COAL
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL
Concerned about the use of coal? You should be, because there is no such thing as “clean coal” and it’s the most polluting of all forms of energy that we currently use. Unfortunately, we use a lot of coal. So does China, and you can see the horrible results of that. Carbon sequestration is said to be the answer, but it has not been invented yet for practical use except on a very small scale, and is not being used right now. It’s theoretical and it would be so expensive, and may be so impratical, that it may never be put into effect. Coal is so dirty and damaging that Al Gore is advocating people start to use civil disobedience actions to prevent new coal plants from being built. (See below).
Here are some resources for everyone interested in climate change and worried about the use of coal and mountaintop removal, a byproduct of the use of coal. The first is a website called I Love Mountains, the second is a succinct explanation of why coal isn’t clean energy and probably never will be. A third is a new website project (as of December 2008) started in cooperation with Al Gore, called ThisisReality.org and is a project designed to inform the public that there is no such thing as clean coal.
In addition, mining for coal usually involves blasting and removing the tops of mountains, causing irreperable harm to the environment in areas where these mountains exist. Read more about the environmental damage coal does at I Love Mountains.org
Website: Ilovemountains.org
You may know that Al Gore is reported to be considering RAN’s offer to participate in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal-fired power plants, stop mountain top removal mining, and help prevent climate destruction. Just last week, in Rolling Stone, he again talked about civil disobedience in connection with coal, the world’s biggest source of greenhouse gases:
Look at Texas, where TXU wanted to build eleven new coal plants. Mayors all across that state, Republican and Democratic alike, were spurred by their grassroots supporters to rise up and say, “No, you don’t. We will not allow you to build all of these dirty coal plants here.” The entire deal collapsed, until it was reworked by an environment-minded group that said, “Wait a minute, let’s rejigger this whole thing and apply green standards.” All across the world, you’re seeing developments like that. You’re also going to see people practicing civil disobedience, lying in front of the bulldozers and the dump trucks to physically prevent the building of any new coal-fired plants.
We were on the front lines of the TXU fight, and just yesterday, RAN (along with Coal River Mountain Watch, SEAC and others) organized a die-in targeting Citi, the world’s biggest funder of coal. By targeting banks, we can cut off the flow of financing to coal projects at its source. Activists lay in front of a bank rather than a bulldozer, but the principle is the same: we can no longer afford to tolerate coal, or the banks that fund it. We’re still hoping that Al will join us on our November 16-17 national day of action against coal finance (you can still sign our friendly petition asking him to come participate in civil disobedience). And even if you have yet to win a Nobel prize, we need your support, too.
LATImes Editorial — Coal and votes
Obama and McCain’s embrace of coal is mostly about pandering to swing-state voters.
October 7, 2008
Unfortunately for Barack Obama and John McCain, there is no such thing as “clean coal.” The phrase is an Orwellian marketing slogan invented by coal interests, yet both presidential campaigns are eagerly embracing it. This raises a serious contradiction: You can’t claim to be interested in fighting global warming or pollution, as both men do, while backing a filthy fossil fuel like coal
The political dilemma over coal resurfaced in last week’s vice presidential debate, when Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Sarah Palin got into a tiff over Biden’s stance on clean coal. Earlier, at an Ohio rally, Biden had told a reporter, “We’re not supporting clean coal.” Apparently, he hadn’t checked with his running mate — Obama disagrees. Biden rushed to cover his gaffe; during the debate by saying his remarks had been taken out of context.
The talk about clean coal is similar to an earlier political fracas over clean cars. Faced with calls for tighter fuel economy standards, Detroit responded with ad campaigns pointing out all the money it was spending to develop cars that would run on hydrogen fuel cells, which would emit nothing but water. In other words: We don’t need to clean up now, because the car of the future is on the way. Never mind that the hydrogen fuel cell is a speculative technology that may never arrive.
Coal producers are similarly trying to head off future greenhouse-gas regulation by marketing so-called clean coal, which relies on the notion that we eventually will be able to liquefy carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants and pump the waste underground, a process called “carbon sequestration.” Even if all the bugs can be worked out — and there are serious concerns that the underground carbon would leak into the atmosphere — this would be an extremely expensive process that might never pencil out economically.
Coal backers rightly point out that even without carbon sequestration, new technologies have reduced some emissions. But this is sort of like tobacco companies claiming that filtered cigarettes are “safe”; just because it’s cleaner doesn’t make it clean. From extraction to combustion, coal is an environmental catastrophe. It is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, the top source of mercury pollution and among the top causes of global warming. Particles and soot from burning coal kill thousands of Americans every year. And its extraction ruins ecosystems as mountains are blown apart and the rubble is tossed into streams.
McCain and Obama back coal because they want to win key coal-producing swing states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania. Yet their embrace of a 19th century solution to a 21st century energy problem is an embarrassment to both campaigns.”
Page 5 — A MESSAGE TO OUR NEXT PRESIDENT
Recent Comments