If we are really serious about climate change, we have to be honest with ourselves, and politicians are going to have to be honest with their constituents about the lifestyle and societal sacrifices necessary to sufficiently address climate change.

For too long, they have tried to paint the picture that we can have our planet and eat it too. We cannot maximise short-term economic growth AND address climate change. That is a myth that is harmful to the climate movement. Sure, eventually, our long-term economy will eventually be stronger if we address climate change now, but it may be decades before that investment pays off. Taking care of climate change is not primarily about creating jobs and growing the economy. It's about preserving the planet for future generations.

To be even more honest, the most detrimental effects of climate change won't be felt in the United States. Period. Some countries will lose the majority of their food, water and land. The US will experience higher food prices, Katrina type relocation and increased instability around the world. Addressing climate change is much more about helping the people in those countries than it is about "America's national security".

If we can't be honest about the reasons to address climate change, we probably won't ever be successful. Democrats can't continue to repeat these talking points because dishonesty only benefits the better liar and we all know who that is.

6/2/2017 7:56:44 PM

2/3 of the planet believes in a desert god some heat stroked guys thought up 3 thousand years ago.

We're doomed.

6/2/2017 8:51:27 PM

^^ wash, rinse, repeat

global cooling....nope...data refutes
global warming...nope...data refutes
climate change...THERE'S AN IDEA WE CAN GET BEHIND AND MAKE A TON OF MONEY FROM!

6/2/2017 11:12:27 PM

but please, let's continue to listen to the same people who have said that you can't refute science, but chromosomes really don't matter when determining gender

6/2/2017 11:13:25 PM

^^You can thank conservative Frank Luntz for the switch from global warming to climate change:

Quote :

"We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming’’ and ending with "environmentalism,’’ It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation. 1. 'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming; ' As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.""

http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

6/2/2017 11:36:03 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/06/01/massive-iceberg-break-off-antarctica-crack-expands-11-miles/102385980/



in about a week we will probably have an iceberg the size of Delaware breaking off from Antarctica.

6/3/2017 2:28:38 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/25/great-barrier-reef-2050-plan-no-longer-achievable-due-to-climate-change-experts-say

6/3/2017 5:41:47 AM

does reducing the amount of pollutants the world pumps into the air directly effect Kdoggs wallet or is he just an asshole?

Also like it or not, by definition, sex and gender are two different things. Chromosomes determine sex.

[Edited on June 3, 2017 at 7:49 AM. Reason : Derp]

6/3/2017 7:45:53 AM

Quote :

"We cannot maximise short-term economic growth AND address climate change. That is a myth that is harmful to the climate movement."

Germany has reduced CO2 emissions by 350 million tons since 1990. Almost a 30% reduction. In that same time period their GDP has roughly doubled.

That's while pursuing questionable policies like ending nuclear power, generally having poor solar resources, and the rest of Europe acting as a drag on their economy.

So maybe you should just STFU tulsigabbard

6/3/2017 7:57:19 AM

Quote :

"global warming...nope...data refutes"

Can you post some data, or a study that refutes the hypothesis that the Earth has been on a significant warming trend for the last 100 years? I recognize that there is some noise in data, and that there will be some periods of time where the trend is a decrease in the average temperature, but my understanding is that the overall data suggests that the Earth is warming and at a pretty high rate. I'm interested to see data that suggests otherwise.

6/3/2017 9:19:23 AM

The reason most Americans have trouble understanding is because there are too many prerequisite scientific concepts needed to make the connections between the causes and the effects.

1.Greenhouse gas emissions causes global warming
2.Global warming causes glacial melting.
3.Global warming and ice caps melting increase the temperature of the oceans
4.Glacial melting and thermal expansion increase sea level rise
5.Glacial melting and ice cap melting decrease the salinity of the oceans
6.Ocean currents are driven by density differences which are driven by air temperature, water temperature, and salinity
7.Changes to ocean currents results in changes to regional climates

8.Increased CO2 concentration causes ocean acidification (think about a soda stream)

Ocean acidification is a separate, but maybe even more substatial issue.

Thats 8 topics that you kind of need to be scientifically literate to understand and connect. Combining and applying scientific concepts is the most difficult thing to do but its impossible if you don't understand all of the concepts being combined in the first place. There's no coincidence that we are the OECD country that has the most trouble understanding this. The effects require even more applicaiton.

Effects:
1. Some places get cooler, some places get a lot warmer (specifically the poles which is where much of the ice is). Overall, the temperature is not really much of a direct issue so its easy to see why calling "global warming" the problem can be misleading. Its also easy to see how people like Trump talk about how small and meaningless the temperature change is.


2. Two billion people get their water from Tibetan Plateau glacial melt alone. As glaciers disappear, river flows will decrease, move and some will stop altogether. Its a good thing the world is pretty good about allowing hundreds of thousands of people to walk across borders when their homeland experiences severe drought!


3. As less ice covers the article, more sunlight hits the ocean. Sunlight that would have been reflected by white ice is now stored as heat energy in the ocean. This is a positive feedback with melting sea ice.
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/colorbox_full/public/ice-explainer-optimized_1.jpg?itok=mYtpvO7n

4. As the sea expands and rises, it will not only displace hundreds of millions of people, but saltwater intrusion will destroy wetland habitats, farms, and fresh-water sources. Many coastal areas will lose land, food and water at the same time because of this.

5. Not really a big deal until the currents change. Just remember that somehting as big as elnino is set off by one current changing in the paciic.
http://www.geography.hunter.cuny.edu/tbw/wc.notes/3.temperature/ocean.currents.jpg

6. The california climate is moderated by a coldwater current. Scandanavia and the British isles benefit from the warm gulf stream. Those are just a few examples

7. As currents change, climate zones shift, rains come at different times, and ecological biomes shift. People and especially organisms can not just get up and follow the desired climate. We are already experiencing a mass extinction rate.

8. I think this is the biggest of them all. The media and their polticians NEVER talk about it. (probably because its too late to prevent) As pH increases, calcification slows down and organisms with calcium carbonate (base) exoskeletons have trouble growing. This has the potential to wipe out eosystems that depend on the process. Coral and shellfish are our major source of food. All of the fish that depend on coral-based ecosystems are also in jeopardy.
http://ocean.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/colorbox_full_width/public/photos/hitimeseries.jpg?itok=8EMNsHwc

[Edited on June 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM. Reason : cool graphic]


[Edited on June 3, 2017 at 2:40 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on June 3, 2017 at 2:47 PM. Reason : dbl]

6/3/2017 2:35:39 PM

Quote :

"Germany has reduced CO2 emissions by 350 million tons since 1990. Almost a 30% reduction. In that same time period their GDP has roughly doubled. That's while pursuing questionable policies like ending nuclear power, generally having poor solar resources, and the rest of Europe acting as a drag on their economy. So maybe you should just STFU tulsigabbard"

This is so ridiculous that it seems deliberate. You act like nothing else happened in Germany since 1990. Correlation =/= causation. Of course you can grow, I said that you can't maximise short-term growth. Germany has some of the most expensive electricity in the world.


[Edited on June 3, 2017 at 2:55 PM. Reason : words]

6/3/2017 2:48:01 PM

Quote :

" Some places get cooler, some places get a lot warmer"

But the map you linked is just outright mistaken on this point. Go to the source for that image and you can find the image's description:

Quote :

"This map shows the difference in surface temperature in 2006 compared to the average from 1951 to 1980."

No one is saying that current temperature levels are disastrous. If you look forward to 2100, or even 2050, the map doesn't have any blue. It's nothing but shades of red. Everywhere on Earth gets warmer due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The contention you're dealing with amounts to an observation that some places have climates that have yet to warm. But they will.

Also, the map you used is crazy out-of-date. Since 2006, we've seen emissions follow a trend on the very high side of what the assumptions for analysis were. Right now we are probably very close to the point where climate has universally warmed since pre-industrial times. So this might not even be an arguable point to begin with.

Quote :

"1.Greenhouse gas emissions causes global warming"

If you're engaging in some kind of adversarial debate on the subject, then the rest of the points are more distractions than anything else here. It should be obvious to even the dumbest of us that increasing temperatures can harm food production, and the only real debate happens inside of this point, where the link between emissions and warming is established. Someone even moderately schooled in the skeptic disinformation would have you stopped on the multiplier of water vapor feedback on this point. Ocean acidification is less obvious, but we're not getting any global agreements for the sake of the ocean, at least not until the more obvious problem has a more solid political footing.

Quote :

"We cannot maximise short-term economic growth AND address climate change. That is a myth that is harmful to the climate movement."

Valid point to some extent, but the economic web is more non-obvious to me.

The focus should be on what it means to reduce use of a deletable resource. At the end of the century, it's not rates that matter, but gross quantities of carbon reserves. The economic effect of emissions reduction is that we leave economically viable fossil fuel resources in the ground.

If we do that successfully, we will face another problem - economic temptation of those very accessible resources. We're going to get off fossil fuels sooner or later, and this is how emissions reduction should be framed. Either we ween ourselves off them by taxing their use, or we let the economics of extraction reduce our use more slowly. From an economic perspective, the difference only amounts to the discount rate due to making the investment earlier vs. later. Climate change happens as a side effect of choosing the options of a later transition, purely due to an aversion to implementation of a tax.

From a technological and macroeconomic scale, it's not even very obvious that we can obtain much of a benefit from the discount rate from a latter transition because technological transitions have a way of accidentally opening up unexpected avenues of technological development which go on to increase productivity.

But I hate cap and trade. It's unnecessarily complicated. Global warming is fixed by taxing emissions because they have an externality. Tax gas. The solution is that simple, and the international agreements we keep pursuing makes the Left look like Ivory Tower eggheads.

Internationally, what we need is a universal exception from trade agreements that allow individual countries (and other levels of government) to implement carbon taxes without anti-free-trade provisions punishing them for those taxes. Since tax revenue will be put into general budgets, there is plenty of self-motivation for this action.

International coordination is crazy overrated. We all know what the problem and the solution is. Our problem is that we're not implementing the solution sufficiently.

[Edited on June 3, 2017 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

6/3/2017 3:25:40 PM

Quote :

" In that same time period their GDP has roughly doubled. "

I'm on your team here (in the sense that I'm very much for taking action against climate change, and I lean generally pro-environment despite my libertarian leanings on many other matters, because I think that the environment is a matter which is better actively regulated and preserved; markets, for example, don't necessarily self-regulate in the best long-term manner here).

...but anyway...

who gives a shit if their GDP has doubled? Ours has tripled in that time. None of that, by itself, means anything, but for an industrialized regional power to not double their GDP since 1990 would be what's an actual story.

6/3/2017 3:28:05 PM

Great job mfrog. That is the best post I've ever seen on this site. (not sarcasm)

6/3/2017 4:41:21 PM

embarrassing mistake writing that: deletable -> depletable

6/3/2017 8:45:34 PM

Quote :

"1.Greenhouse gas emissions causes global warming"

I have been out of this discussions for a couple of years, but is there convincing evidence here?

6/4/2017 3:51:13 AM

Quote :

"who gives a shit if their GDP has doubled? Ours has tripled in that time. None of that, by itself, means anything, but for an industrialized regional power to not double their GDP since 1990 would be what's an actual story."

The only point Im making is those that predict soup lines, shitting in buckets, and rolling blackouts due to reductions in CO2 emissions are full of shit.

6/4/2017 8:06:53 AM

Dbl post

[Edited on June 4, 2017 at 8:07 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2017 8:06:53 AM

Quote :

"As pH increases"

decreases

6/4/2017 9:04:23 AM

Quote :

"To be even more honest, the most detrimental effects of climate change won't be felt in the United States. Period."

So the detrimental effects haven't happened yet, but they "might happen", and if they happen, it won't harm the US...

And you wonder why nobody gives a shit, and doesn't want to fuck up our economy for your Al Gore bullshit.

6/4/2017 2:46:14 PM

Is fucking up our economy really what you're worried about?

6/4/2017 3:31:53 PM

Quote :

"Germany has reduced CO2 emissions by 350 million tons since 1990. Almost a 30% reduction. In that same time period their GDP has roughly doubled. That's while pursuing questionable policies like ending nuclear power, generally having poor solar resources, and the rest of Europe acting as a drag on their economy. "

are you implying that we should import all of our electricity from Canada and Mexico so that we can brag about CO2 emissions reductions?

6/4/2017 6:35:29 PM

^ treatment of emissions in international trade is the only thing that should matter right now for these climate agreements. Anything else is just hot air.

Until we have a formula to correct the price of imports (via tariffs) for carbon intensity of their production, emissions reduction at the national, state, local, and individual is ineffective and just plain stupid.

Germany is a perfect example of a national prerogative to legislate individual sacrifice for the sake of climate action. Sacrifice for the sake of our great grandchildren is not something you can impose on a nation from the international community. It needs to be believed and voted on on the level at which democratic decision making happens - the national level. A nation should be able to opt out if their citizens won't vote for climate action, but they shouldn't be allowed to unfairly suck up trade surpluses by using cheap carbon-intensive power sources.

6/4/2017 8:39:08 PM

Quote :

"Sacrifice for the sake of our great grandchildren "

I'm sure the great grandchildren will appreciate the national debt and inflation resulting from leftist policies too. For the first time in America's history the future generations are going to have it worse than the previous ones, but hey let's pretend like we care about the future generations as we continue to shit on their economic opportunities, eh leftists? I'm sure they will love having overpriced housing and education, with more work and less pay, as long as a polar bear doesn't drown maybe.

6/4/2017 11:20:39 PM

those are all neoliberal policies. If it were up to the actual left, the cost of education and housing would be near nothing and the debt would be minimal or non-existant.

[Edited on June 4, 2017 at 11:26 PM. Reason : k]

6/4/2017 11:25:45 PM

That failed instance of the left wasn't really the left! _____ wasn't real communism! ____ wasn't real socialism!

6/4/2017 11:38:41 PM

I feel like we can't complain about China's emissions vs our own, because we suck up every cheap piece of plastic that China produces. Because it's cheap. And it's cheap because China doesn't give a shit about the environment.

Why don't we decide to pay more for our goods, bring that production back to our country, and ensure that they're produced in a responsible, sustainable manner? The only issue here is that the poorest people in our country would suffer the most from producing goods in-country.

6/5/2017 9:06:27 AM

Quote :

"are you implying that we should import"

No.

Quote :

"Germany is a perfect example of a national prerogative to legislate individual sacrifice"

I agree with your point about getting people to buy in, but sacrifice? This is the point of my OG German post: they've made tremendous progress with (relatively) modest investment, while their standard of living has still increased.

Portraying all environmental initiatives as requiring sack cloth garments and living off moldy rice is just buying into polluter talking points. We have plenty of examples of intelligently developed environmental regulation actually being a catalyst for jobs as economic growth. Those benefits are less likely to accrue to the 1% though, so they're treated as if they're non-existent.

6/5/2017 11:47:03 AM

Without significant social reform, Americans will never be able to care about the environment because they will have to make sure they save as much money as possible to pay for healthcare if their child gets sick. Our society puts pressure on everyday people to live with disregard for the poor and the environment. Caring puts you at greater risk to end up becoming one of the poor people who are affected by the bullshit.

[Edited on June 5, 2017 at 3:42 PM. Reason : keep em honest]

6/5/2017 3:42:12 PM

Quote :

"Germany has reduced CO2 emissions by 350 million tons since 1990. Almost a 30% reduction. In that same time period their GDP has roughly doubled. That's while pursuing questionable policies like ending nuclear power, generally having poor solar resources, and the rest of Europe acting as a drag on their economy."

Currently 14% of their energy is still generated by nuclear power.

Quote :

"And yet, for all its progress toward renewable energy, Germany isn’t on track to meet its underlying environmental goal. The objective motivating Germany’s current green push—to slash the country’s emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases—appears in doubt. Germany, long a cheerleader for more-aggressive international climate targets, has pledged to cut its carbon emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, one of the boldest targets in the world. Yet Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to estimates, rose in 2015 and probably in 2016 too. With the 2020 goal looming, Germany finds itself in the sticky situation of having cut its carbon emissions only 27% from 1990 levels. That’s because, at the same time that Germany’s domestic subsidies have produced more wind and solar power, the vagaries of the global ­energy market—high prices for Russian gas and low prices for coal, given a glut of exports from the U.S.—have induced the country’s power producers to burn more lignite, a particularly cheap and dirty type of German coal."

http://fortune.com/2017/03/14/germany-renewable-clean-energy-solar/

German household electrical bills have doubled since 2007, and their electrical rates are roughly triple the average paid by most of the US. Meanwhile the US leads the world in CO2 emission reduction over the past decade, all the while maintaining some of the lowest energy prices in the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/06/19/the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-lowering-carbon-dioxide-emissions/#2f7791ff5f48

6/6/2017 11:00:53 AM

You can only claim the US has reduced CO2 emissions the most if you use nominal values and ignore the country's starting point. The US emits 5x as much CO2 as Germany, so even modest reductions (as a % of US total) are larger than what Germany has achieved. If the US had achieved a 30% reduction similar to Germany, Germany would have to reduce their emissions to zero to match the nominal CO2 reduction.

6/6/2017 12:00:01 PM

That's a fair point that I won't ignore. Kind of like a fat person starting a workout regime at the gym

Still, the cost...Jesus.

6/6/2017 4:56:24 PM

Quote :

"https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2017/06/01/massive-iceberg-break-off-antarctica-crack-expands-11-miles/102385980/ in about a week we will probably have an iceberg the size of Delaware breaking off from Antarctica."

Do you read stuff like this and just naturally freak out? Because you really shouldn't. First, this ice is already supported by the ocean so it has zero impact on sea level. Second, this crack started forming 50-100 years ago so to say it's something other than mother nature at work is a bit foolhardy. And finally, it wouldn't be the first time something this large broke off.

6/6/2017 4:59:41 PM

that's what happens when you generate power when nobody wants it, and you effectively pay other generators and countries to shut down plants so that you can offload your excess wind energy during periods of low demand. Germany needs pumped hydro facilities a lot more than they need additional renewable interconnections.

6/6/2017 5:15:47 PM

"Don't worry, this won't affect sea level"

White climate change at its finest

6/6/2017 5:17:28 PM

Quote :

"First, this ice is already supported by the ocean so it has zero impact on sea level."

[Edited on June 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2017 5:28:38 PM

Quote :

"Germany needs pumped hydro facilities a lot more than they need additional renewable interconnections."

I don't know if you are talking about the little ones that don't create reservoirs but those can be much more impactful than any fossil fuel GHG emissions-wise.

6/6/2017 5:35:12 PM

^^
if you have ice floating in a container of water and it melts the water levels stays the same

https://www.quora.com/If-an-ice-cube-melts-in-water-why-does-the-water-level-stay-the-same

[Edited on June 6, 2017 at 8:55 PM. Reason : may or may not be good point ]

6/6/2017 8:50:06 PM

I think he's questioning the idea that ice connected to Antarctica is supported by the Ocean.

6/6/2017 9:06:30 PM

^^how do you claim a pumped storage facility is a major contributor to GHG emissions if the source of the stored energy is renewable?

6/6/2017 9:08:28 PM

JFC, its melting land ice (like much of Antarctica and Greenland) that contributes to rising seas, not sea ice.

[Edited on June 6, 2017 at 9:13 PM. Reason : But thx for the sixth grade Chem lesson ]

6/6/2017 9:12:19 PM

^Its not that simple. The ice "shelf", even if it floats on water, is connected to the ice on land acting as a buffer preventing the ice on land from slipping into the sea. Its questionable at best.

Quote :

"^^how do you claim a pumped storage facility is a major contributor to GHG emissions if the source of the stored energy is renewable?"

I said if it had a reservoir. The biomass in hydro reservoirs have the potential to produce as much GHG emissions per kwh as a coal fired powerplant depending on their shape and ecology. Hydro is far and away the most impactful source of renewable energy and should be avoided.

6/6/2017 9:40:36 PM

Quote :

"I feel like we can't complain about China's emissions vs our own, because we suck up every cheap piece of plastic that China produces. Because it's cheap. And it's cheap because China doesn't give a shit about the environment. Why don't we decide to pay more for our goods, bring that production back to our country, and ensure that they're produced in a responsible, sustainable manner? The only issue here is that the poorest people in our country would suffer the most from producing goods in-country."

There's nothing wrong with the wage arbitrage. If other nations can produce goods more cheaply because of lower wages, then both sides benefit and the labor forces further specialize. You're conflating that with environmental arbitrage.

If you want to know what's wrong with that, read what JCE2011 wrote 3 posts up.

Quote :

"I'm sure the great grandchildren will appreciate the national debt and inflation resulting from leftist policies too. For the first time in America's history the future generations are going to have it worse than the previous ones, but hey let's pretend like we care about the future generations as we continue to shit on their economic opportunities, eh leftists? I'm sure they will love having overpriced housing and education, with more work and less pay, as long as a polar bear doesn't drown maybe."

This is right in one sense - we can't go around making policies based on what's "nice to have". Citizens of developed nations who are not upper middle-class or better are facing of litany of increasing economic headwinds. The idea that some liberals (very specifically rjrumfel in this case) are okay with increasing cost of living factors for a weak ethical goal is probably infuriating to normal people. Conservative media outlets have certainly figured that out.

But global warming isn't a liberal issue, and it's not an environmental preservationist stance. Polar bears won't be saved even if we very successfully limit emissions.

Emissions control is about on-model and off-model changes, but probably more the latter, and especially the "surprises" that scientists haven't fully come to grips with. Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets, methane traps, and more fun stuff like that. These probably won't matter in 2100. Even agriculture in modern-day US and Canada probably won't be negatively affected by then. The really bad stuff will only start rolling in circa 2150 or-so, and we don't know what that's going to mean. For the most part, our detailed climate models just stop before that point, because the predictive value would be crap anyway. Only geology and planetary science gives us any good guides.

This isn't the Precautionary Principle either, as it is clearly being portrayed. "Bad" stuff is certain, "really bad" stuff is still debatable in terms of specifics and timeline. And we're not going to be able to stop those things.

Quote :

"^^how do you claim a pumped storage facility is a major contributor to GHG emissions if the source of the stored energy is renewable?"

Probably in reference to organic matter that decays underwater and emits CO2 or methane (can't remember which right now), but this is almost completely inapplicable to engineered pump storage, which is what this is about. In some cases, they even have a liner. These things are vastly more expensive per MW than mega-dams like the Three Gorges, but that's also kind of not the point.

[Edited on June 6, 2017 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2017 10:05:45 PM

whoa whoa whoa.

I've been accused of a lot of things, but being a liberal isn't one of them. That's offensive.

I'm sure there are other factors that make Walmart's plastic paradise so much cheaper to manufacture in China. They also don't care about the living conditions of their people. But not being hemmed in environmentally helps too.

6/6/2017 10:23:36 PM

China is embracing green energy at a faster pace than we are and are going to lap us economically because of it

6/6/2017 10:52:56 PM

EU Will Ignore White House And Work Directly With US States On Paris Agreement

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/eu-ignore-white-house-work-directly-states-paris-agreement

6/6/2017 11:54:55 PM

^^are you kidding? They're building coal power plants now at a faster rate than ever in their history. To the point that their construction of power plants is now outpacing their economy and they're considering selling their excess coal-fired electrical energy to Europe via long transmission lines, i.e. highly inefficiency.

Quote :

"This isn't the Precautionary Principle either, as it is clearly being portrayed. "Bad" stuff is certain, "really bad" stuff is still debatable in terms of specifics and timeline. And we're not going to be able to stop those things."

Say what? There isn't a single GCM out there today that's remotely accurate at predicting the future climate. In other words, no, bad stuff is not certain.

[Edited on June 7, 2017 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ]

6/7/2017 9:02:44 AM

^ https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/15/15634538/china-coal-cleaner

6/7/2017 9:51:02 AM

set em up

6/7/2017 9:51:40 AM