Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

cnredd · #1 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that "the world has lost ground to the climate crisis."

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."

SOMEBODY LISTEN TO ME!!!!...

saltwn · #2 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants

SOMEBODY LISTEN TO ME!!!!...

Spend some time near Beijing and you will understand what he is talking about.

faithful_servant · #3 (**permalink**) 09-25-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Spend some time near Beijing and you will understand what he is talking about.

China doesn't use the "clean coal" technology that we do. Zero soot, zero ash, near zero CO. If we were using coal to full advantage, we'd be buying FAR less foreign oil and employing thousands more people in some areas that are highly economically strapped. So, now that you've been introduced to the reality of the massive advantages of coal fired power plants, you can stop making uneducated comments comparing our vastly more advanced and clean coal tech. to China's terribly dirty and "retarded" coal tech. Oh, and before anyone starts in on acid rain, do some research and you'll find out that there never was such a thing. The pics that are shown of forest supposedly dieing are from disease, not acid rain and the reports of lakes becoming more acidic are the results of lowered alkaline soot emissions stopping the nuetralization of the lakes normal acidity to a more alkaline one (T. Jefferson sponsored a national study of our lakes and we have very good pre-coal data on these lakes acidity levels).

saltwn · #4 (**permalink**) 09-26-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

China doesn't use the "clean coal" technology that we do. Zero soot, zero ash, near zero CO. If we were using coal to full advantage, we'd be buying FAR less foreign oil and employing thousands more people in some areas that are highly economically strapped. So, now that you've been introduced to the reality of the massive advantages of coal fired power plants, you can stop making uneducated comments comparing our vastly more advanced and clean coal tech. to China's terribly dirty and "retarded" coal tech. Oh, and before anyone starts in on acid rain, do some research and you'll find out that there never was such a thing. The pics that are shown of forest supposedly dieing are from disease, not acid rain and the reports of lakes becoming more acidic are the results of lowered alkaline soot emissions stopping the nuetralization of the lakes normal acidity to a more alkaline one (T. Jefferson sponsored a national study of our lakes and we have very good pre-coal data on these lakes acidity levels).

This is just the Wiki version, but look it up for yourself on a non political website.

Quote:

"Clean coal" is an umbrella term used in the promotion of the use of coal as an energy source by emphasizing methods being developed to reduce its environmental impact. These efforts include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification (see also IGCC), treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, and carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas. These methods and the technology used are described as clean coal technology. Major politicians and the coal industry use the term "clean coal" to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use,[1] with no specific quantitative limits on any emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.

It has been estimated that commercial-scale clean coal power stations (coal-burning power stations with carbon capture and sequestration) cannot be commercially viable and widely adopted before 2020 or 2025.[2] This time frame is of concern to environmentalists because, according to the Stern report, there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

The concept of clean coal is said to be a solution to climate change and global warming by coal industry groups, while environmental groups maintain that it is greenwash, a public relations tactic that presents coal as having the potential to be an environmentally acceptable option. Greenpeace[3] is a major opponent of the concept because emissions and wastes are not avoided, but are transferred from one waste stream to another.

There ain't no Santa Claus and there ain't no "clean" coal.

faithful_servant · #5 (**permalink**) 09-26-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

This is just the Wiki version, but look it up for yourself on a non political website.

There ain't no Santa Claus and there ain't no "clean" coal.

The article redefines "clean coal" to include CO2 as part of the issue. I've yet to see how a gas that naturally constitutes .033% of our atmoshpere and that we only contibute a minute portion of that (parts per million) can create such a huge impact. If you throw out the flawed assumption about CO2, coal is a very clean and very affordable energy source. All coal plants are already required to have ash, soot, sulphur dioxide and CO mitigation in place. The technology is affordable, in place and if put to it's full implementation, would substantially reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies and create a bunch of new jobs in areas that desperately need them. It would lower energy costs, helping this nation's poorest where they need it the most - daily living expenses. It is the ONLY viable solution we have right now to this issue of reducing our dependence on foreign oil while reducing energy costs.

saltwn · #6 (**permalink**) 09-26-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

The article redefines "clean coal" to include CO2 as part of the issue. I've yet to see how a gas that naturally constitutes .033% of our atmoshpere and that we only contibute a minute portion of that (parts per million) can create such a huge impact. If you throw out the flawed assumption about CO2, coal is a very clean and very affordable energy source. All coal plants are already required to have ash, soot, sulphur dioxide and CO mitigation in place. The technology is affordable, in place and if put to it's full implementation, would substantially reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies and create a bunch of new jobs in areas that desperately need them. It would lower energy costs, helping this nation's poorest where they need it the most - daily living expenses. It is the ONLY viable solution we have right now to this issue of reducing our dependence on foreign oil while reducing energy costs.

I can only point to "the facts, Mam" on that one. My daughter who is a vocalist has the throat and lungs of a 40 year old smoker. She lives in one of the cleanest cities (for a big city) in America. She spent a year in China.

faithful_servant · #7 (**permalink**) 09-26-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

I can only point to "the facts, Mam" on that one. My daughter who is a vocalist has the throat and lungs of a 40 year old smoker. She lives in one of the cleanest cities (for a big city) in America. She spent a year in China.

We're not China. China's problem is with sulfur dioxide emissions from coal fired plants, we have regulations in place to ensure that this isn't a problem. You're trying to create a false equivalency. Just because China has problems caused by burning coal, doesn't mean that we have the same problems. We addressed those issues decades ago. Trying to compare our coal power plants to China's w/o doing some basic research into the issue is incredibly sloppy. We can easily stop sending billions of dollars overseas by burning coal instead of oil, but ignorant people/NIMBYs are stoppping us from doing so. This country sits on the worlds best, biggest and most accessible coal reserves, yet we keep buying oil for electrical power because of stupidity, ignorance and in the case of GW, flat out deception.

saltwn · #8 (**permalink**) 09-27-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

We're not China. China's problem is with sulfur dioxide emissions from coal fired plants, we have regulations in place to ensure that this isn't a problem. You're trying to create a false equivalency. Just because China has problems caused by burning coal, doesn't mean that we have the same problems. We addressed those issues decades ago. Trying to compare our coal power plants to China's w/o doing some basic research into the issue is incredibly sloppy. We can easily stop sending billions of dollars overseas by burning coal instead of oil, but ignorant people/NIMBYs are stoppping us from doing so. This country sits on the worlds best, biggest and most accessible coal reserves, yet we keep buying oil for electrical power because of stupidity, ignorance and in the case of GW, flat out deception.

We also had big pollution problems in my life time. I remember when you could barely see Jacksonville,Florida and Birmingham ,Alabama, Alabama due to git steal shavings and muck in the air. The air quality of Clute,Texas is abismal today.
We need to keep checks on the pollutants-ALL if them. I never mentioned continuing to buy oil for electricity. Following some of Pickens' proposals and opening the way for real clean energy is what I favor. I am not against nuclear, but I don't want it to be the biggest provider like oil became.

faithful_servant · #9 (**permalink**) 09-29-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

We also had big pollution problems in my life time. I remember when you could barely see Jacksonville,Florida and Birmingham ,Alabama, Alabama due to git steal shavings and muck in the air. The air quality of Clute,Texas is abismal today.
We need to keep checks on the pollutants-ALL if them. I never mentioned continuing to buy oil for electricity. Following some of Pickens' proposals and opening the way for real clean energy is what I favor. I am not against nuclear, but I don't want it to be the biggest provider like oil became.

Alt. energy simply cannot meet this nation's energy demands. The numbers aren't there. Nuclear has it's advantages, but it's never been a cost efficient way of generating power. The only way it ever been viable at all has been due to massive gov't subsidies. Right now, we need a solution that provides a lot of affordable energy w/o going overseas for it. The ONLY solution at this point is coal. Keep in mind that I'm a HUGE fan of developing a LOT of small scale alt. energy sources along the way, and that we should be developing alt. energy, but never forget that alt. energy alone will not meet our energy needs.

saltwn · #10 (**permalink**) 09-29-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faithful_servant

Alt. energy simply cannot meet this nation's energy demands. The numbers aren't there. Not if our government continues to ignore it. Nuclear has it's advantages, but it's never been a cost efficient way of generating power. Nuclear just needs a cheer leader. People were afraid of it. Some good PR would help. The only way it ever been viable at all has been due to massive gov't subsidies. Right now, we need a solution that provides a lot of affordable energy w/o going overseas for it. The ONLY solution at this point is coal. Keep in mind that I'm a HUGE fan of developing a LOT of small scale alt. energy sources along the way, and that we should be developing alt. energy, but never forget that alt. energy alone will not meet our energy needs.

I think you are right that we need to use all resources until we get alternatives online. From that point we part ways. I do think we can exist very comfortably on alt. energy.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to faithful_servant For This Useful Post:
Adept1