Why is Trump looking for the deal to put America first when the deal is about the planet NOT America, therefore, should put the planet first?
31-35, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
View 34 more replies »
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@LvChris:
Agree completely re free thought and speech. More liberals should think like you regarding those important rights and freedoms.
Agree completely re free thought and speech. More liberals should think like you regarding those important rights and freedoms.
Xuan12 · 31-35, M
@theoneyouwerewarnedabout: 
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
Xuan12 · 31-35, M
I'm not even sure this is putting America first. I mean, these fossil fuels won't last forever anyway. Either we begin adapting now, or we leave it to later generations. Who's going to lead the world toward energy sustainability and independence? Looks like it's not the United States.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@BlueMetalChick:
I understand what you meant, but a few posts up, you stated "The yanks are too fucking stupid to know what's good for them".
Where the offense was taken, was that those American (yanks) who did not agree with decisions that were made, were painted with the same brush as those Americans who DID agree with Presidential decisions that were made. I think in this case, it may have been more prudent to separate who you were really referring to, be it Democrats or Republicans.
When you said "yanks", that one word implies that Dems and Repubs and all other factions in-between, are of the same camp, hence collectively held responsible (in your view) for being a collection of stupid people residing within one nation.
I understand what you meant, but a few posts up, you stated "The yanks are too fucking stupid to know what's good for them".
Where the offense was taken, was that those American (yanks) who did not agree with decisions that were made, were painted with the same brush as those Americans who DID agree with Presidential decisions that were made. I think in this case, it may have been more prudent to separate who you were really referring to, be it Democrats or Republicans.
When you said "yanks", that one word implies that Dems and Repubs and all other factions in-between, are of the same camp, hence collectively held responsible (in your view) for being a collection of stupid people residing within one nation.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
Xuan12 · 31-35, M
@BlueMetalChick: Yeah, most people actually didn't vote for him.
CassandraFemale17 · 26-30, F
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@MasterLee: I'm not a liberal.
katielass · F
Well, the deal doesn't put the planet first. But then it;s not really about the planet. Its about redistributing money. People who fall prey to this shit sure must be dumb to believe that taking money fro the US or other first world countries and giving it to third world countries is going to have ANY effect on the climate. that's all this deal is, just a transfer of money. do people who believe this even know how to think?
swirlie · 31-35, F
@GunSmoke9:
If your savior Donald Trump, told you to bend over and shit in your hat, then put it back on your head because it would help make America look great again, would you follow him to the edge of the earth with that one as well?
If your savior Donald Trump, told you to bend over and shit in your hat, then put it back on your head because it would help make America look great again, would you follow him to the edge of the earth with that one as well?
GunSmoke9 · 56-60, M
@swirlie: Hey ahole instead of questioning my reasons for pulling out, you resort to sounding like a five-year old. So you know I am NOT a clapping seal for Trump. Bet you were for Obama. Plenty of what Trump does I disagree with. I'll ask this again, but I'm sure I know the answer, how much are you going to donate? Now go and color in your book.
swirlie · 31-35, F
@GunSmoke9:
It's not a matter of 'how much' anyone will donate to the cause GunSmoke, because that "how much" option is not available to anyone in any of those participating countries who DO understand the negative impact of greenhouse gases on our environment.
The way you appear to be comprehending the concept of 'donating' to the cause, would lead one to believe that you honestly think there are cardboard donation boxes set up all over the country in places like the local 7-11 convenience store, where you drop your loose change in through the slot on the top of the box after buying a 6-pack of beer, thereby satisfying yourself in a warm and fuzzy way, that you have fulfilled your duty as a polluting American Citizen and can therefore return home with your beer, feeling no guilt whatsoever for driving to the store in your car instead of walking, despite the fact that you polluted your environment even more than it was before you left your house, with the gas that you unnecessarily burnt while slogging your lazy fat ass to the store and back in your pickup truck.
The way it actually works GunSmoke, is that those participating countries in the world do not pass-on responsibility for 'donating to the cause' to it's citizens to voluntarily donate or NOT donate to the cause. All so-called 'donations' a country makes to the cause, is made on behalf of ALL of that country's citizens. Those 'donations' you make reference to, are actually called "contributions".
Those 'donations' as you put it, are allocated in the form of a 'percentage' from within each country's tax pool, which is like a giant swimming pool full of money where all the taxes that have been collected by the country, end up. When you pay taxes to the IRS, your tax money goes straight into the same 'tax pool' that every other U.S. Citizen's tax money goes into as well.
If the broad-based global agreement that was made between all participating countries is a percentage-value for contribution of say, just 1% of all taxes collected, that would mean that 1% of all taxes that each citizen paid will be allocated to 'the cause', the 'cause' being to drastically reduce the amount of carbon that is being emitted into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels through the adoption of advanced technology to make that reduction possible.
The more taxes that a country brings in, the larger the amount that the country itself contributes, but that country's citizens still only contribute 1% of the total taxes each individual will pay, which includes corporate contributions at an even higher percentage rate than what the citizens pay.
From a human standpoint then, every person on earth pays the equivalent of just 1% of their individual tax bill to the 'cause'. If you earn a lot, then your 1% is a higher individual value than your neighbor who is earning minimum wage, because his income tax rate would be lower than your's, thus he pays 1% of a lower tax value.
The more people a country has within their population base therefore, the more money that individual country will contribute to the 'cause', even though everyone in that country only contributes 1% of the taxes they paid to the IRS. Therefore as individuals, nobody in the world pays more than 1% in our example.
What Trump says is true. America pays way-more than some Third World country pays, simply because there are more people contributing in America than there are in all Third World countries combined.
It's a multiplied figure... 1% X 300 million people of the USA = a lot of coin, versus 1% X 500,000 people who form a Third World country's total population = chump-change by comparison.
Still, everyone globally contributes exactly the same percentage amount as individual contributors, which is based on our individual, marginal tax rate.
But the bottom line is, every employed person in the world who are from those contributing countries involved, pay exactly the same EACH, which in our example is 1% of their total tax contribution to their IRS equivalent tax agency.
American Citizens do NOT pay more than Canadian Citizens, but the U.S. Government would write a fatter cheque than the Canadian Government because the population of the USA is 10-times greater than what it is in Canada. More people contributing = more money available to contribute.
The problem with your President, is that Trump does not himself understand what I just explained to you, because he made it excruciatingly obvious while he was in Germany, that he did not ever make it his business to familiarize himself with ANY detail of this on-going, global initiative.
That is why Trump backed America out the back door. He has absolutely no comprehension whatsoever, of how the system was set up. He simply doesn't get it, nor does he care about 'getting it'. If it doesn't serve Trump in some meaningful, personal way, Donald will not ever get in on ANY game. And you my friend will pay the price, not Trump.
It's not a matter of 'how much' anyone will donate to the cause GunSmoke, because that "how much" option is not available to anyone in any of those participating countries who DO understand the negative impact of greenhouse gases on our environment.
The way you appear to be comprehending the concept of 'donating' to the cause, would lead one to believe that you honestly think there are cardboard donation boxes set up all over the country in places like the local 7-11 convenience store, where you drop your loose change in through the slot on the top of the box after buying a 6-pack of beer, thereby satisfying yourself in a warm and fuzzy way, that you have fulfilled your duty as a polluting American Citizen and can therefore return home with your beer, feeling no guilt whatsoever for driving to the store in your car instead of walking, despite the fact that you polluted your environment even more than it was before you left your house, with the gas that you unnecessarily burnt while slogging your lazy fat ass to the store and back in your pickup truck.
The way it actually works GunSmoke, is that those participating countries in the world do not pass-on responsibility for 'donating to the cause' to it's citizens to voluntarily donate or NOT donate to the cause. All so-called 'donations' a country makes to the cause, is made on behalf of ALL of that country's citizens. Those 'donations' you make reference to, are actually called "contributions".
Those 'donations' as you put it, are allocated in the form of a 'percentage' from within each country's tax pool, which is like a giant swimming pool full of money where all the taxes that have been collected by the country, end up. When you pay taxes to the IRS, your tax money goes straight into the same 'tax pool' that every other U.S. Citizen's tax money goes into as well.
If the broad-based global agreement that was made between all participating countries is a percentage-value for contribution of say, just 1% of all taxes collected, that would mean that 1% of all taxes that each citizen paid will be allocated to 'the cause', the 'cause' being to drastically reduce the amount of carbon that is being emitted into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels through the adoption of advanced technology to make that reduction possible.
The more taxes that a country brings in, the larger the amount that the country itself contributes, but that country's citizens still only contribute 1% of the total taxes each individual will pay, which includes corporate contributions at an even higher percentage rate than what the citizens pay.
From a human standpoint then, every person on earth pays the equivalent of just 1% of their individual tax bill to the 'cause'. If you earn a lot, then your 1% is a higher individual value than your neighbor who is earning minimum wage, because his income tax rate would be lower than your's, thus he pays 1% of a lower tax value.
The more people a country has within their population base therefore, the more money that individual country will contribute to the 'cause', even though everyone in that country only contributes 1% of the taxes they paid to the IRS. Therefore as individuals, nobody in the world pays more than 1% in our example.
What Trump says is true. America pays way-more than some Third World country pays, simply because there are more people contributing in America than there are in all Third World countries combined.
It's a multiplied figure... 1% X 300 million people of the USA = a lot of coin, versus 1% X 500,000 people who form a Third World country's total population = chump-change by comparison.
Still, everyone globally contributes exactly the same percentage amount as individual contributors, which is based on our individual, marginal tax rate.
But the bottom line is, every employed person in the world who are from those contributing countries involved, pay exactly the same EACH, which in our example is 1% of their total tax contribution to their IRS equivalent tax agency.
American Citizens do NOT pay more than Canadian Citizens, but the U.S. Government would write a fatter cheque than the Canadian Government because the population of the USA is 10-times greater than what it is in Canada. More people contributing = more money available to contribute.
The problem with your President, is that Trump does not himself understand what I just explained to you, because he made it excruciatingly obvious while he was in Germany, that he did not ever make it his business to familiarize himself with ANY detail of this on-going, global initiative.
That is why Trump backed America out the back door. He has absolutely no comprehension whatsoever, of how the system was set up. He simply doesn't get it, nor does he care about 'getting it'. If it doesn't serve Trump in some meaningful, personal way, Donald will not ever get in on ANY game. And you my friend will pay the price, not Trump.
Invisible · 26-30, M
@Xuan12: It wouldn't decrease demand, it would increase demand because other energy sources that are produced in the US would be hurt by the agreement. The demand for energy is going to keep increasing, and it'll have to come from somewhere.
Xuan12 · 31-35, M
@Invisible: The only thing you could be referring to is coal, (since natural gas and coal are the only fossil fuels used to generate more than 1% of the nations electricity) but that ship sailed a while ago. The number of miners in the US has been steadily declining since the 70s, the amount of coal mined has been declining since 2008, the quality of coal mined has decreased 20% since 1950. 3 of the 5 largest coal companies in the US declared bankruptcy within the last 3 years. Natural gas has been steadily gaining marketshare in electricity generation since the mid 90s. And in fact, Trump's plan to ease fracking rules on federal lands will lead to even more natural gas production, hurting the coal industry even further.
CassandraFemale17 · 26-30, F
@Invisible: they are actually investing in renewable energies BIG TIME.
They aren't that stupid..
They see the future and it isn't in raping the Earth.
They aren't that stupid..
They see the future and it isn't in raping the Earth.
SW-User
@GunSmoke9: What accord are you referencing?
GunSmoke9 · 56-60, M
@WhisperingBanshee: What do you think? What's the subject about?
SW-User
@GunSmoke9: I will attribute the brusqueness of your remark as early week crankiness.
AS for what the climate accord would accomplish for America, we can start by learning what it will prevent for America. There's not a recognized organization who doesn't stand to make money who supports the reprehensible actions of a little tryrant.
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/01/531056661/5-things-that-could-change-when-the-u-s-leaves-the-paris-climate-deal
AS for what the climate accord would accomplish for America, we can start by learning what it will prevent for America. There's not a recognized organization who doesn't stand to make money who supports the reprehensible actions of a little tryrant.
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/01/531056661/5-things-that-could-change-when-the-u-s-leaves-the-paris-climate-deal
SW-User
@Xuan12: oh you got your info from Fox News ? Then it must be true
Xuan12 · 31-35, M
@Chernobylplayground: Figured I'd use their poll since of any of them, it would skew in Trump's favor, but still comes back around 40%.
CassandraFemale17 · 26-30, F
@GunSmoke9: well the dummies who think those who voted for The TrumpDump meant they do not live in the world, and America is not on the planet are far dumber than the rest of us thought.
We have given them far too much credit before you brilliantly pointed out their stupidity and their obvious ignorance. Thank you for this service to mankind.
Maybe they should move to Mars.
We have given them far too much credit before you brilliantly pointed out their stupidity and their obvious ignorance. Thank you for this service to mankind.
Maybe they should move to Mars.
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
LegendofPeza · 56-60, M
LegendofPeza · 56-60, M
icyreb · M
the planet has survived many climate changes. in a thousand years, the scientists that predict global warming, are predicting a mini ice age..
icyreb · M
@TyphoidJerry: exactly. so why are they now blaming man for something that has happened prior, and will happen again...
CaptainCanadia · 41-45, M
Because they have evidence it's an unusual man-made temperature increase, just like they have evidence for historical warming/cooling cycles.
icyreb · M
@TyphoidJerry: that's the rhetoric people believe. this is simply a normal climate change. it may be brought about sooner because of mans involvement. but man is not the only source of the climate change. as I stated. a mini iceage is predicted in a thousand years. is man responsible for that as well..
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
One of my concerns is what China does after it builds the 1K plus coal plants it plans to build. What would they build them not to use them? What happens later on with all the ones they will have?
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@katielass:
Isn't any money going to China from us actually borrowed from them in the first place?
Isn't any money going to China from us actually borrowed from them in the first place?
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
@swirlie:
Fascinating analysis and all news to me thank you. One thing that strikes my is the effect of the slurry boiling. Wouldn't thet creat a whole new set of noxious fumes? In fact some sort of noxious fumes must be emitted powder is liquified.
It sounds like way too much capital is tied up on thr operation which sounds like it could continue for one hundred years for it to simply stop. You make a good case as to why the Keystone Pipeline should be open and I think it ultimately will be to access that. Here is the northern mid Atlantic US there are tons of fracked and capped natural gas wellls awaiting open pipelines and an increase in natural gas prices.
Waiting for a price bump may also be part of the reason the sand tsar gas isn't being harvested.
As I understand it the Paris Accord is completely voluntary and both the US and Canada are more than in compliance anyway and despite President Trump bailing the US will nonetheless be in compliance.
So who is stirring up all the noise and why?
Fascinating analysis and all news to me thank you. One thing that strikes my is the effect of the slurry boiling. Wouldn't thet creat a whole new set of noxious fumes? In fact some sort of noxious fumes must be emitted powder is liquified.
It sounds like way too much capital is tied up on thr operation which sounds like it could continue for one hundred years for it to simply stop. You make a good case as to why the Keystone Pipeline should be open and I think it ultimately will be to access that. Here is the northern mid Atlantic US there are tons of fracked and capped natural gas wellls awaiting open pipelines and an increase in natural gas prices.
Waiting for a price bump may also be part of the reason the sand tsar gas isn't being harvested.
As I understand it the Paris Accord is completely voluntary and both the US and Canada are more than in compliance anyway and despite President Trump bailing the US will nonetheless be in compliance.
So who is stirring up all the noise and why?
swirlie · 31-35, F
@Jackjjacksonjr:
I will start at your last sentence and work my way up!
You asked, "So who is stirring up all the noise and why?".
First of all, you are absolutely correct when you stated that the US is fully compliant regardless of President Trump bailing the U.S. out of the deal. The show will go on with Corporate America, regardless of the declarations made by President Trump.
This may sound far-reaching to you, but something Donald Trump has never recovered from (in my humble opinion), was from the time when President Obama 'roasted' Trump publicly about a year ago or more, when Obama totally humiliated Trump as he sat in his chair in the audience, rocking back and forth in his chair with anger, staring straight at the floor and red as hell in the face. Trump was deeply embarrassed, totally humiliated, angered beyond comprehension.
As I watched that pitiful performance on TV by President Obama as he publicly humiliated Donald Trump for ...you name it, it suddenly occurred to me in those moments the camera was fixated on Trump's profile, that Trump was going to crush Obama somehow, some way, even if it took all of Trump's money to do it.
It was immediately after that humiliating performance by Obama, that Donald Trump officially stepped up to the plate and threw his name in the hat for the Presidency. Prior to that performance however, Trump was very indifferent to the notion of running for President. Politics was not his game. He was flattered by the notion, yes of course. But in truth, he never really wanted the job.
But after that embarrassing episode on national TV, Trump was in! Officially! he was running for the Presidency, come hell or high water. Ever since Trump got elected to the Presidency, he has gone after every single initiative that Obama had accomplished, ...to then only reverse what Obama had done, to then declare the accomplishment of Obama "a complete disaster". In a round-about way, Trump was now doing to Obama what Obama had done to Donald during that public 'roasting'. Trump was belittling Obama, making Obama look completely incompetent during the whole time he held office for 8 years.
It is my opinion, that President Trump exited the United States from the Paris Accord against ALL advise to do otherwise, for the sole purpose of fulfilling a personal vendetta he has held against Obama, by UN-doing all the hard work that Obama had dedicated a great deal of time and money toward 'climate change' during the course of those 8 years.
Trump publicly declared Obama's efforts on climate change, "the futile work of the misinformed". I believe that America's exit from the Paris Accord is about 'settling a score' which 'Donald Trump the corporate citizen', holds steadfastly against 'Obama the Untouchable Establishment'; and NOT about Trump's decision to exit the Paris Accord being construed as appeasing Trump's 'base', as the news pundits have speculated.
Trump knows that corporate America will continue to keep the carbon footprint small, but in exiting America from the Accord, he can do so under the pretense of correcting a fraudulent intent from the previous Administration, where Obama has now been painted with a brush which falsely depicts him as totally screwing America over by allegedly deceiving America about the carbon details.
Trump will bring America back to the table for a so-called, "better deal", but in the meantime, he will diminish Obama's Presidential efforts to the size of a pin head while he has the opportunity to do so on a global stage.
~~~~~~~~~
OK, back to coal now!
Regarding the emission of noxious fumes when powdered coal is liquified ...the fumes are actually emitted during the evaporation process when the liquid is boiled-off. It is the fine dust particles that are like talcum powder which causes respiratory issues, not fumes themselves although noxious.
For example, asbestos dust... Asbestos dust, not unlike coal dust, is so fine, that very specific asbestos face masks must be worn, because the dust will pass right through a very fine filter and straight into the lungs. The same thing applies to Silica dust, which is the dust emitted from Silica Sand which is used in a 'sand blaster'.
When asbestos dust, coal dust or silica dust get into the human lungs, a person will die from suffocation. The dust cannot be removed from the lungs, even over an entire lifetime. "Lifetime" by the way, is only a couple of years after continuous exposure while using the wrong breathing equipment or no breathing equipment. In China, only rudimentary face masks typically seen worn in a hospital, are supplied to their sweat-camp laborers who work in those evaporation plants which dries out the coal slurry.
Word of caution: Don't ever stand downwind of a sand blaster and don't ever try to clean up vermiculite particles with a vacuum cleaner. 50% of vermiculite home insulation sold in Ontario during the 1970's was made from asbestos sent in from Quebec. The vacuum cleaner will disperse the asbestos dust throughout the whole house as it transits the filtration system and vacuum bag.
~~~~~~~~
Regarding the Tar Sands being held in limbo awaiting a price bump, you are absolutely correct.
I was flying back home from Vancouver to Toronto about 4 years ago. I was sitting in Business Class and my adjacent seat mate, was the CEO of Shell Canada. We exchanged business cards, which is an informal networking handshake. So I jokingly said to him, "..if he made himself the one responsible for the price of gas at the pumps?".
He said it was the crap-tar sands oil that is calling that price, not him! He informed me that the break-even price to produce an Imperial gallon of gas (4.54 liters), required a crude oil price of $80 per barrel. He said that to me when the price per barrel was around $90. He also said that it took 45 gallons of Alberta Tar Sands crude, to make one gallon of gasoline, among finer oils, etc. The problem was, it was extremely dirty oil, full of Bitumen, as compared to oil from an oil well. Last time I checked, the price of crude oil was $19 per barrel on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Yikes!
His greatest fear was the price of oil dropping below the $80 break-even floor, in which case not a cent was being recovered at the pumps at $1.20 per liter of gas. So I said to him that my greatest fear if I were him, would be my inability to unload thousand of acres of land-stake claims, when the oil finally tanks below $80 like it historically does in Alberta during the 'bust' times. He looked at me like I had two heads... I smiled at him and said, "Ditch the land, man, before the Board of Directors turn you into a farmer!".
Not suggesting that I influenced his decision in anyway as we chatted our way across the prairies, but I just read 6 months ago that Shell had successfully sold it's very last land-stake in the Tar Sands project... And can you guess who bought all of Shell's land-stakes??? Imperial Oil of Canada and Exxon from the U.S.!
Right now, the Alberta Tar Sands project is a ghost town, because corn-gas did them in.
Ever since 10% alcohol (ethylene) was added to regular gas, oil revenues have plummeted and oil reserves have skyrocketed, causing huge surpluses to magically appear with nowhere to store the refined product. As consumers, we are not using it fast enough.
The price of corn however, has skyrocketed and more corn is used in Canada today to supplement gasoline content, than is used in the food chain.
Today in Ontario, there is a shortage of corn in the food industry because of the re-focused priority corn has been given for ethylene production. 🌽!
I will start at your last sentence and work my way up!
You asked, "So who is stirring up all the noise and why?".
First of all, you are absolutely correct when you stated that the US is fully compliant regardless of President Trump bailing the U.S. out of the deal. The show will go on with Corporate America, regardless of the declarations made by President Trump.
This may sound far-reaching to you, but something Donald Trump has never recovered from (in my humble opinion), was from the time when President Obama 'roasted' Trump publicly about a year ago or more, when Obama totally humiliated Trump as he sat in his chair in the audience, rocking back and forth in his chair with anger, staring straight at the floor and red as hell in the face. Trump was deeply embarrassed, totally humiliated, angered beyond comprehension.
As I watched that pitiful performance on TV by President Obama as he publicly humiliated Donald Trump for ...you name it, it suddenly occurred to me in those moments the camera was fixated on Trump's profile, that Trump was going to crush Obama somehow, some way, even if it took all of Trump's money to do it.
It was immediately after that humiliating performance by Obama, that Donald Trump officially stepped up to the plate and threw his name in the hat for the Presidency. Prior to that performance however, Trump was very indifferent to the notion of running for President. Politics was not his game. He was flattered by the notion, yes of course. But in truth, he never really wanted the job.
But after that embarrassing episode on national TV, Trump was in! Officially! he was running for the Presidency, come hell or high water. Ever since Trump got elected to the Presidency, he has gone after every single initiative that Obama had accomplished, ...to then only reverse what Obama had done, to then declare the accomplishment of Obama "a complete disaster". In a round-about way, Trump was now doing to Obama what Obama had done to Donald during that public 'roasting'. Trump was belittling Obama, making Obama look completely incompetent during the whole time he held office for 8 years.
It is my opinion, that President Trump exited the United States from the Paris Accord against ALL advise to do otherwise, for the sole purpose of fulfilling a personal vendetta he has held against Obama, by UN-doing all the hard work that Obama had dedicated a great deal of time and money toward 'climate change' during the course of those 8 years.
Trump publicly declared Obama's efforts on climate change, "the futile work of the misinformed". I believe that America's exit from the Paris Accord is about 'settling a score' which 'Donald Trump the corporate citizen', holds steadfastly against 'Obama the Untouchable Establishment'; and NOT about Trump's decision to exit the Paris Accord being construed as appeasing Trump's 'base', as the news pundits have speculated.
Trump knows that corporate America will continue to keep the carbon footprint small, but in exiting America from the Accord, he can do so under the pretense of correcting a fraudulent intent from the previous Administration, where Obama has now been painted with a brush which falsely depicts him as totally screwing America over by allegedly deceiving America about the carbon details.
Trump will bring America back to the table for a so-called, "better deal", but in the meantime, he will diminish Obama's Presidential efforts to the size of a pin head while he has the opportunity to do so on a global stage.
~~~~~~~~~
OK, back to coal now!
Regarding the emission of noxious fumes when powdered coal is liquified ...the fumes are actually emitted during the evaporation process when the liquid is boiled-off. It is the fine dust particles that are like talcum powder which causes respiratory issues, not fumes themselves although noxious.
For example, asbestos dust... Asbestos dust, not unlike coal dust, is so fine, that very specific asbestos face masks must be worn, because the dust will pass right through a very fine filter and straight into the lungs. The same thing applies to Silica dust, which is the dust emitted from Silica Sand which is used in a 'sand blaster'.
When asbestos dust, coal dust or silica dust get into the human lungs, a person will die from suffocation. The dust cannot be removed from the lungs, even over an entire lifetime. "Lifetime" by the way, is only a couple of years after continuous exposure while using the wrong breathing equipment or no breathing equipment. In China, only rudimentary face masks typically seen worn in a hospital, are supplied to their sweat-camp laborers who work in those evaporation plants which dries out the coal slurry.
Word of caution: Don't ever stand downwind of a sand blaster and don't ever try to clean up vermiculite particles with a vacuum cleaner. 50% of vermiculite home insulation sold in Ontario during the 1970's was made from asbestos sent in from Quebec. The vacuum cleaner will disperse the asbestos dust throughout the whole house as it transits the filtration system and vacuum bag.
~~~~~~~~
Regarding the Tar Sands being held in limbo awaiting a price bump, you are absolutely correct.
I was flying back home from Vancouver to Toronto about 4 years ago. I was sitting in Business Class and my adjacent seat mate, was the CEO of Shell Canada. We exchanged business cards, which is an informal networking handshake. So I jokingly said to him, "..if he made himself the one responsible for the price of gas at the pumps?".
He said it was the crap-tar sands oil that is calling that price, not him! He informed me that the break-even price to produce an Imperial gallon of gas (4.54 liters), required a crude oil price of $80 per barrel. He said that to me when the price per barrel was around $90. He also said that it took 45 gallons of Alberta Tar Sands crude, to make one gallon of gasoline, among finer oils, etc. The problem was, it was extremely dirty oil, full of Bitumen, as compared to oil from an oil well. Last time I checked, the price of crude oil was $19 per barrel on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Yikes!
His greatest fear was the price of oil dropping below the $80 break-even floor, in which case not a cent was being recovered at the pumps at $1.20 per liter of gas. So I said to him that my greatest fear if I were him, would be my inability to unload thousand of acres of land-stake claims, when the oil finally tanks below $80 like it historically does in Alberta during the 'bust' times. He looked at me like I had two heads... I smiled at him and said, "Ditch the land, man, before the Board of Directors turn you into a farmer!".
Not suggesting that I influenced his decision in anyway as we chatted our way across the prairies, but I just read 6 months ago that Shell had successfully sold it's very last land-stake in the Tar Sands project... And can you guess who bought all of Shell's land-stakes??? Imperial Oil of Canada and Exxon from the U.S.!
Right now, the Alberta Tar Sands project is a ghost town, because corn-gas did them in.
Ever since 10% alcohol (ethylene) was added to regular gas, oil revenues have plummeted and oil reserves have skyrocketed, causing huge surpluses to magically appear with nowhere to store the refined product. As consumers, we are not using it fast enough.
The price of corn however, has skyrocketed and more corn is used in Canada today to supplement gasoline content, than is used in the food chain.
Today in Ontario, there is a shortage of corn in the food industry because of the re-focused priority corn has been given for ethylene production. 🌽!