Mike Corbeil. Keep in mind that the fossil fuels industries have lots of money to spend spreading falsehoods about global warming. There is absolutely no scientific dispute about the effect of CO-2 on climate. In the early 1800's Joseph Fourier discovered that certain gases such as CO-2 trap heat in the atmosphere. This is a known and completely undisputed fact. No real scientist disputes this fact. In 1860, further work by Svante Arrhenius quantified the amount of warming that could be expected with an increase in CO-2 levels.

Another undisputed fact is that prior to the Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon stood at 260 ppm. Today atmospheric carbon is at 380 ppm. No one disputes these levels. We can measure these levels just as we can measure the temperature on a given day.

It goes without saying that when you take a carbon intense substance such as coal, and burn it, you have increased the CO-2 in the atmosphere. There is simply no uncertainty. Fossil fuels WILL destabilize the climate.

Catch 22 here. Americans wont change a centimeter unless elected officials set laws for change. And politicans wont take action for fear of not getting reelected.
So--who goes first?

I live in Texas, and I have to say that the Coal industry won big time here in the recent battle over new coal plants, mostly in the Waco area.

They presented the state with plans to build I believe 11 new plants. immedialtely the protesters went to battle, and the coal industry ended up revising the number to 3. The protest groups immediately cried victory, without ever considering that perhaps the coal industry may have originally had plans for maybe 2 new plants, jacked the request up to an unapprovable request for 11 or 12, and got 3.

I cannot believe that, in the year 2008, we are still discussing coal as an energy source. Anyone see whats going on in our beautiful Appalachian mountains?

Since the Regressives are waging a war on the environment, can they be tried and executed as War Criminals? It a thought ;)

If we were all vegetarians, if we all recycled, if we had few energy needs, consumed less, polluted less, etc., we might fit a couple more billion people on the planet. But we don't, we won't and we can't.

Carbon Dioxide can be recycled back into fuel with no net release to the environment. It has been possible for ages but why make an already complex system more complex? For that matter you could do this with both coal plant smoke and motor vehicle exhaust. But there is an impassable gulf between what is possible and what is practical in either a economic or technological sense.

Paul and Kucinich- A green ticket?

http://www.alternet.org/story/74268/

-[snip]

Kucinich: ... So what I've done in my campaign is to advocate a full-employment economy. How do you do that? A new WPA-type program. We'll rebuild America's bridges, water systems, sewer systems, our libraries, our universities, our mass transit systems. And we do that with a program that I introduced legislation in repeated Congresses with the cosponsorship of a Republican from Ohio by the name of Steven LaTourette and the bill, HR 3400, provides for rebuilding America's infrastructure. And I would put millions of people back to work in good-paying jobs. I would put millions more back to work in new energy policies where we would design, engineer, manufacture, install and maintain wind and solar microtechnologies which would be retrofitted into tens of millions of American homes and businesses, driving down our carbon footprint and dramatically reducing our cost of energy. This would be a major development in America to take us away from a condition where America is leading the way towards the destruction of our global climate. I call this part of it the WG: a Works Green Administration, where we turn government into an engine of sustainability, where the whole government becomes about moving towards green. The transportation plan, mass transit, housing and development - it's about green housing, solar, natural lighting, using recycled material, the energy department stops incentivizing coal and oil and nuclear, and moves toward incentivizing wind and solar, bringing forward a whole generation of entrepreneurs just waiting to get into green energy solutions.

[Australian ABC TV's] KERRY O'BRIEN: You said just a couple of weeks ago that there should be a moratorium on building coal fired power plants until the technology to capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions is available. But you must know that that's politically unacceptable in many countries China, America, Australia for that matter, because of coal industry jobs and impact on the economy.

[NASA climatologist] JAMES HANSEN: Well, it's going to be realised within the next 10 years or so that we have no choice. We're going to have to bulldoze the old style coal fired power plants....

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1870955.htm

Coal rank and thoughts on EROEI
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3496

For what little it's worth, Dennis Kucinich isn't in Big Coal's pocket, which is just one of the reasons he has been systematically ignored by corporate owned media.  If you haven't seen how coal is mined these days take a look at a few high resolution images of mountaintop removal coal mining in WV and KY.

kayaker, green_disposition, RebelFarmer discussing energy consumption, first block "we can't" out of mind to make things possible. Realize that we have sheeple and they need to be led. Book is written/published - civics curriculum introduces people to book - as media propaganda oozes, citizen refers to book, finds truth, acts accordingly. Truths about governance, energy, finance, industry, ecology, that enable citizen to vote public interest in both exchange/association.

COMarc, prices today mean nothing because they're fixed. Instead, build mental model of public-driven economy, good template is local economy. Constrain the wider economy to echo that, via boycott. Energy, production are consumed according to cost/benefit ratio. With full costs in retail prices, citizen makes enlightened choices in the public interest. Capitalists have no place. Results: healthy, thriving biosphere, delicious/nutritious food, thoughtful/peaceful people, enlightenment, progress, prosperity, justice. Freedom with responsibility. 15 hr work weeks.

MiMiCcS, Earth can support 10 billion agrarians on 20% of land.

Ah yes, coal gasification. I remember that there was a good old movie about that, I believe the title was "The Formula". Oh well, in the end the formula was buried by big oil. There were some great lines in the film regarding oil as the great American "Teat", and "IS IT SAFE?"

I think the problem here is that people still believe the Dem or Repub leaders will fix our energy and global warming problems.

Both those parties allow for deep pocket contributions from corporations and those who own them. All presidential and most congressional candidates from these parties are bought and paid for by Dirty Money. Check out opensecrets.org for details on both election contributions and lobbying dollars received by your local or national politician. You will note that it is getting exponentially more expensive to run campaigns, especially to defeat incumbents.

The Green Party of USA has policies that disallow large and corporate contributions and lobbying dollars to their candidates and/or office holders. In other words they force candidates to win favor from a large number of Americans instead of a few special interests. While they have so far only held positions at the city council and county supervisors level, this party is perhaps the only serious long term solution to protecting our environment and perhaps even democracy.

I applaud Kansas for fighting it out in the courts, however, over time, more and more judges on the appeals court and the supreme courts will be appointed by a growing number of Dirty Money politicians.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington!
Jimmy Stewart

The worthiness of the candidates in this race, in my opinion, is inversely related to their popularity. The best: Gravel and Kucinich, are extremely unpopular with Gravel, the best, the least popular of all (less than 1%). The ones likely to continue warring are very popular: McCain, Romney, Clnton and Obama. The candidates believe there is nothing to be gained by courting an anti-war vote which has nowhere to go and isn't high anyway. People are anti-war the way they are anti-games that nobody wins. They want a victory, or give up. By now, might as well wait for the elections and try with the new manager. After all those departed generals and overrotated soldiers, the bullpen is hurting. But give up the game? I don't see it in the voter's mood.

Coal to liquid fuel was used by the Nazis with American technology and investment in the years prior to WW II as they were implementing their anti Jewish program.

Oil prices at current levels make this economically feasible. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than growing corn needed to feed the hungry and driving up food prices by converting it to ethanol to add to gasoline. Now that is really nuts. At least you can not eat coal, might as well use it for something (but not coal fired plants, ever been to Beijing in the winter?).

Those who want to go back to live in an agrarian society, fine. Just figure out what the best way is to cull 80% of the population and who decides who will live. Some of your leaders have already thought this out.
That should comfort you (good luck). Sort of explains why no Manhattan project for alternative energy.

Incidentally, the Pentagon consumes more oil than many countries, over 300 thousand barrels per day (more than sweden or switzerland). No wonder we are in Iraq.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174810/michael_klare_the_pentagon_as_global_gas_guzzler

I'm not sure about the CO2 due to us, humans being cause, significantly anyway, of global warming and other instances of (variable) climate change (warming in some places, while cooling in others). And I guess the main reason for my lack of certainty in this is that some scientists have reported that they believe that the Earth is going through global climate change, i.e., GW, because it's part of the cosmos going through this same sort of period; not only planet Earth. Some of those reports, though only if I'm recalling correctly, which I think to be doing, well, some of these are based on also NASA findings, or findings by some NASA scientists perhaps working during their own leisure time (not on the job, iow). And this'd be wholly sensible for scientific guess, imo, but: a) I don't know what the facts are; and, b), I've not come across any other scientific views at all on this global change of the cosmos and which is said to be due to the sun.

Some of those scientists argue that our CO2 emissions are not contributing to global warming at all, while the others say that they believe we're contributing, while doubting that it's as much as the warming due to the cosmos itself, whole, warming. Meanwhile, I've not heard or read of the GW "fan club" scientists at all mentioning this other theoretical if not proven cause or major contributor, the cosmos warming up.

It's always important to not follow blindly, particularly when we have a good alternative, choice to choose. None of these above theory groups have satisfied my questions; while the above one on the cosmos warming up probably, no, it definitely is my most critical question still awaiting answers. if the cosmos is warming up, then NO responsible and respectable scientist dealing with the GW and CC, climate change, topics can overlook presenting adequate input on the cosmos warming and the expectable effects of that on Earth.

But whether burning of coal and oil really contribute to GW or not, this is far from my only reason for being against these industries producing emissions. I'm against the use of fuels like oil (evidently only Western scientists or Big Oil continue to believe that this is fossil fuel, when Russian scientists have proven (or German and Russian, and during 20th century) that it's not of fossil origin, etc.). And the reason I'm against the use of these fuels is because they're not cleanly used, speaking of elements other than CO2; instead meaning toxic elements like lead, mercury, composite elements, POPs, persistent organic pollutants. (CO2 is not toxic, unless we breathe, inhale it, instead of exhaling it after having consumed the oxygen.)

All that produces poisonous, toxic elements which don't naturally occur in any given location being considered must be stopped. It takes insane people to poison their and others' environments when it's known that this is indeed happening; and I don't ally myself with insanity. Sometimes it's due to ignorance instead of insanity, but it's still irresponsible ignorance, unacceptable; for we shouldn't try to do something unless we first know that the activity will not be poisoning or harming us and/or others. Ignorance needs to responsibly kept in check.

I'm also against the coal industry because of the incredibly destructive way employed to extract the coal. It takes INSANE and insanely selfish, greedy people to destroy forests and mountaintops ... for ANY reason; regardless of the reason it's still insane. Whether it be for coal, gold, ..., whatever, makes no difference to me; destroying the environment, and both insanely and criminally so, is the issue to me. I'm against all strip and/or open-pit mining of significant scope in terms of surface area that's affected.

But the power elites and their irresponsible and criminally complicit political-stage puppets and msm corp. media propagandists or pundits don't care. They insanely enjoy trying to SUBJUGATE absolutely everything to their insane whims. They feverishly do this to get ever cheaper labour as well as for all of Earth's other natural resources.

To them, they always have to feel as if they're at the top, "king of the hill", and "screw all the rest of you", meaning us. They don't even care about their own families; for it's clear that they don't care to carefully consider what kind of world their grandchildren and so on will have to live with just so grand-dad, great-grand-dad (and -mom), and so on could live out their hellishly selfish lives as delusionally as they desired.

For them, "there's a reaction for every action", causality, consequences are very meaningless; as if only possible in imagined ways, not real ones. That is, it's how these people appear, for I believe that they really do not care and criminally, and racketeer-ingly, so. They have some, surely enough, awareness that the consequences to their ways are unhealthy, but only think of themselves.

They're herein traitors too; and again.

It's all treason [again].

Coal accounts for about 1/4 of US energy consumed, half of which is pure waste or "rejected energy." In other words, in the transformation of any energy from an available to an unavailable state, entropy is loss that most people can only comprehend as 'inefficiency' and yet the two should not be confused.

In any case, one pound of coal is roughly equivalent to one kilowatt-hour and and two pounds of carbon dioxide.

Now, particularly those states where coal is the primary source of electricity, readers can get out the utility bill and ponder that for every kilowatt-hour used, twice that number of pounds of carbon dioxide were an unfortunate "externality" which we all can pay for in the globally warmed future.

More puzzling, a typical coal plant wastes two out of every three units of energy it consumes, so actually, it's worse than a 1:2 ratio.

Is it cheap? It's as cheap as global warming can get!

The US wastes more electricity on phantom loads than all of Australia uses! Our politicians don't know what that means and they don't care.

It will take a strong tide to wash them out to sea...

Would coal sink the profits of the Organization of Oil Extorting Countries?

Thank you, kayaker. Too often we want someone to fix things like this for us so that we don't have to fix or even examine ourselves. Who's using the coal, anyway? My state has none, but uses coal for 90% of the electricity generated here.

Imagine explaining this crazy system to someone from another planet. A mountaintop in a lovely area is sliced off. Black rocks are removed, and what is not wanted is often shoved down into a hollow. This process harms the individual miners and the surrounding area. The useful rocks are loaded in a truck. They are moved from a truck to a train. The trains deliver them constantly to parts of the country that have no such rocks. There they are burned and the resulting energy travels through wires so each of us can mindlessly flip a switch for light, and possibly refuse to use compact florescent bulbs because maybe we don't like them, and "liking" is the top priority here.

The power from burning the rocks is very, very cheap, so we don't have to turn off anything, ever, unless we feel like bothering. We hardly ever feel like it. "Feeling like it" is another top priority here. Our TVs and stereos and computers often use these rocks even when we're not using the TVs and stereos and computers.

Imagine our visitor's bafflement with our system. Imagine trying to explain how it evens sustains itself. And some say crank-powered lanterns are inconvenient! We each need a lump of coal attached to a photo of a mountaintop mine on our coffee tables or desks. It could also be attached to a picture of an autopsied black lung. Then maybe we could prioritize just a teeny bit.

But wait, kayaker? You won't change voluntarily? Why not? It's no fun living the wasteful way. It's self-perpetuating and convenient, and that's it. I have a wool sweater on under a fleece top, both from the thrift store. It's 11 degrees out and cold in the house, but I'm not cold. In fact, when I was just cleaning house, I was too hot. We have a Prius but are walking and biking just about everywhere. I don't know why human brains malfunction the way they do, but none of this ends up any trouble, the way your brain tells you it will before you try it.

I remember reading about some feral kids who were found in the woods in France, and how, once institutionalized, they couldn't be forced to take hot showers. They liked cold ones, though. These preferences that seem set in stone to us are quite changeable.

CO Mark, I think the author actually is saying the opposite about the red-state / blue-state stereotype... He writes:

"...that so-called red state Kansas... "

I think his point is that many on the left have written off rural areas or places like Kansas, when, in fact, they are home to a lot of citizens movements, as he calls them.

This author is fairly strong on debunking stereotypes. He wrote a great book on Appalachia that talked about all of the progressive social movements that have come out of that region, and how the hillbilly and redneck stereotype is wrong.

SecularAnimist: You said, "... capturing the waste heat from industrial smokestacks and using it to generate electricity could produce as much electricity as is currently produced by nuclear power, at FAR lower cost and with none of the dangers of nuclear."

WOW! I'm a longtime anti-nuclear activist, but I've never read this anywhere before. May I ask where you got the info?

"Kennedy...lost his street cred on this issue when he endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton..." Uhhh, how about he lost his 'street cred' as an environmentalist to be taken seriously when he became the leading opponent to the wind farm off Cape Cod...you know, the one that would spoil their view of Nantucket Sound? What hypocrisy.

I too thought the reference to Nazi Germany and South Africa was a cheap shot, CoMarc's comments on that say it better than I can.

SECULAR ANIMIST: Thank you for the auspicious message.

KAYAKER: I, like REBEL FARMER, am conscious of conservation as a lifestyle. My home only "does" heat if the temperature goes under 50 and I seldom use AC in summer. I am astounded by how COLD most US malls, office buildings, dentist offices, etc are. People are afraid to sweat! Ameicans throw an enormous amount of food away, the vast majority leave motors running when they stop to get an item at a "convenience" store. I drove to Disney a few years ago and was disgusted that so many large tourist buses ran in the parking lot to stay cool! The collective exhaust is a bane to all things natural!

Metaphorically speaking, there may be a resonance between the many women's breasts lopped off (in breast cancer "treatment") and symbolic form of mascetomy done to nature's bosom given the way entire mountain tops (along with their interwoven, marvelous, miraculous ecosystems) are lopped off. What a way to treat a planet! The toxic overload of course configures into the spread of cancer so my use of poetic license to establish a connection is NOT too far fetched!

While I agree with almost all of this, and I appreciate the author pointing out that the leading Dems are all financed and supportive of the coal industry, there's a couple of points that have to be made.

Whether a technology is 'outrageously expensive' depends on the price of the alternatives. When the price of oil continues to rise, some things that used to seem expensive might not seem to be so in the future. Also, sometimes you'd pay more for an energy that is portable as a liquid fuel. Doesn't mean I think this is wave of the future or anything like that. But I've learned to be very careful about authors who dismiss something with the back of their hand like this.

Also, the bit about Nazi Germany and South Africa is very much cheap shot. What those two nations both have in common is that they were both cut off from the ability to buy oil on the world markets by world reaction to their disgusting policies. As such, its not so surprising that they turned to a technology like this. In fact, that goes back to the first point in that in each case this probably didn't seem so expensive when oil was blocked by war or sanctions. But to somehow try to draw a connection between coal liquidification and the odious policies and nature of Nazi Germany and South Africa is pretty ridiculous.

Then of course there's the sort of comment that's almost become standard fare in writing on the left ... the strange comment about how even a 'red-state' like Kansas is fighting a coal plant. It may surprise narrow minded leftists with sloppy thinking, but farmers, ranchers and others who live in a rural environment may actually care about their local environment more than a surburban housewife who donates to Greenpeace. After all, they have to live there. This constant stereotyping of every one who lives in a 'red-state' is becoming quite annoying. Well, as annoying as stereotyping always is. The use of stereotypes is almost always a sign of either very sloppy and narrow thinking or an outright attempt to mislead. In this case, its probably just the former.

Again, I'm no fan of the coal industry. I grew up in Appalachia, so I've seen first hand how they destroy the environment and kill, cripple and oppress their workers. I just don't like the bits of sloppy writing in this piece.

Mark Abram wrote: "Too bad the most immediately available alternative for baseload electricity generation, nuclear, is still politically incorrect."

Nuclear power is not "immediately available". And it is hardly "politically incorrect" given that the nuclear industry has powerful influence over powerful politicians, including Dick Cheney, who are doing everything they can to get the taxpayers to pay for a massive expansion of nuclear power.

Even with the expedited approval and licensing procedures the industry is demanding -- which diminish the already insufficient public oversight of safety and security issues -- it takes many years to construct even a single nuclear power plant and bring it online. That prolonged process makes intensive use of fossil fuels, so construction of every nuclear power plant adds to CO2 emissions for years before the plant begins generating any "carbon-free" electricity. According to a 2003 MIT study, which advocated a nuclear expansion, we would need to triple the number of nuclear power plants in the world by 2050 in order to slightly increase nuclear's share of electricity generation from 17 to 19 percent. And that would entail an aggressive, worldwide, massive, hugely expensive, gravely dangerous, expansion of nuclear.

Nuclear power simply cannot make a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions from electricity generation within the necessary time frame: mainstream climate scientists believe that we have only 5 years within which CO2 emissions must peak and then begin to rapidly decline. There is no way that nuclear power is going to make any "immediate" contribution to that.

What can make an "immediate" contribution is the elimination of waste (especially in the egregiously wasteful USA) and improvements in demand-side efficiency. That is by far the fastest, cheapest, safest, most effective and easiest way to reduce emissions. And it has numerous other economic benefits, including the creation of thousands of new good-paying jobs installing insulation, constructing new "green" buildings, etc.

Merely capturing the waste heat from industrial smokestacks and using that heat to generate electricity could produce as much electricity as is currently produced by nuclear power, at FAR lower cost and with none of the dangers of nuclear.

And then there are wind and solar power, which have been growing at double-digit rates worldwide for the past several years.

A January 2007 study by the American Solar Energy Society found that full application of existing energy efficiency technology, and full exploitation of clean renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal and biomass) could reduce US carbon emissions by 60 to 80 percent within 25 years -- with no expansion of nuclear.

And an article in the January 2008 issue of Scientific American lays out a plant to provide 69 percent of the USA's electricity and 35 percent of its total energy from solar energy alone by 2050, and states that "if wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation's electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100."

Nuclear power is neither an "immediate" solution, nor is it needed as a long-term solution, for reducing CO2 emissions that cause global warming. We can accomplish that entirely through efficiency improvements on the demand side, and full exploitation of clean renewable energy sources on the supply side. Environmentally destructive and dangerous fossil fuels and nuclear power can both be phased out.

Kayaker: I have my sweater on. It's 32 degrees outside and about 50 inside right now. And I'm freakin' cold. At night I turn the thermostate off. Why? Because I'm basically fugil by nature for some reason. And I really can't afford to be comfortable. The car? I can't afford a new car. I also can't afford to fill the beast I have very often. Solution? Drive a LOT less. And I have one of those wind-up lanterns. They are a lot of work to keep charged but I think they are really cool. I also have a wind-up flashlight and radio. Also very neat.

I think most Americans are going to change their lifestyles. Because they can't afford to do anything else. Many that can afford to continue consuming may volutarily reduce just because it is the right thing to do.

I think there is hope for the future, but it isn't going to be much fun for those that turn a blind eye to what has to be done NOW to start solving the problem. And obviously fossil fuels won't be part of that future because they are going to be gone. Finite resources are funny that way.

I am well aware of the perils facing this planet, thanks. It saddens me to hear words only of doom. Myself, I try my best to consume as little as possible and have the least amount of impact I can. So, I do change my lifestyle voluntarily in those little ways, and speak out to friends and loved ones of my decisions in hope of changing their patterns of consumption as well. If everyone would start small like this, it would be a snowball effect and all the little changes could sure make a great difference. You have to start somewhere. Me, I start at home. I don't let catastrophists swallow my hopes and point fingers at the things I still do that are unsustainable... wasting time and energy on conveying negative messages is not who I am.

Are you wearing a sweater right now because you have the thermostat set at 58 degrees? Of course not! Are you driving a car which gets at least 30 mpg? Not likely. People in the U.S.A. talk a good game about concern for mountains and global warming but actions speak louder than the drivel that they say to pollsters. The fact is that our entire civilization is unsustainable. Buy one of those little lanterns that are recharged by winding a crank and learn what kind of work it is to keep a small light going which you wouldn't want to try reading by. We are using fantastic amounts of energy. It's fun and it's comfortable but it is UNSUSTAINABLE. Wind, sun and waves will not satisfy our demands for cheap energy and we absolutely will not change our lifestyles voluntarily. Not you. Not me.

TAX the goddamn carbon!!! There is no way to steer the energy marketplace otherwise unless there are prohibitive costs on oil & coal.

Remove the subsidies, tax the carbon, and a zero emission era can be ushered in much sooner than one may think.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4pUaxA02398

> "Cap and Trade charades, "low carbon" coal technologies, and the chimerical dream of coal-to-liquid fuel, an outrageously expensive technology championed by Nazi Germany and South Africa's apartheid regime."

You know, Nazi Germany also invented the Volkswagen Beetle and Apartheid South Africa pioneered heart transplant surgery. So, I don't think we ought to do our technology assessments on the basis of political ideology.

That said, coal-to-liquid is certainly expensive and hardly a Green technology, producing 2-3 times the CO2 of equivalent oil in the currently available version. Research should continue; perhaps in the future a lower CO2 process will be found, leaving most of the carbon in a solid form. But we should hardly be rushing to rollout this "solution" at the present time.

The real chimera is CO2 sequestration in the deep ocean or underground. This will never pass muster, since it would need to work almost perfectly to solve the greenhouse problem while continuing to rely on coal for a significant fraction of our energy.

Big Coal is indeed a dinosaur fighting hard for its life. Too bad the most immediately available alternative for baseload electricity generation, nuclear, is still politically incorrect. I wonder if Big Coal money has anything to do with that?

My family has inhabitated the spectacular Appalachian mountains for 6 generations. Not only is there a deep-rooted culture in these mountains that can be found nowhere else in the world, there is also a plethora of biodiversity that must be protected.Help keep it that way! Tell the Fish and Wildlife Service to rewrite the failed biological opinion that allows coal mining to harm endangered species. Follow this link:

https://secure2.convio.net/wwf/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=209&AddInterest=1112
This letter has been created by the World Wildlife Fund, you can personalize it however you wish. Note this part of the letter:
A 2005 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that 724 miles of streams in Appalachia were completely buried by mining waste between 1992 and 2002.
What are we doing? Then some may ask, well, can't we just restore these lands? After all, isn't there a federal requirement that the topsoil is put back in place after the strip mining is complete? NO. If you visit these "restored" sites, you will see TURF and a few conifers growing there at best, meaningless to most of the wildlife (though you will appreciate it if you are a deer hunter) that inhabits these hardwood forests. And that 'restoration' doesn't even include the streams...
Thank you for sending this letter. And please don't stop there. I won't.

There are no words to communicate the loathing I have for the actions of those we have 'chosen' to represent the wishes of 'We the People'. We as countrymen are going to have to effect some positive change, because life 'as we know it' is not all that worthwhile a situation. Look at this mess closely and there is not much that seperates us from the misery of Dufur, or the 'order' of Nazi Germany. The rich however, have seperated themselves nicely.

Veteran '66-68

Its true, Damage caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions, and destruction on the environment from coal fired power plants are doing to the atmosphere is causing the most concern for the future of the survival of civilization.

Want to learn what you can do? Learn More, there is an answer, and you can lean "Who's Got The Power?" go to:

http://www.csptoday.com/whosgotthepower.shtml