Well Trump has done it. Good by Paris Accord.

He has told the Asians & the Europeans that the US is no longer going to be their piggy bank, or take all their socialist ratbaggery any longer.

What does our twit have to say? He reaffirms OUR commitment to the now totally dead Paris Accord. Well that would be the Goldman Sachs idea of course, they have been making a squillion out of the scam, just as academia has.

No one with even good high school science could possibly believe the twaddle coming out of the UN & its IPCC, but of course fools like Obama, Turnbull probably actually do.

This is the making of the US, & hopefully the sinking of our slimy Turnbull.

You know, I’m starting to think there really must be a god out there somewhere.

Yes Hassy that idiot Fryberg was tied in knots today when questioned about the pros and cons considering the temp was tipped to reduce by a piddly 0.02 of a degree and that was with the US on board, they being a massive 20% contributor. We live in a fools paradise.

Bill Shorten will have a new nick name, he will be know as the 'bradby PM' the one that fell over the line because all others failed.

Welcome to the race to the bottom.

which has been the best? bye bye Europe (BREXIT), the election of Donald Trump or bye bye Paris?

Dear Hasbeen.

Really?

So the US joins Syria and Nicaragua as the only three nations not to commit to the Paris agreement and you call it “the now totally dead Paris Accord”?

I know you think the sun shines out of Trump's arse, that the US is the best thing since sliced bread and that their interests 'trump' ordinary Australians but he is not God. I repeat, he is not God!

Actually far closer to Godot one would have thought.

The state with the biggest economy in the US is sticking with the Paris targets and other states have joined it already. Over 30 mayors have committed their cities in the fight against global warming.

Here in Australia we have a natural wonder in dire strife because of rising sea temperatures, yet you don't care one jolt do you. Here is the deal mate. I have some money put aside for a rainy day and I'm really feeling sorry for you. What if I were to offer to fund your migration to your God's country? You could live out the rest of your days being cared for by their excellent public health card system.

Know all about the reef do you Steely?

Spent a lot of time out there studying it I suppose.

Na, you are just parroting the garbage from those fish tank "SCIENTISTS" in Townsville pushing for their next grant.

You'd be a good joke if you weren't so painfully arrogant.

All I know is that the planet has always changed, along with the weather.

We were once part of Africa..did man cause us to break off and float away?
We were once in an ice age..so what did we do to cause that?

We were supposed to have another ice age in the 70's but they got that wrong.
Humans have changed and the earth has changed since the beginning of time, whenever that was.
The earth is being destroyed but it would take 5 seconds to clean it up..ban plastic...all plastic..every single bit of it. We just had our annual roadside pickup and the amount of kid's plastic rubbishy toys alone was enough to sink the titanic and we're just a small coastal town! plastic buckets by the tonne!
Clean up the public transport and do something (I'm not paid enough to figure out what) about the amount of cars on the road. The lovely family next to me have 3 teenagers and all five members have a car and they all leave every morning, one teenager and mum and dad work and all head off in different directions, 2 teenagers go to the same high school but have different things to attend in the arvo's so each takes his car. Fair enough, but their carbon footprint would be huge. Their aircon goes all summer and reversed in the winter. I don't begrudge any of it ..I'm just sayin'. That's only one family.

Windmills are ugly and dangerous to birds (does anyone care that the green parrot is practically extinct because the windmills destroyed their migrant breeding path?) and human health apparently, nuclear is scary.

Talk fests by useless leaders who can't even squash a mob of murderous rebels let alone clean up the world ..does nothing. And that's all they are, billion $ talk fests, and nothing changes.

The way Trump is going is leaving the door wide open for China to move into South Asia and Europe. I think he has blown his last bit of creditability just like Abbott did. He has a lot of politicians against him now.
He has abused high ranking people wherever he has gone, if anyone is going to start a war it’s going to be Trump. He is a loose cannon in the streets of the world. Will there be an assignation, most likely, that is the quickest way of ousting him.
He is not governing in the interests of the USA, and no one knows who he is governing for. This man is very very dangerous. His mental stability needs looking into.

"Will there be an assignation, most likely, that is the quickest way of ousting him."

Unlikely, it's rather hard to kill a healthy man by a love in!!

Well what do you know.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers, who found that the Parris agreement, even if the US were stupid enough to stay in, would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100,” are claiming Trump misunderstood them. HA.

Their problem is he understood them all too well. He knew it was only to claim an increase in research dollars, not to show how useless all the rip off western money was to the claimed cause & the Paris talkfest.

Now with their bluff called, they are screaming like stuck pigs. The poor pigs are likely to get a lot less in the trough to stick their snouts in from now on.

They had better get used to kitchen scraps, now the tax payer funded caviar is drying up.

Here you all go again.
It does not matter in the least who is right and who is wrong.
There is not enough economically accessible oil & coal to cause the
predicted warming, even if they could decide how much would cause how
much warming.

The latest nonsense, there is a proposal that all solar & wind projects
must have enough battery backup to fix the reliability problem.
Someone either does not understand batteries or their cost or worked
out how much bigger generator they need to charge the battery and fix the reliability.
Gaud some people are stupid.
The more the stupidity the higher the pay rate.

I see Hasbeen’s still pushing this idea that some bloke driving a boat on the reef is going to know more about it than marine biologists. This time, with the justification that scientists are actually stupid enough to study the reef from unrepresentative fish tanks. How do you come up with this stuff, Hasbeen?

Then moonshine comes along with two oft-repeated canards: one about the climate always changing (which ignores a rate of change not seen for 65 Million years), and the other about predictions of a global cooling period which were never made (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1).

You guys need some new material. The rubbish you’re coming up with is long debunked. I’ve got one for you:

Greenland’s Ice sheet is growing!

No, seriously, it’s the latest claim: http://youtu.be/bEieWJghRNY. Get on board.

<<The Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers, who found that the Parris agreement, even if the US were stupid enough to stay in, would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100,” are claiming Trump misunderstood them. HA.>>

Erm, no, Hasbeen. Trump was wrong. The study he cited made no such claim: http://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-difference-will-paris-agreement-make-0422

But you just keep swallowing up all that crap you read in the blogosphere, won't you?

Ho Humm

Follow the money, here are figures in Millions and billions of dollars for individual projects Australia will be paying for.

Millions
946 million
429 million
250 million
325 million
32 million
126 million
3 million
70 million
4.5 million
40 million
273 million
40 million
273 million
30 million
22.3 million
360 million
273 million
2.4 million
24 million
100 million
354 million
100 million
16.1 million
37 million
24 million
43.9 million
323 million
350 million

Projects cost by Billions of dollars.
10 Billion
1.3 Billion
5.5 Billion
8.6 Billion
1.7 Billion

Link info on each project starts just a little way down from top.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/06/france-offers-asylum-for-persecuted-climate-grant-recipients-now-denied-taxpayer-funding.html

Just for you AJ, I didn't get to drive the boats more than once a week, but I had some ex professional reef fishermen who had over 20 years living 9 months a year in the Swains, who had each forgotten more about coral & fish than the entire staff of AIMS, The GB Marine park mob & James Cook had ever known driving them for me. Those blokes only survived if they knew an awful lot about coral, water & weather.

They don't have my BSc. but they are the sort of people who learn, but only talk when they really know what they are talking about.

I had learned a bit too, in 6 years cruising the islands & atolls of the Pacific. Then 3 years building jetties hand grafted into the fringing reefs of those atolls & volcanic islands meant I spent more time getting personally acquainted with real coral, not fish tank stuff ashore in Townsville, than most scientists.

I also learned a bit in 3 months with the shark callers of the Solomons.

I also learnt a bit from the 2 Ph.D. students I supplied outer reef transport & accommodation to over a couple of years. I was impressed they actually wanted to go out to the reef, & live there for some time to do real research.

Keep up your insults, I find then funny. Once you've been there & done that, jibes from the would-be’s of this world don't mean much.

Indeed a day to rejoice!

Next, Trump should also leave the U.N., declare them a terrorist-organisation, kick them out of his country and confiscate their Manhattan real-estate.

I don't know whether or not Yuyutsu is serious, but it sounds like a good idea.

Sorry AJ Phillips. The predictions re an ice age in the 70's were real whether you like it or not, the fact that it was rubbish is another story, but the predictions were definitely made.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=ice+age+predictions+1970s&oq=ice+age+predicti&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j0l5.11190j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and other
major American newspapers tell us that : -

"The US is the biggest carbon polluter in history.
It just walked away from the Paris climate deal."

195 nations have signed the agreement. And the reaction
has been huge. Widespread condemnation from political
leaders, heads of state, corporate executives, members
of the President's own staff, members of his own party,
his own daughter, and of course from many voters.

The US is the biggest carbon polluter in history.
Walking away from the Paris climate deal was sure to
cause a stir.

This move undermines America's standing in the world and
threatens to damage humanity's ability to solve the
pollution problem that can affect us all.

America's states, cities, and businesses are
stepping up and have expressed the will to do even more to
lead the way and help protect for future generations the
one planet we've got.

President Trump stated that he was representing Pittsburgh
not Paris. Well, the Major of Pittsburgh responded to
the President:

"I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of
the Paris agreement for our people, our economy, and
future."

The withdrawal process could take nearly 4 years to complete,
meaning a final decision would be up to the American voters
in the next Presidential election.

Foxy, China is the largest outputter of CO2.
They achieved that honour fairly recently.
The changes in the US electricity generating industry in changing from
coal to gas for a large part of their power stations handed that to them.

Anyway it does not matter. What does matter is the particulate
pollution from China, it has raised the pollution level in Western US states.

Dear Bazz,

China has achieved that honour recently.

I was speaking about the US historically.

The use of a resource such as coal cannot
be considered in isolation from its complex
environmental impacts. As we know, the
burning of coal produces sulfur and carbon
dioxide and the more coal that is burned the
more pollution of the atmosphere. The sulfur
helps form acid rain, which has a drastic
effect on forests. The carbon dioxdie from
increased coal burning contributes to the
"greenhouse effect".

I won't go into detail here on the "greenhouse
effect" suffice to say that I don't
think any thinking person denies that the
planet has a finite amount of resources, or that
it can tolerate only a limited amount of
pollution. As world population continues to
grow, as industrialisation spreads around the
world, and if pollution and resource depletion
continues at an increasing rate, where is human
society headed?

The most optimistic answer is that, one way or
another sweeping social changes await us.

Foxy;
One thing I have said over years is that all who wish to make
definitive remarks on electricity generation should make a point of
getting at least one visit to a power station.
People need to have a concept of the magnitude of the system.

There is going to be a transition to a new energy regime.
The problem is not global warming, the problem is how we get from
here to there.
The fundamental hurdle is to provide a continuous supply 24/7/52.
We need to build a system that can operate 24 hours no matter what
the wx and no matter how many sequential overcast windless days there
are over very large areas of the country.
The cost implications of this are massive.

The only way around this is the current system of coal or gas fired
power stations. In the longer term they have to be replaced.
So what is there available ?
err nuclear, ummm nuclear, oh dear nuclear.
Actually there is nothing else that meets the specs.
There other schemes but so far not available.
We cannot afford to build a fleet of nuclear power stations.
Fortunately Australia is blessed with a good supply of high quality
coal, so we can do it all gradually. Immediately start building one
nuclear station, then close a coal fired plant and then build another
nuclear plant, and so on.
If one of the other schemes comes good we can try one of those.

It should be possible to pay for all this by producing fuel rods
leasing them to other countries, reprocessing them, and after they
are completely depleted storing them.

A real bootstrapping job !

Dear Bazz,

I'm about to go out so I can't respond fully
to you at the moment. I shall respond later
tonight when I get home.

You have raised some very valid points.

We can solve our power cost problem by building more and more coal fired power stations and we can cut the amount of harmful emissions by stopping all coal exports.

Simple, keep the coal for our own use and do the world a favour.

exactly Is Mise. We will eventually use up all our coal but I think
we can manage the balance of new building and closing coal fired.

it will take a long time. I cannot guess how long, but we will earn our title of the lucky country again.

This is Amazing, so who is the Boss here. Trump?

Dear Bazz,

Well I'm back.

Now to the topic of burning coal.

We know that the more coal we burn, the more
we pollute the atmosphere with all its
resulting environmental problems.

A simple solution - keep burning coal.
Keep polluting the atmosphere. Keep
affecting the environment. Where there's
smoke, there's jobs as President Trump
believes. Simple - right?

However, a simple solution to society's energy needs
may turn out not to be so "simple".

Other
apparently simple solutions such as the use of
winds, tides or sunlight still appear, after years
of intensive research, to be too inefficient or
uneconomic for large scale use at present.

Of course there's nuclear to be considered.
But that also has the problem of the disposal
of hazardous waste. It seems to be a problem
that has no acceptable technological fix - as yet.

Your suggestions sound good Bazz. Doing things
gradually does make sense - but not too gradually.
Our investments in renewables is where our
future lies - and the sooner we make a start in
this area the better. The longer we delay - the
harder it becomes (and more expensive).

I'm no expert on the subject by any means - but
thinking logically we can't just continue to keep
doing what we've been doing. We need to look at
the long-term solutions and begin the process of
investing in trying to solve our energy problems
for our children and grandchildren.

At the moment, just west of Glen Innes, there is much building of renewables, specifically a large number of wind turbines and an array of solar panels.

"Creating a cleaner future through renewable energy

Sapphire Wind Farm is currently under construction. When complete, this large scale renewable energy project will provide enough clean energy to power around 115,000 homes and displace 700,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

It also brings many economic benefits to NSW’s New England region, including over 150 new jobs, as well as to the ACT capital region.

As the largest wind farm in New South Wales, Sapphire Wind Farm will help the ACT Government meet its target of 100% renewables by 2020, with construction due for completion in 2018."

This is but one of the three farms and will eventually have some 75 plus turbines.
Just how the power gets from Glen Innes to the ACT remains a bit of a mystery!
The other two are the Glen Innes and the White Rock Wind Farms, initially WR will have 70 turbines in Stage 1 and has an approved total of 119.
http://www.sapphirewindfarm.com.au/project/
http://www.whiterockwindfarm.com/

Dear Hasbeen,

You have earned your quid from the reef so now the rest of those who would like to do the same can just suck it up?

World renown reef scientists all attest to warmer waters being the main contributor to coral bleaching yet you want the rest of it to ignore their conclusions because you mucked around a bit on the reef?

Yeh right.

Stop being so bloody selfish. This is one of the wonders of the world and it draws tourist dollars from across the globe. Here is a recent Trip Advisor post;

“Visit to Green Island as part of a tour. The island itself was very touristy - good if you are seeking something safe and beautiful. The rainforest walk is well done. One reason for visiting was to see the Great Barrier Reef. It is clearly deep in trouble with widespread bleaching. Sadly, if your interest is in coral reefs, then the north end of the Great Barrier Reef is possibly not the place to go.”

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowUserReviews-g255069-d4151335-r473795582-Green_Island-Cairns_Cairns_Region_Queensland.html#

This “I'm all right Jack” attitude might let you get away with your Trump adulation to your nearest and dearest but it is pretty disgusting to the rest of us.

Foxy, we have no choice but to do things gradually.
you said;
apparently simple solutions such as the use of
winds, tides or sunlight still appear, after years
of intensive research, to be too inefficient or
uneconomic for large scale use at present.

It is not so much a problem of efficiency rather it is a matter of
Energy Return on Energy Invested.
Most figures I have seen is that the average output of a wind generator
is about 30% of nameplate rating.
That means a turbine with a 10 Megawatt rating averages around
3 Megawatt over a year.
That means you have to build 2 or 3 extra turbines to get 10 Megawatt.
A similar situation exists with solar cells.
There is an extra complication that the difference between summer
and winter complicates things even further.

Di Capit? the greens leader on the Insiders today really showed
himself up to be hopeless. He waffled on about the coal fired stations
should be closed as fast as possible and not to worry about the grid
stability, just do it, solar & wind & batteries will enable us to
have a reliable electricity supply.
I am sure he is totally ignorant about batteries and I believe
ignorant about anything electrical.

The pro solar & wind proponents work on the basis that the wind does
not die off everywhere at the same time. Up to a point that is true.
However a very large area with light winds can be very frequent.
There is a further complication, just as solar out put is falling off
to a low level the wind starts dyeing. Ask any sailor about that.
to be continued

Cont:
Now where was I ?
To cope with overcast days you need to decide how many days you are
going to cope with. For each day you have to add the same number of
generator (solar & or wind) for one day, plus battery capacity + 30%,
for each extra day of overcast and light wind. Think about the cost.
The extra 30% is to cater for the battery losses.

I have solar cells here and they face almost north.
I have noted five days overcast with no wind here.
They do not track the sun of course but it would make a big difference.
I get about 300 watts at 9am in summer & 200 in winter.
At noon for my cells, 12-30 aest I get 1090 wats in summer and 900 watt
in winter, but at 2pm I get 820 approx in summer and 750 in winter.
At 4pm I get about 200 watts summer and 6 watts in winter (shadow).
The problem is that all those pushing solar and taking into account
all the rooftop solar that people have/will install I believe have
never measured the output they achieve.

As Hazlewood has closed I think you had better stock up on candles.

Wind towers, made of steel and concrete, and solar panels, are made by using: ? Electricity.

That electricity is generated by: ? Renewable energy ? Don't be bloody silly, of course not, coal, oil and gas are far more efficient, hence cheaper. For all of those who buy such technology, also partly thanks to cheap Chinese labour.

When renewable energy technologies like wind towers and solar panels are being made by renewable energy, get back to us.

Joe

Hasbeen,

What SteeleRedux said. I still don’t see how your experience is sufficient reason to believe that you know more about the reef than marine biologists.

And, again, you have suggested that most marine biologists, who study the reef, do so from unrepresentative fish tanks. As if such a fatal flaw, in all the findings concerning the reef, could be overlooked by all marine biologists, yet spotted by some bloke who drove a boat. I’m not a marine biologist, nor am I even some bloke who drove a boat on the reef, and even I know why the findings in a fish tank could not be translated to the actual reef.

<<Keep up your insults, I find then funny.>>

Yes. Why, I’m sure you’re just rolling around the floor in hysterics.

I have used wording which conveys the absurdity of your claims, in a tone that mimics your blunt dismissiveness of facts; if you don’t like that, then don’t make absurd claims, and perhaps alter your tone to convey a more open mind too. You are getting as good as you give. Stop being so precious.

Even in light of what you have shared, what I have said still stands: a bloke who drives a boat on the reef (and has done everything you have done), is not going to know more about the reef than marine biologists - especially those who devote their studies to it (and would know it in excruciating detail).

Let’s be honest, though, it’s not your experience that makes you feel you know more about the reef than marine biologists. You think you know more than experts in any field if the majority disagree with you.

--

moonshine,

There were predictions from a small handful of scientists, yes, but it was by no means a consensus (obviously you didn’t read the article I linked to). So, your comparing it to the current predictions was unjustified.

That the planet will warm due to human activity has been the consenus among scientists since at least the ‘50s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6YyvdYPrhY

Again, you guys need some new material.

Dear Bazz,

Thanks for the information.

As I stated earlier - I am not an expert on the subject.
However I do know that we do have to try to work to
resolve our future energy problems we can't just
simply continue on our present path and ignore the
future outcomes.

Dear Is Mise,

Thanks for that.

It's good that something is being done.
That we're not just continuing on our
present path but that we are trying to
find technological innovations to solve
our problems in the future.

Dear Joe,

Yes coal deposits are plentiful and we have
ones that will last possibly for decades or
centuries and can be burned to generate energy as other
resources fail. But the use of a resource cannot be
considered in isolation from its environmental impacts.

Plans for what could be Australia’s first offshore wind farm have been unveiled, revealing an ambitious proposal for an $8 billion, 2GW, 250 turbine project off the coast of Gippsland in Victoria’s east.

The project, which was being presented to a state government New Energy Technology Roundtable on Friday, is the brainchild of five-year old Melbourne-based renewables outfit, Offshore Energy – headed up by veteran wind energy executive Andy Evans and the former chief of geothermal hopeful Petratherm, Terry Kallis.

Dearest Foxy,

Perhaps we should tell that to the makers of wind towers and solar panels: stop using fossil-fuel-powered electricity to make your technological marvels NOW !

As a universalist, I have a notion that Indians and other people in the Third World are as entitled to comfortable lives as we are. This means the production of far more goods and services to meet their needs. Until renewable energy technology is produced by renewable energy, this means a reliance on fossil fuels.

The instant that this miracle occurs, I'll be amongst the first to demand an end to fossil fuel-generated electricity, and therefore to coal mining, etc. Until then, the increase in comfort levels of the Third World and the necessary production of CO2 is just one more issue that the world as a whole has to deal with. I hope it hurries up.

We have no right to tell people not to develop their societies in order to live in a world with the comforts that we take for granted.

Love always,

Joe

doog - The cost of repairing, servicing and maintaining off shore turbines plus initial costs by far outweigh any benefit.

More windmills! We have lots already that are due to be replaced or refitted at prohibitive costs. Apparently, 10 years is all you can expect from these 'wonders' before replacement is necessary.

Australia’s largest ever solar power plant, AGL’s 102 megawatt Nyngan – has begun feeding power into the grid. But there’s a far more interesting solar power plant no one is talking about in Mildura.
The Nyngan plant in Western NSW now has its first 25MW of capacity, involving 350,000 solar modules made by First Solar, generating power that is exporting power to the grid. Further generation will progressively be brought online over the next three months as the remaining three sections of the plant are individually commissioned.

Ok Foxy, a book you might find interesting is "Too Much Magic" by
James Kunstler. Joe I think will also find it interesting.
It tackles the dependence we place on technological fixes.
You might get it in your local library.

Doog 350000 panels to generate a measly 25 Megawatt.
That means 28 million panels to equal one large coal fired station !
Hmm, and it only produces near its max output for four hours a day !
Does it track the sun ? then it will work for 8 hours a day.
I would presume that the project is dependant on subsidies.
However all these projects depend on something else taking up the
load when the sun goes down.
ttbn; It should be possible to refurbish for quite reasonable cost.
The gearbox might need replacing as that would be the most mechanical
part involved. The blades could be replaced with new/reconditioned
ones so it could be quite practical to refurbish.

Because you can bet on it that at intervals there will be no sun and
no wind. So a backup system that is equal in size is needed.
If batteries, it is just an absurd cost, therefore it has to be gas
coal or nuclear. What else is there ?

Dear Joe,

You know what.

I'm too tired to argue with you.
I'll leave it for now.

Dear Bazz,

How expensive would nuclear be, and what do we
do with the toxic waste?

cont'd ...

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/australian-energy-resource-assessment

The only answer is nuclear power stations and before it is too late.
The government sold off the power infrastructure based on the cash reserves the
units held and as soon as the new owners stepped in they raped the cash out as
dividends and exorbitant salaries and now they have to increase the
cost of power exponentially to cover infrastructure updates and maintenance.
The governments have to allow the increased costs because the people have to have
power and they are powerless to do anything about it.
It's almost too late to act but getting out from under the climate change bull crap just as
Trump has done would give us a chance.

Foxy had a quick look at the site you referred.
Needs more time than I have right now.
All the "renewables" have some unreliability built in.
Even tidal because their output falls to zero twice a day.
At least is known when. It suffers from the same maintenance problem
as wave systems, ie the ocean is a very hard location for anything.
A number of systems have been built and failed.

Geothermal very good if they can get it working. Corrosion was the
problem with the Sth Aus project.

Alan B's favourite Thorium needs a good try and as far as uranium
is concerned, the Sth Aus Govt has a suggestion;
Dig it up, process it into fuel rods, lease them to o'seas generators
get them back, reprocess them; repeat; repeat; then when depleted
stick them in a hole in the outback. (in a dug out ehausted uraniun mine !)
I have held depleted uranium in my hand, it is harmless.

Dear Bazz,

Thanks for taking a look.

It's all above my head.

But I am convinced that we've got to keep on trying
and hopefully one day we'll come up with solutions
that do work.

Well Trump has done it. Good by Paris Accord.

I dont think so, read this:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/06/05/washingtons-empire-not-unraveling/

Yeah, countries all agree to limit their carbon as long as America pays for it.

Maybe they should limit their populations that consume coal in enormous amounts cooking and lighting their abodes.