Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NY Times Editorial: Clean Power or Dirty Coal?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 05:18 PM
Original message
NY Times Editorial: Clean Power or Dirty Coal?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10sun2.html?ref=opinion
February 10, 2008

Clean Power or Dirty Coal?

Opposition to new coal-fired power plants built without new technology — that is, without the capacity to capture greenhouse gas emissions — is rising on both Wall Street and Main Street. Citizen opposition has led companies to cancel some high-profile projects, including a proposed plant near the Florida Everglades. Pressure from environmental organizations has persuaded major banks to begin weighing the risks of global warming when deciding whether to finance new plants.

This is good news. Coal-fired power plants are big contributors to global warming. In the United States alone, they generate half the country’s electricity and nearly a third of its emissions. Meanwhile, scientists have left no doubt that the world has just a few years to make deep cuts in emissions or begin to suffer the worst consequences of rising temperatures. This means that scientists will have to figure out a way to capture carbon dioxide from coal plants, or coal will have to be replaced with cleaner fuels.

Given that task, the failure — by both the Bush administration and Congress — to encourage alternative sources of power is distressing. Bowing to veto threats from the White House, Congress stripped from an otherwise admirable energy bill two important provisions on alternative fuels.

One would have required states to generate an increasing share of their power from renewable sources like wind and solar energy. The other would have rolled back about $12 billion in wholly unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry and used the proceeds to develop cleaner fuels and new energy technologies.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. .
"Despite Obama's stellar environmental voting record, he supports clean coal and nuclear technologies that are important to the economy of his home state of Illinois, but that some environmentalists find objectionable.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-04-03.asp

this bothers me--from what little i know about "clean coal" i don't see it as very clean. only good for illinois economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Obama's a whore.....
(IMHO)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-10-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. i wouldn't throw the term whore around after all the david shuster pimping business
that's been going on

but i do wonder about the possibility of a "sell out" for this coal crap just to suck up to illinois.

hey--i'm in illinois--and i think it's a terrible idea. he certainly wasn't winning my heart when he proposed it. i didn't realize there was such a large mining industry here. (me--too many years in the burbs)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. "Selling out" to coal, when he's also tagged here for being pro-nuclear? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. okay--so why is he pushing this "clean coal"? explain it to me
because i don't get it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-11-08 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. "Clean" coal is at least better than regular coal.
I'd rather not be using coal for power generation at all, but so long as we have to, better to have the maximum amount of filtration on the damn things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC