Greenwashing Dirty Coal Energy

If it's not your community that Dirty Coal is destroying, is it unimportant?

If their beloved mountains are being destroyed, their communities sickened and their towns flooded to feed your quest for electricity, are you more important?

I've listened and read all the hype about clean coal and sequestration. I've read all the proclamations about how many years worth of coal the US possesses. It doesn't ring true.

Consider the following:

Energy companies have made it abundantly clear that any forward movement on ccs, as well as other clean-coal technology, depends on the government's shouldering a good share of the expense. They got a fair bit of what they wanted in last year's energy bill, which jettisoned key measures to support solar and wind power (including a requirement that utilities move toward generating 15 percent of their power from renewables) but set aside billions for research into CO2 sequestration. The subsidies come on top of an even larger set of handouts found in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included some $4 billion in direct grants, loan guarantees, and tax incentives for gasification and other clean-coal initiatives. MoJo

If photovoltaics, wind, wave/tidal, geothermal or fuel cells received $4 billion, where would we be?

Energy independent?

MoJo:

And the push is likely to continue—at the state level, as well as in Washington. Last year in Kentucky, the governor signed a bill to provide a subsidiary of Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal company, with $250 million in tax breaks and other incentives to build a coal-gasification plant. In Wyoming, the legislature put through an exemption on the sales tax for synthetic fuel made from coal and has pursued a public-private partnership to develop it. Legislators are also looking at a new category of below-ground rights, which could provide a free, publicly controlled zone for storing sequestered carbon. Says Bill Bensel, an organizer with Wyoming's Powder River Basin Resource Council, "We're just trying to show we can be as green as we can, so we can sell more coal."

When your elected official tells you that coal sequestration is a viable solution to our energy crisis and global warming, you might want to ask the source of his information. And you might want to review his campaign contributors.

.

.
.
As a footnote: I received a comment that appeared to be from Donald Lambro, the Washington Times Journalist, whose columns are superficial and indicate a lack of comprehension of complex topics, but instead repeat think tank rhetoric, designed to conceal the facts. I invite a google search for any who are interested.

.

It should be noted that the Washington Times is owned by Rev. Moon and has long since ceased any journalistic standards.
.

Should the comment have originated with Mr. Lambro, I would call it to your attention that since comments require approval, I am averse to publishing and responding to pot shots that lack substance. Nor will I publicize your outdated blog. Your comment was posted on an entry having to do with the environmental destruction caused by mountaintop removal in the process of obtaining coal. That process has destroyed communities, sickened residents, and left in its wake the greatest environmental degradation imaginable.

.

The current Administration has trashed and disregarded bipartisan environmental regulations intended to protect the legacy left to future generations, including the Clean Water Act.

.

Had you taken the time to wade through the scientific links provided, you might have enlightened yourself.

.

While others might be flattered at the attention and that my blog has been emailed so vigorously, I would instead caution: make a meaningful comment and I'll consider posting it.