t enough political infrastructure to make it up with. There isn’t a single Greenshirt vote that will be gained and the EU will hate him forever as well.

    We need Bannon back at #1 advisor spot ASAP.

    • “We need Bannon back at #1 advisor spot ASAP.”

      I think Bannon is going to be featured prominently in Trump’s new “War Room”. Trump apparently has decided to pick up the pace of refuting all the lies being put out by the MSM and the Democrats and is forming a special group to do that.

      I think that is a good idea since the MSM has made it their goal to undermine President Trump by telling lies, which means they are undermining the whole nation. They are a national security risk that needs to be addressed.

      • Gary Cohn is certainly out of line and out of his depth when it comes to economic policy, which should be that Government not be in the business of choosing winners and losers. Unfortunately, Trump appears to be enamored by people who have made a lot of money on the misguided assumption that they must be smart all around. Cohn should be given the boot promptly as he is NOT representative of what Trump promised his voters.

        Having said that, what are you guys smoking? Steve Bannon is a whack job who has zero clue about economics, is a xenophobe and a nationalist. He should be given the boot along with Cohn.

        And your invective about the MSM telling lies about Trump might have more meaning if Trump would stop repeating outright fabrications himself. People have now been conditioned to discount much of what he says, which is a terrible setback to his leadership and will hobble him when trying to get any meaningful changes through Congress. This is a shame. But the blames squarely lies with him.

      • Isn’t the big question right at this moment what Trump decides about the Paris thing? He didn’t commit to the G7 group. I think he said he’d make an announcement this week, did he not? That will be an indicator of how much influence Cohn and a couple of his close family members have.

      • If Trump exits us from the Paris scheme, it will show a no-nonsense determination that should greatly strengthen the effect of the “war room,” especially if Bannon is the leader of it.

      • “Having said that, what are you guys smoking? Steve Bannon is a whack job who has zero clue about economics, is a xenophobe and a nationalist.”

        That’s how the MSM describes him, too. Is that where you got your opinion of Bannon?

      • “And your invective about the MSM telling lies about Trump might have more meaning if Trump would stop repeating outright fabrications himself.”

        Do you have any examples of Trump’s outright fabrications?

        Is Trump lying or is it the MSM distorting his words and making it look like he is not being truthful? I think in all cases it is the MSM distorting the picture, not Trump telling lies.

  6. “the White House administration which doesn’t have to be continuously reminded about the President’s campaign promises.”
    He’s making an observation about the competitive status of coal. How do the campaign promises alter that?

    If he’s right, as many people think, no-one will invest in new coal-fired stations. What should be done then?

    • On a global scale, Coal can stand on its own feet Nick. Lots of new coal happening in Africa and Asia, thanks to massive financing from China and Japan, so lack of coal investment is not an issue.

      Attacking cheap coal energy in the USA might upset a few US voters though – especially coal miners who thought they were voting for relief from Obama’s war on coal, or manufacturing workers who thought they might get a chance to compete on a level playing field, against manufacturers in Asia.

      • ” Lots of new coal happening in Africa and Asia.”
        I’m sure Cohn is talking about coal in the US, not globally. And that is what Trump’s election promises were about. So the question remains – what if Cohn is right and coal is not competitive with gas in the US? Is Cohn not allowed to say so because of Trump’s election promises? How would that help?

      • The only way coal would not be competitive with gas in the USA is through government interference, or fear of government interference. Coal is the cheapest fuel other than hydro. The evidence for this is that aluminium smelters choose coal over gas – their livelihoods depend on having the cheapest energy available.

        But lets assume for the sake of argument that you are right – lets assume that even technologies like coal to methane gasification can’t compete with fracked gas in the USA.

        I suspect in the end, people would accept being out competed – providing there is total confidence that the market is fair, that government treats everyone equally.

      • Nick Stokes May 26, 2017 at 10:49 pm
        Goldman Sachs banking executive,

        Probably has a friend “shorting” the stock. Or is hoping the press release may cause a bump for Natural gas.

        You never know. In the end the republicans will need the Coal vote in the next “mid term”, Gary Cohn may find himself on the outside looking in, over something like this. There are to many issues and so called scandals popping up to engage in this kind of disruption.

        michael

      • Nick , where did he say anything about “competitive”.

        “Coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock,”

        “Natural gas, which we have become an abundant producer, which we’re going to become a major exporter is, is such a cleaner fuel,” Cohn continued.

        The other quote is about being “environmentally friendly”.

        He’s been at the coolaid. You are claiming he arguing competitiveness, which is not the case.

      • Coal is a big part of our nations energy reserves and should not be neglected. However, eastern soft coal is filled with real pollutants and the cost and effectiveness of cleaning up those pollutants at the power plants with scrubber technology have not been considered in most economic analyses. Power companies are now building gas fired systems that do not have to have costly and partially effective scrubbers or coal ash lagoons. Why not use fracking technology with in ground conversion of coal to methane, Transport it by pipeline rather than rail.

        Another thing to think about is that methane is a renewable and is now being produced at sewage treatment plants and garbage dumps. Expand that technology to include hog farms and leaf collections. Small efficient gas fired power generators could use these local sources of energy.

    • If a great many people believe he’s right, no-one will invest in new coal-fired stations, Nick . . I’m pretty sure most around here grasp the damage to the potential that people will invest, which a person in such a position can have . . as no doubt does he.

      • Utility companies are not controlled by their suppliers and they are not swayed by political hacks. If coal is the most competitive in the market that’s what they will use. The regulations are what distorts the market.

    • In the 1990s coal could produce electricity for the consumer at around 6cents a kwhr (end user price). The only reason it can’t still produce electricity at under 10cents a kwhr is because of oppressive government regulations enacted since 1990. So yes, coal is DEFINITELY competitive with natural gas if Progressives/Dems/Socialists would stop intentionally driving up the cost of energy from coal just for the purpose of killing the middle class. Once coal is history, natural gas prices will quickly increase in price as there will be nothing to compete with it on cost. This reason is why Oil companies want coal gone… they will make $Trillions in additional profits over the next couple of decades if coal is gone.

      • Oil companies want coal gone… they will make $Trillions in additional profits
        ================
        so true. and once coal is gone, environmentalists will want oil gone, until only gas remains. and then they will come for the gas.

      • fred berple
        “and once coal is gone, environmentalists will want oil gone, until only gas remains. and then they will come for the gas.”

        Thanks.

        Absolutely.

        And whilst local solar, especially in the wild places, has its (tiny) place; and whilst wind gives a useful – if utterly unreliable – back-up – unneeded as CO2 is not a problem, but, never mind; it is plain the watermelons seek a reduction in human population – through starvation, disease, misery, and perhaps war – to under ten percent of present population.
        Now, I would like to limit global population growth – through education first and foremost, raising all people everywhere to decent living standards [may need slight changes in government policy in some countries; and in personnel, from kleptocrats to ‘democrats’ sensu lato. . . . . .

        But easing nearly seven billion humans – all like you and me – down the slipways to death; often a nasty, painful death, is it seems – watermelon nirvana.

        And the Donald is being advised by – well – amateurs.
        I don’t know if, as individuals, they will profit from oil or coal or bird choppers.
        # but they are – or certainly appear to be – amateurs.

        Auto – abhorring amateur and alienating alliteration, always.

      • ” Oil companies want coal gone”
        That might be an exaggeration since oil as we know it does not compete much with coal. One dominates the transportation industry and the other is a big player in electricity supply. Both are best suited in their niche unless one is foolish enough to believe electric cars are going to replace gasoline/diesel powered cars.
        Oil is not widely used in electricity generation anymore, and electric cars remain to be a viable competitor to gasoline or diesel despite huge government subsidies. Sure oil companies have a lot of natural gas but there are a lot of other companies in the natural gas supply business, besides the natural gas is extensively used to produce H2 for fertilizer as well as other uses including chemicals/plastics and upgrading in the oil refining business, industry, and home heating.
        Bottom line we need all forms of fossil fuels including oil, natural gas and coal, the economic advisor is dead wrong..

    • Nick Stokes May 26, 2017 at 10:30 pm:

      “He’s making an observation about the competitive status of coal.”
      =====================================================
      Nick, He’s not talking economics. He’s talking Green Think:

      “Natural gas, which we have become an abundant producer, which we’re going to become a major exporter is, is such a cleaner fuel,” Cohn continued.

      SR

      • He’s obviously virtue signalling. At the same time he is influencing markets that he and insiders can profit by.

    • You can’t have staff spreading the most mendacious propaganda of your predecessors who you yourself targeted specifically for rebuttal.

      http://www.countoncoal.org/factSheets/FactSheet-DukeStudy.pdf

      It’s obviously debatable but massive “war on coal” Obamaism played a huge negative regulatory impact and may well have swung the election to the Trump side.

      Amusing, not that surprising and somewhat sad much of the board quickly breaks down to the technical veracity of Cohn’s politically idiotic statement. There’s a conversation space for everything and of course this wasn’t it. Just a gross betrayal that he isn’t fired this weekend around 9 am Saturday while he’s stuffing his pie hole in the Hampton’s.

      Just imagine what would have happened to him if he said this in October with the campaign??

      Yes, coal suffered from a massive grandstanding and vindictive “climate” hatch it job that millions in some small or large way rejected and elected. This is politics #101. The Trump administration has gone from clever to obtuse yet again either by undisciplined or sinister messaging from staff. We don’t need to do another skeptic seppuku ritual ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku) about how many private sector forces weighed against coal in its decline when all of this was triggered by a NY banker talking like the master of the universe yet again if you know his background and priors.

      It’s amazing about how many bad stereotypes just got confirmed in this event. Trump undisciplined, pompous NY staffer condescending to peasants, politically obtuse/techno fettish skeptics at WUWT. Could the optics get any worse?

      • because the very last thing Goldman Sachs wants is a competitive market, where profits are what gets squeezed. Investment bankers want consumers to be squeezed, to maximize profits.

      • Gas may win until it ‘runs out of gas,’ at which point coal will still be in abundance.

    • “no-one will invest in new coal-fired stations”

      The only reason is because weak minded fools keep pushing this bogus idea that Co2 emissions are harmful to the climate. If we got rid of this silly meme and put coal on an even footing, coal fired power plants would be popping up like mushrooms. Oh wait, they already are in places like India and China who get a pass on ‘climate change’ concerns. See how this works?

  7. Is this nonsense ever going to end? PDJT ran on a very specific ticket, and the people who voted him in expect results, IMHO.
    I just hope that POTUS is playing the long game.

    • He isn’t “playing the long game”. He just played the voters the way a con artist always plays his marks.

      • Time will tell us if your Trump is a reflection of you, or if my Trump is a reflection of me. The two Trumps are mutually exclusive and only one is the right one.

    • “Is this nonsense ever going to end? PDJT ran on a very specific ticket, and the people who voted him in expect results, IMHO.
      I just hope that POTUS is playing the long game.”

      We will know next week. :)

      https://apnews.com/ebbbdba4040e4da48adc11ee35a56325/Trump-says-he'll-decide-on-Paris-climate-deal-next-week

      “TAORMINA, Sicily (AP) — President Donald Trump says he’ll make a final decision on whether the U.S. will stay in the Paris climate agreement next week.

      Trump’s surprise announcement, in the form of a tweet on the final day of his lengthy international trip, comes after Trump declined to commit to staying in a sweeping climate deal, refusing to give into intense international pressure.”

      end excerpt

      • And there is this:

        https://www.yahoo.com/news/disharmony-g7-trump-plays-own-tune-033323981.html

        Stormy climate at G7 as Trump goes his own way

        “Taormina (Italy) (AFP) – G7 nations on Saturday were deadlocked over climate change as US President Donald Trump rebuffed pressure to toe the collective line in the club of powerful democracies.

        Delegates from the Group of Seven leading economies said a closing summit statement to be issued later Saturday would acknowledge only that six members were committing to upholding the Paris climate accord on curbing emissions, while the United States continues to reflect on the matter.”

        end excerpt

    • I suspect that POTUS is being unduly influenced by individuals who don’t have a clue about the science, but are themselves influenced by the continuous fear mongering coming from the liberal press and the green blob. Don’t underestimate the power of fear to make people think irrationally. The IPCC, ISIS, criminal gangs, Kim Jong Un and the rest of the worlds despotic leaders all know this and exploit it at every opportunity.

  8. Gary Cohn is also one of the several energy derived administrators
    advising President Trump to stay in the Paris Climate accord.

    Big oil LIKES the Paris agreement. They can beat on coal and serve us
    LNG and shale oil.

    • And the #ExxonKnew crowd is trying to ruin Big Oil, which is trying to ruin Big Coal (and in most cases setting up Big Wind subsidiaries to harvest tax credits). Calling the left “sheep” isn’t a metaphor – that’s ACTUALLY their IQ.

    • He should be made an example of. A slobbering apology round or FIRED on the spot.

      This clown was invisible during the campaign and for good reason. He would have cost three Midwest states if he was the focus while Trump railed about “swamps”. Goldman Sachs is about the most vicious swamp creatures in the universe and if you have any knowledge of their particulars in the 08′ financial “crisis” which was the mother of all swamp events as just one example you wouldn’t argue. Cohn should be banned from public statements while on the team. He’s worse then nobody to the people who elected Trump.

  9. Eric,

    I’ve been fuming since Tillerson’s confirmation comments about the “seat of the table” on climate policy. Which of course validates fraud by our mere presence.

    So I’ve been ticked at Trump for some time. He might as well propose open borders, higher taxes and more regulations if these are the contradictions coming out of his people.

    Let’s note again the pathetic disorganized state of the skeptic community as compared to the Greenshirts. There is more then one party to blamed here. Certainly the President should know his base will revolt if he caves.

    • “Let’s note again the pathetic disorganized state of the skeptic community as compared to the Greenshirts.”

      Keep in mind that noone is paying the skeptics to organize.

  10. I am not sure how this counts as a “war on coal” except in so far as fracking is the enemy of coal.
    Currently fracking is making coal uneconomic and short of subsiding the cost of coal there is nothing
    Trump can do about it.

    • Sorry… all we have to do is go back to 1990s era coal regulations out of the EPA. Air quality was good and electricity from coal was quite cheap… can easily compete with natural gas under those circumstances. Without coal in the energy mix, natural gas prices are likely to see double digit inflation increases until it is at least double current price.

      • so what you are saying is that coal is only able to compete if it is allowed to pollute. The choice would
        appear to be clean air, fracking and cheap natural gas, or polluted air and cheap coal. The downside is
        an increased number of deaths from respiratory illness which of cause the coal industry won’t have to
        pay for.

      • “The downside is an increased number of deaths from respiratory illness”

        Speculative epidemiology. Not proven. Therefore, not real science.

        A big part of the problem is that enviros are never satisfied; clean up the environment, and then they start yelling louder. US air and water are much cleaner than they used to be, yet enviros act like we teeter on the edge of an environmental apocalypse. It’s not about the environment anymore; it’s about political power.

    • It’s been studied. Up to 80% of the coal market share loss was due to excess regulations not private forces.

      That really isn’t the key point here. It’s about losing political tactics that Cohn represents for team Trump.

    • He’s on a dark road regarding his Paris withdrawal commitment and the ahats working for him. Tillerson the #1 issue.

    • “One term president.”

      And he, with a lot of help from his “advisors”, has already blown that one term out of the water using intemperate statements for ammunition. Go figure. Trump is vying to become the “buddy-buddy” leader of the critters who inhabit the swamp rather than intending to drain the swamp.
      What a waste this is turning out to be.

  11. Ummm…excuse me?
    “If you think about how solar and how much wind power we’ve created in the United States…..”
    Really?
    Now, just what percentage contribution in the total mix, does wind and solar achieve?
    …..and coal is going to be relegated out of the energy supply mix…..how?

  12. Why does it have to be an “either – or” choice?
    Take away all the subsidies for solar, wind, etc and let coal, gas, hydro,nuclear compete openly for their niche.

    • Add sensible environmental regulation of each and I’m with you.

      And in “sensible environmental regulation” I include frying/batting birds to death, by the way.

      • “And in “sensible environmental regulation” I include frying/batting birds to death, by the way.”

        Me, too! Windmills and solar thermal should be outlawed.

  13. 26 May: Breitbart: Cohn: Trump Becoming “Smarter,’ ‘More Knowledgeable’ on Climate Change
    by Joel B. Pollak
    White House economic advisor Gary Cohn made the curious comment in Sicily on Friday that President Donald Trump’s views on climate change were “evolving.”…
    In political terms, “evolving” is usually a term used by the left, a euphemism to describe when a politician has changed his or her position…

    Like the term “progressive,” the term “evolution” implies an improvement in moral and intellectual terms, from prejudice and ignorance to reason and enlightenment. The left, presuming that its own views are superior, and that the “long arc of history” bends in its direction, expects people to “evolve” in its direction…

    What was stranger were Cohn’s words explaining how Trump is said to be evolving. The president, he said, was becoming “smarter” and becoming “more knowledgeable” about the issue…
    It is also possible that Cohn was shaping his assessment of the president’s views to flatter his largely European audience, which believes in climate change the way people on other continents believe in religion.
    That flattery may have been appropriate, for diplomatic reasons. What defies explanation is why he would imply that his boss had previously been less “smart” about the issue, or less well informed.
    It is the kind of comment that tends to reinforce the false narrative the media spins about every single Republican president — i.e. that he is stupid…read al
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/26/climate-change-cohn-trump/

    the gloating has begun:

    26 May: Bess Levin: White House Adviser Tells Europeans, Trump “Came Here ***to Get Smarter”
    Gary Cohn does not stick to the script.
    Top economic adviser goes rogue
    Of all of the people who signed up to join the Trump administration, one of the most surprising was Gary Cohn. In his past life, the National Economic Council director was the president of Goldman Sachs, where he was surrounded by mostly intelligent people and had a boss who is widely respected. He’s a registered Democrat. And, unlike many of the people on Team Trump, he is aware of basic facts like if you want to build a road, it costs money. ..

    But the last several months have clearly worn on Cohn, and on Friday, he showed signs of taking the first step in a series of steps that might result in blurting out, “I can‘t work with you morons anymore!”…

    Tweet: Jim Acosta (CNN): Cohn says of POTUS at G7 summit: “He came here to learn. He came here to get smarter.”
    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/gary-cohn-donald-trump-get-smarter

    Acosta has big issues with WH. he is also now tweeting next to the “smarter” tweet:

    Twitter: Jim Acosta CNN:
    WH is tweeting pics from Cohn briefing. But it was off-camera and only avail to small pool of reporters. Full WH press corps had no access.

    not sure what he is referencing….but it looks like another gotcha.

    • When you’re in power you get to act on your choices.
      But you don’t get to choose the consequences of your actions.
      You have no control over those.
      As South Australia and Germany are discovering.
      Voters will eventually understand and will remember.

    • Nuclear is potentially far dirtier and deadly than coal. They’re chitting their pants right now in Hanford because they sense an imminent radiological disaster. Life in the N Pacific is collapsing most likely due to the initial explosions at Fukushima and the continued leakage of approx. 70,000 gallons of highly radioactive water into the ocean every day, among other things.

      An enviros care about the environment? Riiiiight….

      • I Came I Saw I Left @ 3:49

        Please explain just which life in the N Pacific is collapsing and just what evidence do you have that it has anything to do with Fukushima.

      • Hunter,

        “I cam I saw I Left” has no proof. that is why he skedaddled.

        It was all mouth no brains on his part.

      • Research http://www.enenews.com. You’ll find everything you need there. The massive and bizarre wildlife die offs that no one can explain have been happening for years since Fukushima, but you don’t hear about them do you?

        As far as evidence goes, you’re correct. That’s why I said “most likely”. Evidence is hard to come by when everyone refuses to study it. But nobody really wants to study it, do they, because they know they wouldn’t be able to deal with what they find. But realistically, radiation is the most logical answer for the big uptick in Pacific wildlife die off since Fukushima, except of course, to those who are in denial. You can’t dump hundreds of millions of gallons of highly radioactive water into the ocean without consequences. It doesn’t just magically disperse into nothingness, but follows ocean currents.

      • I Came I Saw I Left,

        From that website about the world wide effect of the Fukushima disaster:

        “What I found was that we got one extra X-ray each”.

        Yes, that is the world wide effect of Fukushima: average 0.1 mS. More for people nearby, but less than what people in Misasa, some 1,000 km from Fukushima receive from birth to death from their own background exposure to radiation: the underground has high levels of radon, coming up with the water wells and therefore Misasa is a… health resort, where lots of Japanese come for their health.
        Several investigations were done, some give no more cancer than average in Japan, others show significantly less cancer…
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1349-7006.1992.tb02342.x/abstract

        The same for Tsjernobyl: people at places with high fallout in south Germany (mostly Cs137) show more acute DNA damage (at one strain) that from places with low fallout, but for permanent damage (at the same place of the two strains) it was reverse. Conclusion: small doses of radiation trigger the DNA repair mechanism that people and animals have…

      • I came I saw I left,I lie like hell writes,

        “Nuclear is potentially far dirtier and deadly than coal. They’re chitting their pants right now in Hanford because they sense an imminent radiological disaster. Life in the N Pacific is collapsing most likely due to the initial explosions at Fukushima and the continued leakage of approx. 70,000 gallons of highly radioactive water into the ocean every day, among other things.”

        I happen to live right next the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, have been since 1964. There have been minor problems over the years that are being taken care of with the billions of dollars a year clean up process. Most of the single walled tanks are now gone,the leaks are being contained on the reservation itself, Contaminated soils removed,building razed,even the small underground plume heading toward the Columbia river have been monitored for many years. There have been efforts being to contain it:

        “LIQUID WASTE
        Of the liquid wastes generated at Hanford, much of the waste that is currently stored in the underground tanks on the Site will ultimately be transformed into a stable, glass product in a process called vitrification. In order to vitrify the waste, it is mixed with glass forming materials and then introduced to high heat in order for the waste to bond with the glass. A facility is being constructed at Hanford which will perform this vitrification work. Once the vitrification process has taken place, the molten, glass-like material is poured into cylinders where it will cool and become solid. Ultimately, cylinders containing the most hazardous vitrified waste will be taken to a national repository for permanent burial. The cylinders with less hazardous waste are candidates for disposal in an Integrated Disposal Facility, or IDF. The development of an IDF at Hanford is currently being evaluated in the Draft Tank Closure & Waste Management (TC&WM) Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives in the EIS evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with locating an IDF in the 200-West Area of the Hanford Site, or alternatively in the 200-East Area. No final decision will be made on the IDF (and no wastes will be disposed there) until after the final EIS has been issued and a Record of Decision (ROD) is published. The IDF would be regulated by the State of Washington Department of Ecology and/or US Environmental Protection Agency, based on the types of wastes that would be managed there to ensure that any waste disposed of at the IDF would not pose unacceptable impacts to the environment.

        The liquid waste that had been poured onto the ground or held in ponds or trenches has long since evaporated or soaked into the soil on the Site. In doing so, the waste did contaminate some of the soil and is thought to have also created underground “plumes” of contaminants. A “plume” is kind of like an underground river where the contaminants join with the water that exists beneath the surface of the Earth. Many of these plumes move in varying speeds and move toward the Columbia River. Hanford employees are actively involved in projects designed to prevent any more of the contamination from reaching the river. Several different strategies are being used in that effort.

        One strategy is simply to block the groundwater contamination from getting to the Columbia. Various kinds of barriers are placed in the ground which allows the clean groundwater to move through, while chemically altering any harmful contamination into a non-toxic form as it passes through. Another strategy is called “pump and treat”. Through this process, contaminated groundwater is pumped out of the ground and treated with chemicals. These chemicals serve to change the chemical makeup of the contaminants which render them harmless to the environment. Once the treatment of the groundwater is complete, the cleansed water is pumped back into the ground. Yet another strategy in dealing with groundwater contamination is called “biostimulation”. This is a new technology where crews pump materials like molasses and vegetable oil into the ground where tiny microorganisms in the soil eat the molasses and vegetable oil. The microorganisms then reproduce, and in doing so, they alter the chemistry of the groundwater and render the contaminants harmless to the environment. The process also prevents the contamination from moving any closer to the river.”

        https://energy.gov/em/hanford-site
        =============================================

        The 70,00 gallons of radioactive water into the ocean is a pure lie since an alleged leak that big would have long made international news with truck loads of environmentalists screaming loudly about it…..

        Your wildlife collapse claims are lies since we have had overabundance of Elk living there and around Rattlesnake Mt.,Had to round up many to reduce the population of the herd. There have been Cougars in North Richland,along with Deer, I have personally seen an INCREASE in Bald Eagles in North Richland at Leslie Groves park,where they perch in the tallest trees,saw 3 at one time just last spring.There are two dozen semi tame Ducks living year around at the park,with hundreds to thousands of Geese, living in the Tri-City area.

        The region has many Skunks,with hundreds of birds seen in the air every day,fishing is doing well there too as hundreds of fishers are amazingly reeling in a lot of fish. The Columbia river are dotted with hundreds of boats and Jet Skis every summer amazingly unaware of the disaster….

        You are so full of crap,that I think you are paid to push this stupidity.
        =====================================================

        One of the claims is the Fukushima radiation in significant amounts reaching the West of America is so mindbogglingly stupid, since it has to cross a few THOUSAND miles of ocean undiluted, but since the main amount of radioactive material released was staying within a few miles of the coast, it couldn’t remain in sufficient concentration to be a minimal threat.

        “Managing contaminated water, marine effects

        Supplement to information in main paper:
        A four-year international survey assessing radiological pollution of the marine environment near the plant commenced in July 2011, under IAEA auspices and led by Australia, South Korea and Indonesia. In September 2011, researchers at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Kyoto University and other institutes estimated that about 15 PBq of radioactivity (I-131 and Cs-137) had been released into the sea from late March through April, including substantial airborne fallout. In August 2013 Tepco estimated that 20 to 40 TBq of tritium might have leaked into the sea over 28 months since May 2011, which it compared with 22 TBq/yr discharge limit from the six-unit plant normally. The nine-month estimated releases from December 2012 for Sr-90 and Cs-137 were 0.7 and 1.0 TBq respectively, compared with 0.22 TBq/yr combined discharge limit. This is going into the 30 hectare inner harbour area, which is barricaded from the open sea. The radioactive contamination in the sea adjacent to the plant has remained much the same since early 2012, however, at harmless levels. Beyond the barricaded inner harbour, sampling out to 15km has indicated no detectable contamination since December 2011. (In 2013, Cs-134 levels of 0.9 Bq/m3 from Fukushima – 8000 times less than drinking water standards – were detected offshore Vancouver, enabling helpful study of ocean currents.) Radioactive Isotopes from Fukushima Meltdown Detected near Vancouver, Scientific American, 25 February 2014”

        http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-radiation-exposure.aspx

      • Btw, it would be more accurate to say that I have no proof. That’s true. No one does because proof can’t exist without studies, which haven’t been done. But evidence clearly exists:

        * Chitin is a fundamental building block of some crucial lower order marine life (e.g., krill, algae)
        * Chitin bioaccumulates radio isotopes
        * Ionizing radiation destroys chitin bonds

        So if sea-borne Fukushima radiation is in fact destroying marine chitin on a large scale, then we have a big, big problem. Like mass starvation in higher order marine life. Which is what appears to happening in some of the massive marine die offs (i.e., empty stomachs).

      • “Several investigations were done, some give no more cancer than average in Japan, others show significantly less cancer…”

        You’re kidding me? You link to a study done in 1992, and Fukushima happened in 2011. There has been a tremendous increase in cancers and other anomalous health issues in Japan following Fukushima. Genetic defects take decades to manifest. No one talks about it much openly because the Japanese government will throw your ass in jail.

      • I Came I Saw I Left,
        I have heard about the wild boar in Fukushima. Is that what you are referring to?

      • “The 70,00 gallons of radioactive water into the ocean is a pure lie since an alleged leak that big would have long made international news with truck loads of environmentalists screaming loudly about it…..”

        Ya’d think… That figure (300 tons per day actually) is per Tepco. It’s actually on the low side considering everything else that’s happening..

      • “I have heard about the wild boar in Fukushima. Is that what you are referring to?”

        No, not at all. I can’t say that I’ve read anything about them.

      • I came,I saw, I left my rational thinking at the door writes:

        “Btw, it would be more accurate to say that I have no proof. That’s true. No one does because proof can’t exist without studies, which haven’t been done. But evidence clearly exists:

        * Chitin is a fundamental building block of some crucial lower order marine life (e.g., krill, algae)
        * Chitin bioaccumulates radio isotopes
        * Ionizing radiation destroys chitin bonds

        So if sea-borne Fukushima radiation is in fact destroying marine chitin on a large scale, then we have a big, big problem. Like mass starvation in higher order marine life. Which is what appears to happening in some of the massive marine die offs (i.e., empty stomachs).”

        ========================================

        You admit that you have no proof, but you know evidence exist…..

        Your marine die offs connected to radiation damage claim would be easy to spot by now, but you offer no evidence……

        How many empty bottles litter your bedroom floor?

      • I Came I Saw I Left,

        You’re kidding me? You link to a study done in 1992, and Fukushima happened in 2011.

        Completely irrelevant: people living in Misasa from when they were born received more radiation during their lifetime than what most people in Fukushima will ever receive, even if they stayed there from day one of the disaster for the rest of their life…

        Thus low doses of radiation don’t give more cancers, they give less cancers…
        Similar findings were noticed for the Tsjernobyl fallout…

      • I came,I saw, I try to over blow the claims,writes:

        “Ya’d think… That figure (300 tons per day actually) is per Tepco. It’s actually on the low side considering everything else that’s happening..”

        But as usual no evidence to support your misleading assertion. I looked it up,here is what they really say,that you left out:

        “More than 1,000 tanks brimming with irradiated water stand inland from the Fukushima nuclear plant. Each day 300 tonnes of water are pumped through Fukushima’s ruined reactors to keep them cool. As the water washes through the plant it collects a slew of radioactive particles.

        The company that owns the plant – The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) – has deployed filtration devices that have stripped very dangerous isotopes of strontium and caesium from the flow.

        But the water being stored in the tanks still contains tritium, an isotope of hydrogen with two neutrons. Tritium is a major by-product of nuclear reactions and is difficult and expensive to remove from water.”

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/13/is-it-safe-to-dump-fukushima-waste-into-the-sea

        if you read the rest of the link, you will learn that the concerns is are being overblown,yes some local effects would happen if they do what they want, dump the water into the ocean. But people like you habitually distort or lie about it,thus create skeptical attitudes that sometimes doesn’t help the environment in the long run.

        Stick with the truth is better, then the concerns will be better addressed, with a lot less B.S.

      • sunsettommy: You’re just being ignorant. The millions of gallons of radioactive water stored in the hundreds of tanks is completely different than the groundwater that flows underneath the plant where the molten cores are.

      • More unsupported assertions from the Eco loony troll (aka: I came,I saw,I left):

        “sunsettommy: You’re just being ignorant. The millions of gallons of radioactive water stored in the hundreds of tanks is completely different than the groundwater that flows underneath the plant where the molten cores are.”

        Another unsupported claim.

        Meanwhile you have yet to post any counters to my comments,that I back with some evidence and sources.

        I think you are here to fog up the thread with your obvious eco loony B.S.

        First you said it was 70,000 gallons leaking into the ocean waters:

        “Life in the N Pacific is collapsing most likely due to the initial explosions at Fukushima and the continued leakage of approx. 70,000 gallons of highly radioactive water into the ocean every day, among other things.”

        FALSE!

        after you were called on it, you reduced it too 300 tons per day:

        “Ya’d think… That figure (300 tons per day actually) is per Tepco. It’s actually on the low side considering everything else that’s happening..”

        MISLEADING, since they are in pond confinements,as I showed in a source.

        Your 300 tons are being held in ponds as the source I posted showed. Now you suddenly say it is GROUNDWATER under the reactor plant,which is not related to the 70,000 gallons per day or 300 tons per day you earlier stated. You are full of crap!

        Eco loonies like you seem to have a hard time understanding why you people are so disliked. When you eco loonies distort and lie every day, causes people like me to think you are full of %!@&$#@.

      • Even if all of the contaminated water is currently stored in tanks (which it isn’t), it will eventually end up in the ocean because 1) they have no where to put it, and 2) earthquakes will eventually destroy the tanks. They already have problems with leaks because there was little quality control when they rushed to build them. Thus millions of gallons of tritium contaminated water will end up in the Pacific.

      • btw, I read a report that they were in such a hurry that they built tanks even when it was raining. The rainwater prevented the sealant caulking from curing correctly. Now many tanks leak.

      • Now the eco loony troll tries to lie he way through the thread with claims from a eco loony website.

        Here is what real experts say:

        IFL SCience

        September 16,2016

        Has Fukushima Led To An Increase In Cancer Rates?

        “What they found was staggering: Almost half of the 300,476 children so far tested had cysts on their thyroids, while over 100 were later diagnosed with cancer, a much higher rate of the disease than had previously been recorded.

        Predictably, this data has been seized upon by those wanting to prove the dangers of nuclear power, yet scientists have come out strongly against interpretations that indicate the increase in thyroid cancer diagnoses are due to radioactivity exposure. Instead, they think this increase in rates is simply due to sampling.

        As the study examined more children than had ever been looked at previously, they simply found that cysts and nodules on the thyroid are far more common than was previously believed. “The evidence suggests that the great majority and perhaps all of the cases so far discovered are not due to radiation,” Dillwyn Williams, a thyroid cancer specialist from Cambridge University, told Science.”

        http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/has-fukushima-lead-increase-cancer/

        Or,

        Slective excerpt,

        From the WHO:

        FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On

        “5. What are the health implications of the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (FDNPS) nuclear accident?

        In 2013, WHO published a health risk assessment from the FDNPS accident. It included an evaluation of the risks of cancers, non-cancer diseases as well as public health considerations. The following year, UNSCEAR published a report on the levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the accident. In 2015, UNSCEAR released a white paper that evaluates new information in the peer-reviewed literature.

        Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami, based on a preliminary dose estimation
        WHO publication 2013
        Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation
        UNSCEAR 2013 REPORT Vol. I
        Developments since the 2013 UNSCEAR Report on the levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident following the great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami
        UNSCEAR Fukushima 2015 White Paper

        There were no acute radiation injuries or deaths among the workers or the public due to exposure to radiation resulting from the FDNPS accident.

        Considering the level of estimated doses, the lifetime radiation-induced cancer risks other than thyroid are small and much smaller than the lifetime baseline cancer risks. Regarding the risk of thyroid cancer in exposed infants and children, the level of risk is uncertain since it is difficult to verify thyroid dose estimates by direct measurements of radiation exposure.

        For the twelve workers who were estimated to have received the highest absorbed radiation doses to the thyroid, an increased risk of developing thyroid cancer and other thyroid disorders was estimated. About 160 additional workers who received whole body effective doses estimated to be over 100 mSv, an increased risk of cancer could be expected in the future although it will not be detectable by epidemiological studies because of the difficulty of confirming a small incidence against the normal statistical fluctuations in cancer incidence.

        6. Is there a risk of radiation-induced thyroid cancer among children of Fukushima prefecture?

        Given the exposure to radioactive iodine during the early phase of the emergency, WHO specifically assessed the risk of thyroid cancer. The greatest risk was found among girls exposed as infants (i.e. < 1 year old) in the most affected area in the Fukushima prefecture. Even if those levels of risk might not be clinically detectable, WHO anticipated that the thyroid ultrasound screening programme being conducted in Fukushima prefecture was likely to lead to an increase in the incidence of thyroid diseases due to earlier detection of non-symptomatic cases.

        There have been recent reports about thyroid cancer cases being diagnosed among children exposed to low doses of radioactive iodine as a result of the Fukushima accident. These reports should be interpreted with caution. A large excess of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure, such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident, can be discounted because the estimated thyroid doses due to the Fukushima accident were substantially lower than in Chernobyl. Nevertheless, the highly-sensitive thyroid screening of those under 18 years old at the time of the accident is expected to detect a large number of thyroid cysts and solid nodules, including a number of thyroid cancers that would not have been detected without such intensive screening. Similar or even slightly higher rates of cysts and nodules were found in prefectures not affected by the nuclear accident. The substantial number of cases that have already been observed in the Fukushima Health Management Survey have been considered likely due to the sensitivity of the screening rather than to radiation exposure. Further analysis of epidemiological data being currently collected in Japan will be necessary to evaluate a potential attribution of thyroid cancer to radiation exposure."

        http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

        =====================================================================

        I have more like this.

        See why I think you are full of crap, you lie or distort what is really happening. Eco loonies like you have a bad habit of greatly over blowing environmental incidences, with misleading claims and outright lies.

      • The lies from the troll (I came,I caw,I left the loony bin) are insufferable.

        Here is the story behind a far worse Nuclear failure,and how does it compare with Fukushima:

        Cancer Research UK

        30 years since Chernobyl and 5 years since Fukushima – What have we learnt?

        April 12,2016

        Selected Excerpts:

        “So what about cancer risk?

        In 2008, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) looked at all the evidence and data on newly diagnosed cancers from areas affected by Chernobyl and concluded that, apart from thyroid cancer in those exposed as children and leukaemia in rescue and clean-up workers, there hadn’t been a detectable increase in other types of cancer (you can read their full report here).

        “Although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery workers are at increased risk of radiation-induced effects”, UNSCEAR concluded, “the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences due to the radiation from the Chernobyl accident”.

        The best estimates we have predict that Chernobyl could eventually result in up to around 4000 cancer deaths in the 600,000 people exposed to the highest levels of radiation, mostly the people involved in the recovery and clean-up work, who received very high doses.”

        and,

        “Understanding how children were exposed after Chernobyl led to better emergency protocols for nuclear accidents like Fukushima. There, residents were quickly provided with stable iodine supplements to reduce the amount of radioactive iodine their bodies could absorb, and people were advised not to consume milk, water or food from the region – so exposure was kept to a minimum.

        Thanks to what was learnt following Chernobyl, experts don’t expect to see a big increase in any type of cancer at Fukushima. “The doses to a vast majority of the population in Fukushima were not high enough to expect to see any increase in incidence of cancer and health effects in the future.” explains Japanese researcher Professor Shinichi Suzuki, director of thyroid examination in Fukushima.”

        http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2016/04/26/30-years-since-chernobyl-and-5-years-since-fukushima-what-have-we-learnt/
        =============================================================================
        The Troll distorts and over blows again and again,while I have shown credible evidence from sources showing the radioactive fall out effect is less than initially feared, the exposure are being well accounted for much better than what that misleadingly eco loonies think it is.

        When eco nuts like him keeps poisoning the information well with gobs of distortions,and lies, there will never be a true and productive discussion on the environment. Too many Environmentalists don’t know how to be honest over real Environmental damages,they have a bad habit of making it seem a lot worse then it is.

      • ICISIL,

        Only in the case of thyroid cancer in Tsjernobyl, there was an increase because the governement didn’t give any warning and people were evacuated days after the disaster neither did receive ana iodide pills. In Fukushima that was much better controlled, as Sunsettommy (thanks!) showed with realistic figures…

        Even overblown, as probably more Japanese died from the stress of the forced removal (really terrible for eldern in Japanese culture) from their homes than there ever will be from radiation if they just had stayed at home.

        Indeed radon is not the same as radioactive iodine or cesium or strontium, as radon works via the lungs, while Cs works via blood and Sr via the bones. But all have in common that they can give some DNA damage, which in general can be repaired.

        Think about the following: many cancers are cured (in part) with high doses of radiation, which kill the cancer cells. The cells around the cancer cells in general survive that treatment, although they receive thousands times more high level radiation than anyone will receive in his whole life. Despite that still with high survival rates…

        What is crystal clear is that the website you have all your “knowledge” from is a fanatic anti-nuclear group of persons, whoever may be behind them. Not really the most objective news site about nuclear…

      • “What is crystal clear is that the website you have all your “knowledge” from is a fanatic anti-nuclear group of persons, whoever may be behind them. Not really the most objective news site about nuclear…”

        All that website does is provide excerpts from articles/papers and provide links to them. He does a really good job pulling in a lot of info from varied sources. It’s basically a clearinghouse of nuclear related issues written by others. He doesn’t write anything. He let’s the facts speak for themselves..

      • I’m done with this because it’s too long and cumbersome to read, mainly due to the spamming with large walls of text by a few., But I read this and had to comment because it’s so funny:

        “First you said it was 70,000 gallons leaking into the ocean waters:…FALSE!…after you were called on it, you reduced it too 300 tons per day:”

        70,000 gal is my conservative calculation; TEPCO uses tons. 300 tons = 72,000 gals (approx). Actually, it’s probably closer to 80,000 gals because Japan probably uses metric tons (10% higher).

        So yeah you caught me. I reduced it from 70,000 gals to 300 tons. (:rolls eyes: :snickers:)

    • bye bye coal…..

      so you have the economic advisor telling people that pulled their money out of coal..and put it in gas
      ….that their investments are safe for the time being

    • Oil will never be cheap again. I know this because the experts said cheap oil is over.

      You people are always on the wrong side of the market. Coal is not finished. I know this because the experts tell me that it is.

      • I guess you didn’t look at the data on plants.
        Coal is dead in the us.
        Killed by regulations and cheap Gas, neither of which is changing. Trump wants clean air and more drilling.
        Coal.
        Is.
        Dead.

      • Steve, back off on the Hyperbole since that is what low quality Journalists does.

        Coal will still be around for decades to come,but probably at a lower level,since there are other energy sources getting a bigger slice of the market.

        Saying Coal is dead in America, is dumb.

    • Coal is dead while Natural Gas is $3.50/mcf. When the gas price rises some very efficient coal plants will start up. When the price rises over $4.00/mcf, some new ones may be built. We need to keep the coal plants viable for a time when gas gets too expensive.

  14. When are people going to realise it’s not who you vote for but it’s the beaucrats and advisors who noboy votes for who run the country. Doesn’t matter where you live in the democratic world it’s the same story.politicians are just a fast talking salesman who tell you what you want to hear. The beaucrats keep to there cause no matter who is in power

    • Just watch
      a few episodes of Yes Minister to see the truth of this. Even though many years have passed since it was first screened, the issues and bureaucratic attitudes have remained the same.

  15. 26 May: CNBC: AP: Trump has promised to revive the coal industry, but his economic advisor says that doesn’t make much sense
    Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a longtime coal advocate, said he was taken aback by Cohn’s remarks, which sounded more in line with the Obama administration than Trump.
    “I completely disagree with his statement,” Manchin said, adding that he plans to meet with Cohn “to explain the role that coal has and will continue to play in making this country great.”

    Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest environmental group, said Cohn’s comments were accurate.
    http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/26/donald-trump-and-economic-advisor-gary-cohn-differ-on-coal.html

    yet…

    26 May: NYT: World Leaders Increase Pressure on Trump to Stay in the Paris Accord
    by Michael Shear and Corla Davenport
    Aides to Trump were also pressing for language in the statement that would reassure coal producers in the United States that remaining in the Paris accord would not get in the way of the president’s efforts to help their struggling industry. The United States was pressing for the agreement to specifically welcome the use of so-called clean coal…

  16. Ah well, a good leader lets people have their say. If they wish to hang themselves, why stop them?

  17. It’s hard to think that Trump would not know his ec adv was going to say this about coal. The only thing is saying his boss is getting ‘smarter’ isn’t likely to please. Are we going to hear “Your fired!”? It would be the only response if Cohn was out of sync with his boss. I’m tired of hearing how smart the status quo is.

    • Also, I think G7 is an anachronism. There should not be states from the United States of Europe. There should be one – G5.

    • 1+

      Isn’t this just model of all progressive debating tactics? If you concede my point you’re “smart”. If not you’re “stupid”.

      This has been the NYTimes/global elite mission statement for about a 100 years.

  18. Coal can be useful stuff surely.
    Gasify it to make, (shock horror) gas and also coke. Is there *any* alternative for reducing iron ore down to iron thence make steel? There’s lots of carbon monoxide in there – I’m sure its good for something apart from disgruntled housewives using to escape the relentless unreasonable behaviour of their husbands. You boil it up with steam don’t you, but to make what? Otherwise it burns *very* hot – would run a (Carnot efficient) engine of some sort.

    The gas has other useful stuff that Natural Methane Gas doesn’t have, you can make petrol if nothing else.
    The coke = pure carbon. Grind it up into dust and put on farmland. Just the same as Biochar innit. It’ll stay there nearly forever and plants & soil bacteria especially will love you for it.
    Because, lack of quality dirt is going to be our real problem. It always has been for ‘settled’ civilisations that try to inhabit one patch of dirt indefinitely.
    And some of us know that the dirt we have is disappearing fast – the carbon dioxide ‘signal’ in the sky is it.

    Whatever Global Greening going on is The Plants desperately applying a negative feedback to catch the stuff and put it back into the ground before it is sucked into the ocean and disappears forever.

    • Agreed. Mthere is so much much FakeNews coming from the left media right now. Basically every story is just spin designed to hurt Trump.

      You have to dig deep on every headline now to be able to understand what is really going on.

      • “Agreed. Mthere is so much much FakeNews coming from the left media right now. Basically every story is just spin designed to hurt Trump.

        You have to dig deep on every headline now to be able to understand what is really going on.”

        What we should do is assume every negative report on Trump is a lie or a half-truth, and we should wait about a week or ten days, and by that time, the deception can be seen for what it is as the lie proves to be false.

        You cannot depend on the MSM for the truth about Trump. They are looking to spin anything and everything as a negative and they do a pretty good job of it. What they don’t do a good job of is proving their lies have any substance.

        The MSM and the Left are deranged over Trump and over the fact that they thought they were sailing along just fine with their liberal agenda and now Trump comes along and completely reverses all their “progress”. They are not going to take kindly to having their worldview trashed, and we see the results.

        If you put any credence at all in MSM Trump reports, you are making a mistake.

  19. Without knowing for sure, White House National Economic Council director Gary Cohn seems to say basically:
    -burn your own dirty lignite cheap and stop patronising us for something similar or
    -buy gas from elsewhere and pay for it.

  20. I am hoping that my disappointment in The Donald is only temporary.
    I am hoping that he is just getting himself organised before he brings out the flamethrower.
    I am hoping really, really hard.
    Even God won’t be able to help us if I am wrong.

  21. Ted Cruz would have been a far more effective President at standing up to ecofasc1sm than Trump. Cruz has ideals and intellect which Trump lacks – Trump doesn’t know or care much about the climate issue, for him it’s a political pawn to be traded. Cruz understood climate science and the pseudo-science behind AGW as well as AGW’s nascent fasc1stic tendency.

    For Trump climate was just another campaigning sound-bite to attack the establishment, but he had / has probably never given the issue serious thought.

  22. Goldman Sachs has been a cancer on our economy ever since the Clinton Administration. Bush II, Obama, & Trump have all placed Goldman execs in senior economic leadership positions despite rhetoric which opposes such things. Hillary (of course) planned to have Goldman in charge of the economy. We all hoped that Trump would be different.

    Matthew Taibbi — “The Great American Bubble Machine”

    “The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.”

    “ What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. …

    “All that money that you’re losing, it’s going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it’s going: The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful, most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth — pure profit for rich individuals.”

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

    • “Goldman Sachs has been a cancer on our economy”, not just your economy, they are a world wide cancer.

    • Ah yes, from Rolling Stone… you couldn’t ask for a publication with more integrity, right? Somehow a $40B company has its finger on the button that controls all of the world”s $127T economy. Yeah, I’m not buying it. The only people that hate Goldman Sachs are people that also hate capitalism.

      • I hate Goldman Sachs because I love capitalism.

        Goldman is the essence of crony-capitalism. Hank Paulson with his “I need $700B to save the world by buying troubled assets” didn’t buy any troubled assets but he did prop up a company that insured companies that owed Goldman a lot of money. Lloyd Blankfein and Paulson were on the phone so often people thought they were in love.

        Want to guess where New Jersey’s worst governor got his money? How about New York’s tyrant mayor who gave Goldman a billion dollar tax exemption to build an office in New York. He did this while raising everyone else’s property tax. Where there are government favors being traded, there is where Goldman dwells.

        Goldman Sachs is what capitalist haters point to when they denounce capitalism. Goldman is less capitalist than Vladimir Putin.

      • Matt Taibbi was the best writer on the economic meltdown, in part because he was one of the few non-partisan writers. Most people tried to demonize the Republicans or Democrats in their post-meltdown analysis. Most economists and bankers and partisan politicians had a story to spin (kind of like climate change.)
        Don’t pretend for a second that the magazine that he writes for is bad just because it is a rock magazine. Rolling Stone has some good articles and quality journalism. His point is that you can’t consider a statement from any current or former Goldman-Sachs executive as anything other than a siphon more money out of your pockets & into theirs. If he’s against coal, it is because Goldman-Sachs is short on coal futures.
        If you think Goldman-Sachs is only a $40 billion company, you are sorely mistaken. With commodities futures, they can control enormous markets with a small investment.
        https://www.ft.com/content/15649fbc-ea39-3d1e-9bea-5d0944013098
        Bear in mind that, prior to the Clinton administration, banks like Goldman were not even legally allowed to speculate in commodities. It was Clinton’s final law (passed after George Bush had been declared a winner) which made it legal. Now Goldman-Sachs is one of the largest commodities brokers on the planet. They make money from the volatility in commodities. When the price of oil rises, it is because they are long on oil. When it drops, they sold it a few months ago (and sold oil futures).
        Remember, commodities are not like the stock market. They are “zero sum” games. If somebody makes money in the commodities market, then somebody else is losing money. This is Matt Taibbi’s “massive pump and dump” scam.
        https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2017/02/22/goldman-sachs-gives-green-light-for-commodities/#665c3e7c6eaa

        I met dozens of money managers representing a combined $1 trillion in assets at a conference at Goldman Sachs’ Dallas office last Monday. Speakers included Jan Hatzius, Goldman’s head of global economics, and Jeff Currie, global head of commodities research.

        http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/investing/goldman-commodity-manipulation-wall-street/

        Goldman Sachs has been trying to distance itself from the “vampire squid” image it developed during the financial crisis. The findings of a Senate investigation into commodities market rigging probably won’t help. According to the report, Wall Street banks may have manipulated commodity prices in recent years, raising costs on consumers. The investigation looked into the holdings and dealings of Goldman (GS), JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Morgan Stanley (MS) in physical commodities.

  23. I think a lot of people are over reacting. What counts are the actions the administration takes and not the words of some advisor. Let us see what the POTUS does or does not do and make him hear our opinions. Remember that as important as getting the chains of government off our energy sources and elimination of the tremendous waste on “green energy” is, the president was not elected because of one issue. There were many reasons why I voted for Trump and my determination on if I will continue to support him will based on many issues, not one. I would also remind those wringing their hands here that they should remember what the alternative to Trump as POTUS was.

  24. Why can’t they just take their hands off? Until we’re all using nuclear, it’s still going to be an important fuel.

  25. Reminds one of what Matthew 6:24 would be in the Trump era: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both Trump and money.”

    Cohn, a Goldman Sachs investment banker, is true to his roots.

  26. Frankly I’m getting very disappointed about this kind of thing.

    Given the type of person Trump is, it was/is completely predictable that by the time his presidency is over a lot of the people that voted for him are going to be thoroughly disappointed.

    In democracy you just get what you elect. The best never make it too far in politics.

    • We have to take into account that bean counters raised in Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the other banking outfits are very good at financing wizardry and complex derivatives. But they are very weak when it comes to solid themes. This guy in particular seems to be very short sighted, thinks the USA can increase gas consumption, export lots of gas, and that somehow it won’t run out. Gas is precious. Wind power and coal are strategic “extenders” of a resource that eventually we will deplete.

    • I think you may be misconstruing that statement, it may not be diappointment President Trump, but in his support network, who contradict his Campaign promises and statements.
      Your consistent negativity shows that you re “anti-Trump” whereas I am pro-Trump.

      • AC,
        I am not American and couldn’t care less who is your president. Judging from the outside you had very poor choices in the last presidential elections. It is very hard to think that you couldn’t find two better candidates among >300 million people. Something is not working as it should in the selection system.

      • I agree with Javier. Trump is a disaster as president, but Hillary would have been just as bad or worse. Trump was nominated mostly due to his outrageous statements during the campaign which received a lot of press among the 16 Republicans running for the nomination. He was not the best candidate, he was the most outrageous. Hillary was nominated because she had the Democratic party apparatus in her back pocket.

        We need to find a better way.

    • Javier,
      Who in their right mind would want to be president? It is largely a thankless job where you have to endure abuse from the Media, the more so if you are a conservative. About the only upside is the opportunity to become rich and/or have one’s ego stroked. There is the old joke that “Republicans become rich and go into politics, and Democrats go into politics and become rich.” But, yes, those with principles get beat down by those who are the swamp dwellers.

  27. G7 has failed to come to any agreement on the climate change. Trump has other priorities.

    • I find it amazing that anyone still trusts the liberal media to actually tell the truth about anything…

    • And not only that, Trump does not agree with most of the other G7 leaders in basic questions of climate warming (like the share of man’s guilt p. E.). It is not just a formal, but a fundamental question. In our unity press here in Germany this fundamental dissent is swept under the table and only referred to Trumps economic side. But Trump also has a conviction about climate change. And he stays with this. This can no longer be denied and it slowly seeps into the understanding that this person (as well as the vice pence) has a different scientifically based opinion on climate change. Of course, he did not elaborate this scientific basis himself, Trump is not in a position to do so. But he certainly trusted unfamiliar consultants in this question. Like all other leaders with different opinions. These people have also not worked on this issue.

  28. The most efficient electricity production now comes from the combined cycle natural gas power plants. Lowest cost, 24/7, cheap natural gas, low emissions, fully scalable to any size, reliable, small footprint, back-up role only if you want.

    It is just the best energy source especially now that fracking has opened up so much more resources in so many places.

    • True, we should export all the coal to places that do not have access to NG, like Africa..!

    • Does not matter.

      Let the market force or ease out coal. Do not do it by fiat be presidential decree or back door regulations by taxing carbon, etc.

      My industry uses coal but does not burn it.

  29. You might have seen clip of pres. Trump at the NATO meeting shoving out of the way the PM of Monte Negro. You might think that I, as a born a bred man of Monte Negro, would find this as unacceptable or offensive. Not a bit.

    the poor little country (pop 600k) has same clique of the supposedly ‘reformed’ communists running this quasi-democratic (to be generous) since 1990, making it 27 long years, and people never managed to get rid of the lot (they ‘win’ every election by 51%)

    • Vuk

      Thank you for the video….Hilarious……..but there I came across another one, not real actually as this one but still hilarious.. a minutebuzz one, french one…..About the Pope and Mr. D.J.Trump and fiddling hands..:)…Very fanny and hilarious..
      :)
      Cheers

    • If you look closely Trump is not shoving the PM out of the way. Trump puts his hand on the PMs shoulder and the PM smiles at Trump and ushers Trump around him with his right arm. Look closely and stop the film if necessary… it happens quickly.

      • Oh please. Of course he shoved him out of the way. How on earth is a guy who is not even looking at Trump when Trump begins to push past him going to be ushering him around him?

  30. I’m convinced the endgame of all this is to make energy so friggin’ expensive that a program will be started to subsidize low income users “as a basic human right” paid for by “the 1 percent”. Put Wall St on a strict energy diet of panels and pinwheels only and see how they like it. See if their trains run, their data and server centers function, their cars and taxis and Ubers…

    • I’m convinced the endgame of all this is to make energy so friggin’ expensive that a program will be started to subsidize low income users “as a basic human right” paid for by “the 1 percent”.

      Your specific idea has already been tried in Holland’s France. While waiting for the administrative processing of their energy bill reimbursement applications, the poorest burned green wood and rubbish to keep warm. The outside air was freezing and better not inhaled. The administrative solution was halving highway speed limits. Then the weather warmed and suddenly no reimbursements were necessary.

  31. Natural gas does out compete coal. For now. It is his apparatchik view on wind and solar scams that is disturbing.

  32. Nice fake news :)

    1) he’s the White House National Economic Council director NOT the Chief Economic Adviser

    2) everyone stop getting your panties in a wad every time some 2 bit member of the administration says something the least bit suspicious …

    3) the guy didn’t say War on Coal … he said nat gas was cleaner … thats it … lighten up Francis …

    When Trump does something against Coal you can get concerned … until then chill out …

  33. Wall Street runs on gas, nuclear and hydro. FACT. Can we prefer engineering and cost facts to opinions here? I am in the UK, which has different but not very dissimilar decisions to make, although our remaining coal is deep and expesnive to extract, we can get it cheaper from the cheap over supply on the high seas.

    That will mainly fuel indigenous fuel poor developing economies. It is the 3rd World fue of choice. So yer man Cohn is sort of right, for a developed economy with masses of shale gas as the US.

    In the USA it is the case that clean, low CO2 (60% less than coal) high thermal effecieincy (50% more than open cycle combustion at 60% thermal efficiency) CCGT gerneration using shale gas makes a lot more sense than coal, while avaiable. Same in UK, or anywhere with shale gas under them, now extractable at a competitice price per unit energy with almost no real environmental impact.

    Coal is still most energetic and cheapest fuel per unit enrgy, but we don’t have to burn it and it is has a ot of pollutants, that burning rocks produces. We can get to cleanest, safest, cheapest, indefinitely sustainable and zero carbon if it matters nuclear using the breathing space (deliberate pun) gas replacing coal provides us, while nuclear replaces both. All thta we have intense enough to deliver after fossil.

    A great example is New York State. Check out what they have actually done and plan – gas, nuclear and hydro 94% of supply – 4 New nuclear plants in their plans,. Pretty much what makes technical sense as I describe above. Admirably pragmatic. Literally the way to go in the NE for sure. And in fact solar in desert States is only acceptable and viable if it can deliver better than nuclear w/o subsidy on LCOE, with its massive environmental impact, material resource and land use per KWh. https://www.dropbox.com/s/n2ugxgnkeratbs6/New%20York%20Energy%20%20Mix.png?dl=0

    PS Wanna know how much energy it takes to build a global empire? Apparently there was as much carbon under the UK at the start of the industrial revolution as coal, as was under Saudi Arabia as oil. We used it to fuel the industrial revolution , construct our infrastructure and supply a global Empire. The lesson is obvious.

    Less and more expensive energy means less prosperity, and all the other things that brings – health, education, the rule of law, happiness. With plentiful and affordable energy all can be enjoyed – unless you use the valuable freedom and spare time plentiful cheap enrgy and technology provides unproductively, to become an eco worrier, of course.

  34. There is a song of by Christina Aguiiera….Fighter,,,,,,,,one that very well may synchronize and sink with these blog post mood about “smart” and “evolution”….

    Jborn, if you find it appropriate, please do consider the “hassle” of posting it…:)

    thanks…

    cheers

    • Sorry, for the mistake, meant and supposed to be addressing, “JBom” instead as put above “Jborn”…..

  35. In the same way that it’s a thing that “spooks” never retire / leave – bankers seem to always have their finger in the pie….

    It’s something that has repeatedly featured in public affairs in Europe as well as the US – there is obvious utility in using bankers but the spectre of conflicting interest has repeatedly taken physical form…

  36. China needs our hard coal to reduce pollution at their coal-fired plants. All the scrubbers in the world won’t clean their domestic soft coal.

  37. Cohn is proof of the hallucinogenic properties of DC swamp gas. It’s a good thing that Trump leaves the area for a breath of reality once in a while to touch base with the people who put him in the WH.

    Here’s to hoping that he’ll promise to adopt Ted Cruz’s sensible plan to gradually end corn ethanol mandates and subsidies when he visits Iowa next Thursday. After all, Cruz still beat Trump despite a platform to end this ethanol nonsense.

    If Trump starts kowtowing to his elitist lib roots he’ll be nothing but another one term wonder.

  38. I am here on a fool’s errand. Actually I just like the phrase and rue that people use it only to bludgeon others. Breaking with tradition I declare my own self, thus! Such a catchy ditty, once this message is posted I’m sure I’ll like the very look of it. Perhaps I’ll hang it on the wall.

    [??? .mod]

    • Now he needs to formally reject it. Before an enviro group shops for a Judge to impose an injunction on the same extra-legal grounds corrupt Judges have used to stop him on other issues.

  39. Let’s look at what he says without emotion.

    “Natural gas, which we have become an abundant producer, which we’re going to become a major exporter is, is such a cleaner fuel,”

    He is touting NG as a money making export throwing in the clean stuff as a selling point.

    So now the questions is, where is HIS money invested? NG no doubt. Perhaps everyone should go long on NG while you still can.

    • Make the playing field level between ALL possible sources of power generation and let the market decide. I suspect that if that happened coal would be the fuel of choice in some places and NG in others and nuclear in others. Hydro is pretty well maxed out and some if not many of the alternative fuel source generators would go by the wayside. When it comes to peaking stations for electrical power generation though NG will remain the fuel of choice. A gas turbine can come on line very quickly, and even former coal fired units that have been converted to use NG can come on line considerably faster than a coal fired unit. So with the pricing being what it is NG is going to have a big place in the sector.

      • I would agree in sentiment but we all know that the powers in charge will keep their own interests in mind when making policy.

  40. I love how the coal-haters try to pretend that there is a level playing field, after years of coal getting bashed by the Obama Administration. Sure, coal has taken a hit from cheap NG, but that isn’t the only reason it’s down.

    • Coal has externalities – I guess you are saying those should not be considered. Air pollution and the associated impact on health care, mining site cleanup and environmental damage are the main ones.

    • Sure, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet, however a lot of the tunes we’ve been hearing, along with the sounds of dead silence have been out of tune and disharmonious. So yeah, people are worried.

    • J. Philip Peterson
      May 27, 2017 at 8:07 am

      Rescuing Coal, and even helping coal is one thing…..and pretending that Coal must be the “King” of the lot, just like that, is another thing entirely….please do consider to stop pushing wrongly…

      If Coal has to be considered as “King” coal has to be worth it, which it seems not to be the case…..i

      Swapping one kind of swamp critters for another is not the way……not what was promised, I think…..

      cheers

    • “Gee, is Trump now going to unsign this Executive Order Rescuing Coal?”

      Yeah, all the actions Trump has actually taken are directly opposed to the Paris Agreement. He would have to roll back his EO and all the rules the EPA has been changing over the last few weeks.

      Trump allowed the Europeans to have their say on climate change, and he listened to them (the French president just had some nice things to say about Trump, and how he deals with people), but in the end Trump refused to sign on to a joint statement promoting climate change. I would think that if he were inclined to go along, he would have signed the agreement

      I just don’t see how Trump is going to stay in the Paris Agreement. His every move says “no”.

      I do hope he will submit the Paris Agreement to the U.S. Senate as a treaty, and that way the onus won’t all be on Trump when the deal is killed. It won’t be Trump alone, it will be the whole United States, through the U.S. Senate, that is declining to participate.

      Next week can’t come fast enough!!!

      • From what I found about executive agreements, Trump putting up the Paris accord as a treaty would be very bad tactics. If Obama had done so, and succeeded, the resultant treaty would bind Trump. As Paris is only an executive agreement, the authority of the accord rests with each individual President on his own authority as President, so all Trump has to do to eliminate it is to not follow it.
        The Supreme Court has never, as far as I can tell, ruled on the status of foreign executive agreements, so if Paris is treated the same as executive orders, it ended on Jan 20, 2017.

      • In the current state of Judicial non-lawful derailing of Trump policies it would be very dangerous to revisit EO’s. Paris must be rejected formally and soon.

      • I disagree. I think the Senate would vote it down and when they did that would kill it for the US. Remember it takes a 2/3 majority to ratify a treaty in the senate. So I say send it to them and let us be done with this madness that CO2 is a pollutant.
        There is another political angle I like about an attempted ratification. It will drawl a clear line with no weasel room between those senators that support this “climate change” scam and those that do not. Further, there are one heck of a lot more Democrats coming up for re-election in 2018 than Republicans. At least 8 of those Democrats in states that Trump won are vulnerable. Make them take a stand on the issue and then let their constituents decide.

  41. I’m disappointed WUWT would resort to such a cheap click bait headline that contradicts the substance of the story.

    Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than coal, those are just facts which any neutral observer can see. This story reports no gov’t action is being taken against coal, its just jawboning about coal vs. gas vs. other.

    Crap story. You wasted my time and I wasted more time replying to it. One more item like this and my email feed of your stories gets terminated.

    [I’m disappointed that you are such a mouse that you can’t even give your name while harshly criticizing, but must resort to a fake name to hide your identity. Stand up for your convictions! Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony Watts]

  42. Hard to tell if Cohn is stating Trump”s policy or his own. Trump is out of the country, and is notorious for bad staff work.

  43. Frankly I’m getting very disappointed about this kind of thing. The Trump Presidency is supposed to deliver the straight shooting leadership we’ve all been waiting for, the White House administration which doesn’t have to be continuously reminded about the President’s campaign promises.

    A chief economic advisor who despises coal has no place in the government of a President who expects future support from coal country.

    In reverse order, I don’t think that is a war on coal, just a statement of his economic views. His emphasis was, I think, natural gas. He did not, for example, promise to work for government intervention against coal, or promise to work against coal exports to Germany and China. Nor is it a stated policy, but just his opinion.

    As to Trump, my expectation was that his government would be quite erratic. I think that people who expected a consistent, principle based, disciplined government under him were mistaken. I am not as critical of his governance to date as a bunch of my friends and family who voted against him, but his career has been quite erratic. I prefer him to former Pres Obama, but Obama had an extremely good chief of staff in Valerie Jarrett, and Trump needs to find one of those.

    Trump and his people need to shut up a lot more if they want to be effective in the long run, in my opinion.

  44. If Trump reneges on his promises to the miners AND makes some bs compromise on Paris I’m done with him. Must be tough fighting globalist corruption single handed but he knew that ahead of time. If he u-turns on basic stuff like this when he absolutely knows it’s a crock in order to float in the swamp then he’s finished.

  45. It’s NG fired combined cycle designs that make the difference. If NG had to compete with coal on the historical steam Rankine cycle it could not do it especially if NG had to use HHV and quit using LHV to lie about combustion/stack efficiency.

  46. Opps, so much for the claim of war on Coal!! Trump just signaled that the USA will not sign the Paris accord. …. I just read it on Breitbart. Gary Cohn is not the president. Donald Trump is. So Gary.. STFU.

    • Hahaha – “I just read it on Breitbart” so it must be true.Trump has not decided yet re Paris. And in any case, that has nothing to do with coal’s cost disadvantage against natural gas, Nor coal’s disadvantage against gas in states that are taking action on CO2 regardless of whether Trump pulls out of the Paris accord.

  47. The author must have LOVED Obama. Every single person in his cabinet and agencies marched lock-step with Obama. No individual thought. Curse Trump for not stacking his cabinet with clones who march lock-step with him. After all, individual thought is SO VERY WRONG. We all know that.

  48. This seems to be part of the media circular firing squad that blasts the Trump Administration at every opportunity.

  49. Simple. Trump must replace him. If the reporting is accurate, and I no longer know whom to trust,
    Then This fella is a great ” ungluer “.

    Is there intelligent life out there?

  50. The danger of staying in the Paris Agreement is that a Court will use its presence as an agreement to justify a ruling to prevent the reform and rollback of climate imposed regulations and policies.
    The Paris agreement must die.

  51. There was no talk of amending the Paris Agreement after the G7 met, so I would guess that particular option is off the table. If there had been any talk of that kind, you can bet there would be news reports predicting Trump will agree to the Paris Agreement. But, no such reports have surfaced.

    • Here’s another example of Trump taking actions which are counter to staying in the Paris Agreement. And the article below kind of puts the lie to the fact that Trump is going soft on the coal business. He is increasing the funding for coal while cutting back in other areas:

      http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/25/trumps-blm-budget-proposal-signals-an-american-energy-renaissance/

      Trump’s BLM Budget Proposal Signals An ‘American Energy Renaissance’

      “President Donald Trump’s budget proposal for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) aims to reign in the agency while refocusing its priorities on energy production.

      Trump’s budget, released Tuesday, allocates $1.1 billion total in federal funds to BLM, a cut of $160 million from last year.

      In large part, the cuts are made to functions of the agency related to protection of federal land and conservation of resources, Lori Sanders told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Sanders is the vice president of federal affairs for the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank.

      “There’s a huge focus [in Trump’s budget proposal] on energy issues and creating an American energy renaissance,” Sanders said.

      This “American Energy Renaissance” is actually a return to traditional fuels like coal and oil while withdrawing emphasis from renewable energy investment. The Energy and Minerals Management section of the budget, which covers coal, oil and gas, and renewable energy programs, reflects Trump’s America First energy plan.

      Coal management funding increased by $8 million, despite the BLM’s overall budget being cut. According to budget justifications released by the Department of the Interior, the increased funding will go towards implementing a more efficient system of leasing and permitting coal companies to develop federal land.”

      end excerpt

  52. And there is this confirming Trump’s action are not consistent with staying in the Paris Agreement:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-26/merkel-says-it-was-six-to-one-against-trump-on-climate-change

    Six to One Against Trump on Climate in ‘Honest’ Exchange at G-7

    “In the meeting, G-7 leaders asked Trump his time frame for making a decision. Cohn said Trump told his foreign counterparts: “I’d rather take my time” and get to the right decision.

    But Trump told the other leaders that he still has reservations. China, India and other countries working to pare their climate emissions had seen job growth suffer — and he made clear he was not prepared to live with that trade-off, Cohn said.

    Trump told the leaders “he didn’t want to be in second place,” Cohn said, especially because he is committed to keeping his campaign promises to create jobs and improve working-and middle-class opportunities.

    Merkel said that the U.S. made clear it hasn’t yet taken a decision on whether to scrap Paris “and won’t make a decision here” at the G-7.

    Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, the summit’s host, said separately that there was “no agreement” on the Paris accord.

    “President Trump will take time to reflect on it, and the other countries are taking note of that,” Gentiloni said.

    The Paris agreement may be addressed in a formal communique expected to be issued Saturday by the G-7, though the nations remained at odds Friday over possible wording that would draw unanimous support.

    Any language clarifying that member countries have the freedom to rewrite their pledges under the Paris accord could buttress those seeking to persuade Trump to remain in the pact. That has emerged as a key concern for Trump administration officials worried the U.S. is barred from staying in the accord while scaling back its carbon-cutting commitment.

    Even without a formal decision on the Paris deal, Trump has moved to dismantle environmental policies seen critical for the U.S. to satisfy its pledge.”

    end excerpt

  53. Coal isn’t dead. It is true that about 1/3 of conventional coal capacity is due for retirement by 2025, and a lot of that will be replaced by CCGT. And we export high quality (low sulfur, low ash) thermal coal to Asia, and could do more if the idiots in Oregon and Washington would allow one more terminal.

    • In the us coal us dead.
      Zero chances for growth.
      How many coal stocks you own rud?
      Like I said.
      Dead.
      Bury it . Offer it as a sacrifice to the greens and get nukes as
      Compensation.

      • There are no trade-offs with the Greens. Their religion does not allow it. If they agree to such a thing, they will revoke their support eventually and at the worst time. They are in the game for power and virtue signalling and cannot be trusted. They will not be happy until Western society and economies collapse. Then they will show their Socialist colours and blame Capitalism for what they destroyed.

  54. Burn coal. Ship gas. Rebuild energy infrastructure in a rational manner when economics dictate. Quit flogging the renewable dead horse. Everybody wins!

    • Only 4 new coal plants are planned.
      No sane utility company will plan for growth in coal when 4 years from now administrations could change.
      Uncertainty kills coal.
      Better to spend your dollars drilling and building gas fired.
      Coal is dead. Should we need it years from now it will still
      Be there.
      Rip.

      • I too wonder why Obama destroyed coal industry. Maybe his friends made a fortune selling coal stocks short. Maybe a coal miner made a pass on Michelle. Maybe he is a believing ideologue. In any case, coal is now officially toxic in Oakland, CA.

      • Just quit turning perfectly viable generating units off prematurely. That’s all we have to do. The uncertainty built on uncertain science has certainly done damage to the industry. Needless damage in my opinion but damage nonetheless. Proud of yourselves boys?

  55. As an “economic advisor”, Cohn needs to stick to economics. If he can’t, he should resign or be fired. Bringing him into the administration was a mistake.

  56. If he was strictly speaking economically of coal vs gas with the current CAGW-inspired regulations on coal in place, he’s right.
    Remove the CAGW-inspired regulations (which will take time) and, THEN, let the market decide.

  57. More politically-motivated idiocy from Eric. He never quotes Cohn mentioning climate change, GHGs, or using EPA regulation to shut down coal plants. Cohn’s point is merely economic: Natural gas generally produces electricity more cheaply, more flexibly, and more cleanly (in terms of traditional air pollutants) than coal. This economic reality is why few coal plants have been built recently in the US and the average age of a US coal plant is 42 years! Preserving “black” coal jobs is almost as economically absurd as creating “green” jobs.

    For lukewarmers – ie those smart enough to realize that rising CO2 is causing, and will continue to cause, warming and SLR – there may be other reasons to hope the all countries burn as little coal per unit GDP as possible. Unfortunately, it isn’t obvious that global GHG emissions (coal is the biggest contributor) will ever be reduced in a cost-effective manner. Under selectively-binding Kyoto, global emission rose 24% from 1990-2010, despite some impressive emissions decreases in some European countries (emissions that may have simply shifted to other countries). Under non-binding Paris, emissions will grow 23% from 2010-2030 – IF everyone meets their objectives in economic growth, emissions reductions and development aid. Google has proven that there is no renewable option that beats coal, so the best we can hope for is a technological breakthrough and in most countries increased use of natural gas or nuclear.

  58. While the US might continue using our abundant natural gas resources, we should continue mining our clean, high BTU content coal and selling it to China, to replace their dirty, low BTU content brown, practically peat stuff. Less pollution and more energy efficiency there; evening our the balance of trade here.

    We should of course also quit buying their wind turbines and solar panels, made in processes which would violate US environmental restrictions left and right.

    • “While the US might continue using our abundant natural gas resources, we should continue mining our clean, high BTU content coal and selling it to China, to replace their dirty, low BTU content brown, practically peat stuff. Less pollution and more energy efficiency there; evening our the balance of trade here.”

      The U.S. should also get credit for the subsequent reduction in CO2.

      I think the U.S. has reduced its CO2 output by about 7 percent over the last ten years, by building new natural gas powerplants, and we should get credit for helping China reduce its output, too, when we sell them cleaner coal.

      • Manufacturing tends to be very energy intensive. If you just drive all your manufacturing to China your emissions will drop and you will be popular! Then all the rich Chinese will have to live with the stigma of being “dirty”. How awful for them! Oh wait a minute! You’ve already done that and the Chinese don’t seem to care!!

    • As soon as solar panels become waste, they are hazardous waste. Lots of heavy metals used to connect parts internal and external to the panels. The solar industry is still trying to deal with that.

  59. Mr. Cohn only stated the obvious: coal is no longer the cheapest fuel. He did not call for banning it or regulating it to death. It should compete on a level playing field – Obama did load the dice heavily against it.

  60. Coal feedstock will theoretically be more than competitive in the long term future because Nat Gas pricing has no where to go but up. With more and more long term LNG contracts being signed and more LNG trains being built in the gulf states in USA, as well as Oregon, demand for NG will be higher for LNG exports in the future. If Canada does’t build out its west coast LNG due to political strife, then there will be a huge supply of stranded continental NG available for piping to USA LNG and domestic NG. That will dampen the spike for NG domestic prices, however if Canada does build its LNG potential, then NG will be priced more globally in North America due to LNG feedstock demands and will be much more expensive than coal. Expect rising prices for everything the more LNG is shipped.

    However, being an investor in coal, oil and gas, I would be surprised if the large corporations with deep pockets would start building any new coal fired plants. The political risk is just too high that after 2020 especially if Trump doesn’t get a second term, then coal will be a very high risk to expend a lot of capital on when maybe future Democrats will just turn the tables on coal again. I wouldn’t hold my breath that coal has a large future in North America for generation, just based on politics and potential pricing parity depending how much LNG does get shipped out of North America. Perhaps more coal for export, but probably not for domestic use. IMO, this isn’t an indictment or statement against coal, just an observation which way North America is going with its energy supply/security and NG will be the favourite fuel of choice going forward.

  61. Why does it have to be gas v coal ? Why can’t it be both ? I’d listen to the anti coal , pro gas argument if ,for example, they advocated pushing for more of the transport fleet changing to gas ( LPG ) –it’s not a new idea, been around for decades. Has anyone looked at the current economics of converting coal to liquid transport as they do in South Africa ( and what the Germans did in WWII).
    I don’t know how well this development is going http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Coal-To-Gasoline-Plant-Will-Be-The-Largest-In-The-World.html — maybe bogged down in red tape.
    But the main argument for US coal has to be exports —maybe the politic threat mentioned by Mosher above will stop the development of new coal fired power stations in the USA but there are hundreds being built overseas and so if the USA coal mines can be very efficient then then will be markets.

  62. In a capitalist system, the government has no place supporting one energy source over another. Let the market decide. When costs of keeping pollution to a reasonable level are included, let the supply and demand rule the day. Keep your ugly fingers out of the works.

    • Absolutely correct, Jeff! The answer to this conundrum is to give up the idea that we live in a capitalist economy. That has been eroded since the 60’s such that it virtually no longer exists. The welfare state, tax subsidies for corporations, regulations that have a political purpose rather than any practical benefit and massive state borrowing. All these things have eaten the heart of capitalism as government has grown without limits. We are past the point of no return. Next comes collapse. We got the governance we deserved. More people take from society than contribute now so democracy cannot fix itself.

  63. Ya gotta love the “coal is dead” meme. Wishful thinking much? We still need coal. It is a natural competitor for NG, much in demand nowadays. Competition is good for everyone.

Comments are closed.