EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
RFK Jr. Blasts Obama as 'Indentured Servant' to Coal Industry
Critics Say Clean Coal Is a Boondoggle; 'Clean Coal Is a Dirty Lie'
"Clean coal is a dirty lie," says environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who calls President Barack Obama and other politicians who commit taxpayer money to develop it "indentured servants" of the coal industry.
Despite a series of expensive false starts and failures, President Obama proposed $3.4 billion in stimulus legislation to fund continued research on "clean coal" projects.
"Clean coal is like healthy cigarettes, it does not exist," says former Vice President Al Gore.
The coal industry has been running a multi-million dollar advertising blitz to promote the theory that coal can be made clean, using one of Obama's campaign speeches in its television commercials.
"You can't tell me we can't figure out a way to burn coal that we mine right here in the United States and make it work," says Obama in the commercial, which ends with on-screen words: Yes We Can.
The "clean coal" theory is that coal's dangerous global warming gas, carbon dioxide, can be captured and sent by pipeline to be buried deep in the earth.
"It is the dirtiest of all fuels that we know of," said Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club, which says talk of "clean coal" is designed to put off efforts to wean the country off coal.
"Today in the United States, most of the pollution is coming from coal burning power plants," said Nilles.
After 24 years and billions of dollars spent trying, there is still no operating coal power plant using "clean coal" technology.
"How many such plants are there?" asked former Vice President Gore at a the Clinton Global Initiative last year. "Zero. How many blueprints? Zero."
Clean Coal Projects Abandoned
What was to be the premier "clean coal" project in Mattoon, Illinois, was abandoned last year by the Bush administration when the projected cost doubled to nearly $2 billion.
"It has suffered the same fate as other clean coal efforts, it simply became too expensive and doesn't work," said Tom Schatz, of the organization Citizens Against Government Waste.
A similar project in southern California, announced with great fanfare, was also abandoned after environmental concerns were raised by local residents.
A third "clean coal" project set for Indiana, was put on hold when the money ran out.
"Carbon capture, storage technologies are expensive," concedes Steve Miller of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an industry group. "They are high risk ventures."
Half of the electricity in the United States is produced through burning coal, and given the worldwide dependence on coal, the industry says there's no choice but to keep trying to make clean coal technology work.
"It's the only way to have affordable, reliable energy and also meet out environmental ethic," said Miller of the industry group.
Despite the failures, "clean coal" got new life during last year's Presidential campaign when both major candidates endorsed the concept as they campaigned in coal-producing states.
The coal industry contributed $15.6 million to all federal campaigns in the last election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The McCain campaign received $302,000 from coal industry-connected contributors. Obama received $242,000.
"It's a sad testament to the impact of campaign contributions, our system and the political clout of this industry that you have very sensible politicians, including great men like Barack Obama, who feel the need to parrot the talking points of this industry that is so destructive to our country," said Kennedy, who was reportedly under consideration as Obama's Environmental Protection Agency director.
The battle over "clean coal" is being played out now on cable news channels, where both sides have run a series of advocacy commercials.
Coen Brothers Produce Anti Clean Coal Ads
To counter the coal industry's commercials with President Obama, environmental groups have used wicked humor.
Showing an empty field, the announcer says, "Clean coal, heard a lot about it, so let's take a look at the clean coal state of the art facility. Amazing."
Another commercial, produced by the Coen brothers, shows a man spraying black coal dust. "It smells so clean," the announcer says. "Clean coal harnesses the awesome power of the word 'clean' to make it sound like the cleanest clean there is. Clean coal is supported by the coal industry, the most trusted name in coal."
The coal industry is unbowed. "I feel like we can be the good guys here, and we have to be the good guys here if we're really going to address climate change," says Miller of the industry group.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
53 Comments so far
Show AllProbably true. Just remember this: Obama is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, the Coal industry and the Pentagon.
He's owned by somebody- and that's a sad fact. I have no reason to doubt the words of RFK. He's been a tireless crusader for the environment for many years. I would tend to believe him.
Probably true. Just remember this: Obama is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, the Coal industry and the Pentagon.
Why do people post the same thing twice, sometimes more than twice, at CD? It doesn't help to emphasise anything by doing this.
I believe that 'clean coal is a lie', also, but as for RFK Jr criticizing Obama with respect to this industry, has he been silent with respect to Obama continuing wars of aggression, pandering to Wall Street criminals who are responsible or very responsible for the evidently major economic crisis, one affecting not only the USA, but the whole planet, and whatever other important issues Obama can be justly and seriously criticised for? Or does RFK Jr agree with Obama on all of these other matters, only choosing to publicly bitch with regards to coal mining?
Coal mining is a very important issue, but certainly doesn't displace the other extreme issues at hand, and I haven't seen any words about him publicly speaking out on the other extreme issues. If he hasn't, then I also haven't read or heard of Sen. Ted Kennedy speaking out against these extreme issues, either, and the Kennedies are tied to Big Finance, surely; I believe, anyway. If they're silent on these other issues, then I couldn't care less about what they think they have to say about the coal mining industry; we don't need them to know the industry's very bad and needs to be either majorly reformed, to do something else than coal mining, or needs to be entirely disappeared, altogether; I also believe.
". . . does RFK Jr agree with Obama on all of these other matters . . . ?"
Probably not. But he is an environmental lawyer, a Professor of Environmental Law and co-director of the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic at Pace University School of Law, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, and not a messiah.
Yep. But that's more than enough to make him pretty damn awesome to environmentalists :-)
Aghh...till someone suggests wind power generators off Martha's Vineyard.
I don't know if RFK Jr. himself opposed that, but all those idiots over there need to get over it.
Mike, yes, Kennedy is right that the oxymoron 'clean coal' not only will not work and is a waste of government funding that could be effectively used in many other serious 'government investments', but 'clean coal' is not the worst deceptive lie and oxymoron in this 'gaming' of America and its people ---- that prize goes to 'empathetic empire'.
There's nothing that can be done to make coal clean, and there's nothing that can be done to make empire empathetic (or even mindful) of the human condition.
As far as my personal beliefs, I would have everyone spend all their time speaking out, confronting, working against, protesting, and actively fighting against EMPIRE, simply because my belief is that empire is at the heart of all problems; foreign, domestic, environmental, economic, political, of human rights, war and everything we can think of.
So, if it were up to me there would be no significant division, distortion, and deflection of democratic action ---- everything and everyone would be focused on fighting the cancer of empire, because all the other 'single issue' and 'identity politics' would benefit more by having a frontal attack on the ruling-elite global 'corporate financial Empire' which perverts and controls our entire political-economy and government by hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy ---- and once the seminal and deadly problem of this friggin EMPIRE is addressed, beaten, eliminated, and excised (like the cancer it is), then the rest of the stuff, that RFK Jr., and Obama, and Hillary, and the environmentalists, the health care activists, the gun control crowd, and all the other interest groups are seriously working on would fall into line and actually be solvable.
But while Empire is in the driver's seat, all the rest of these noble, but divisive, special interest issues ain't going to accomplish shit.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Its easy to post something twice by mistake. You get lag and hit post and nothing seems to happen so you hit post comment again and voila you have two posts the same.
RFK jnr is an environmentalist. That is "his issue". That is his area of expertise, his bailiwick. Not surprisingly, he focuses on it. Just like other activists on other issues focus on "their issue". Do you see Code Pink talking about "clean" coal?
If he is an indentured servant, when does he earn his freedom.
RFK better watch his terminology.
Is there no chemical or actalyst taht could be added to carbon dioxide to neutralize it ? Just asking...I'm not a chemist.
If we can take hydrogen and turn it into water and energy, is there anyway to take carbon dioxide and turn it into something friendly and neutral...Feed it to trees and plants ?
The easiest way to think about this may be to remember what it took to make decaying carbon-based materials, plant and animal remains, into coal: intense pressure, heat and millions of years. To reverse that process, in a sense, you have to remove or reverse those inputs. The cost is incalculable. And since the process is not actually possible to reverse, there is no way of telling how much useful carbon might be produced or at least useless carbon sequestered. Clean Coal is like "synfuels", "oil shale", "coal tar"and all the other expensive alternative energy boondoggles of the Carter era. A total waste and a distraction. Research sites ended up as Superfund sites. Disaster all the way around. We heard lots of this 'big science" solutions in the 1970s during the two big oil price shocks. None of them ever came close to panning out.
Here's a novel idea that just might work - use less.
I found that the term "clean coal" goes back to the 1800s...when it was promoted as "smokeless clean coal" for use in home heating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_coal_mining_in_the_United_States
Even worse than the term "socialized medicine", which goes back 75 years.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200903050012
jareilly.... now there's an idea: USE LESS!!!!!!!! i'm about to go to see what booths are up this year for my local 'earth day' festival... usually a mix of attempts to make money off of greenwashing and sincere attempts to make a difference through often surprisingly effective education or sharing ideas for self-sufficiency and reducing consumption. i HOPE for once the food vendors won't all be using throw-away paper plates and plastic tableware. i also hope to see more folks engaged in discussion across class lines.... suits talking to the homeless and such. using less electricity (i say as i type away on a no doubt coal-energy generated electronic device--yipes!) and conscientiously avoiding overpackaged or over-travelled products and choosing judiciously between actual needs and wants in everyday life is a HUGE factor in reversing our profligate waste and excessive consumption. this requires alot of education and willingness to step outside of comfortable habits we've grown so accusomed to we feel entitled....eating meat, driving cars 10x/day for a host of frivolous reasons, 'retail therapy' and wasting copious amounts of natural resources like water, while feeling only vaguely bothered by the fact that our military industrial apparatus wreaks havoc all over the globe to enrich but a tiny percent of our species. people resent being preached to or browbeaten about it, but the culture is so rampant in enabling influences from advertising to practically a criminalization of NOT consuming like there was no tomorrow, i wonder sometimes how on earth we are ever going to stuff the fossil-fueled genie back into the bottle voluntarily.... if what it must come down to is a perfect storm of environmental and societal breakdown to sober us all up. sometimes i think we're already there.... the perfect storm i mean. though, like the frogs heading towards a boil analogy, many don't recognize the heat as human-caused yet. eek! time to unplug NOW. like the old bumpersticker said, 'if the people lead, eventually the leaders will follow.'
Uh, that's already been happening, for billions of years. Problem is too many people digging up and paving over too much of the earth and emitting too much of the stuff.
"..., is there anyway to take carbon dioxide and turn it into something friendly and neutral...Feed it to trees and plants ?"
Yes, exactly. Carbon is best sequestered in living plants, so planting more trees (or industrial hemp, for another example) would be a step in the right direction. Huge techno-corporate boondoggles like deep-earth injection are just the opposite.
But there's not much profit to be made in tree farming, so...
Also, there is a matter of balance. Trees may not be able to keep up with the pace of our production of free CO2.
Joe
"Is there no chemical or actalyst taht could be added to carbon dioxide to neutralize it ? Just asking...I'm not a chemist."
You answered yourself in your next paragraph.
Photosynthesis is the best way to remove the carbon from the O2.
"Burning coal" is another way of saying "oxidize carbon." It adds a C to an O2. Planting trees is the best way to deal with existing excess CO2.... but it also needs to be reduced on the "supply side".
Yes there is. Chlorine gas (CL2) is a horrible lethal gas that is easy to make by running an elctric current through sea water. This gas displaces the Oxygen atoms from the CO2 and make CCL4 (Carbon Tetra Chloride) which is a well know organic solvent and pollutant. The issue is that, like so many hot button isssues on the environment, the people with money don't want to fix it because they are still making too much money. They have our politicians in their pocket. Robert Kennedy and even the new EPA guy, Salazar have made it quite clear that we do not need coal or any other hydrocarbon for our energy. Everything else is bullshit.
"ducksawce April 21st, 2009 7:24 pm
...
If we can take hydrogen and turn it into water and energy, is there anyway to take carbon dioxide and turn it into something friendly and neutral...Feed it to trees and plants ?"
Turning CO2 "into something friendly and neutral...Feed it to trees and plants" might be theoretically possible, if there were enough forests and non-tree plants left to be able to process the natural CO2 that's present in the atmosphere, in addition to the vast amounts we add in non-natural ways.
Half of the Amazon's gone and still more, of what remains, is probably headed for disappearance, and there's also much forest removal in BC, Canada, etcetera. Then we have mountain top removals , etcetera.
I don't know what solution there is for replacing the use of burning coal; only believing the coal should not be burned at industrial scale. Small scale use of burning coal is what I suppose to be little, if at all, worse than people burning manure for cooking, say, but people living in the cold climates also need heat generation and everyone burning coal in their homes for heat or using industry to burn the coal to generate energy from which we derive heat for many people takes us to square one of the whole problem again.
There are perhaps patents, maybe expired patents, for clean ways of generating energy, but I don't know what these are. There were patents or attempts at patenting for automobile engines that'd provide 60mpg and even much more several decades ago, 1970s and 1960s; or at least there were known methods of achieving this mpg in the 1960s, if there weren't patents on these methods during that decade. I haven't [read] more than about an old patent from an essay by Wade Frazier at www.ahealedplanet.net , but he provides the information in one of his energy-related essays. He says the old patent has expired and was originally buried due to industry pressure, say. And he has other essays related to energy, free energy, ...; all topics I can't pronounce any expert-like opinion on, given I'm certainly no expert on them. I only read about the mpg fuel efficiency patent, which he explains involved using external rather than internal combustion.
I have a cousin who told me back around 1976 or 77 that he had learned in a mechanics course taught by a teacher who gave some extra-curricula education that the schools across Canada banned from being taught, probably due to the academic system being very controlled by industry(ies) when it comes to industry-sensitive topics the public "should" be kept ignorant about. My cousin told me back then that the teacher had taught the class, who he told to not go public about him teaching this, how to modify a carburetor so that it'd provide 60-65mpg fuel efficiency. In 1993 while working for an engineering consulting firm in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, my last project leader told me of three of his friends who had studied mechanics in school and that their teacher had taught them how to modify ... something about the engine for it to provide also high mpg efficiency. Several years ago some locals I knew told me about a friend of theirs who had developed or invented a method back in the 1960s which provided for high fuel efficiency for automobiles and that Ford, I believe it was Ford anyway, but if not Ford, then another U.S.automobile manufacturer, had applied this to a line of its cars, and I believe it was the Baracuda. Within several months the manufacturer called back all of these cars and removed the high fuel efficiency adaptor or mechanism; I believe claiming that it made cars dangerous, that the mechanism could cause a car to explode. Well, I asked my cousin who's an experienced mechanic of many years experience back in the summer of 2004 when we again met if what he had told me was dangerous, other than it being apparently dangerous to speak about it, and he said absolutely not. He said there was a little problem and it's that cars would lose some speed going up hills, so I asked how much. He would not say, being fearful of speaking of this topic, so I pressed by asking, "what, 5 to 10 mph going up hills?" and he said yes. I replied, "But sh*t, I'd make this little sacrifice to be able to have cars that provide 60-65mpg", to which he responded with a smile and nodding his head, saying he agreed.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if there are even long-known ways of cleanly generating energy instead of using unclean methods; or at least ways of making unclean methods very clean, even if not entirely.
There are many things industries can not want us, the public, to know about; secrets that could really help to make a big difference in terms of environmental protection, cost of living, purchasing power of money, etcetera. I don't know which of these many things are kept secret, not knowing which exist, but the above story about being able to make carburetored cars very fuel efficient is definitely true, and the explanation Wade Frazier presents on external vs internal combustion seems to make some real sense; just that I'm not knowledge-wise qualified to be able to say whether he and his friend, who remains silent, like to protect his life, is indeed true or accurate. I don't know enough about the mechanics.
If we can take hydrogen and turn it into water and energy, is there anyway to take carbon dioxide and turn it into something friendly and neutral...like diamonds?
Then we can pave our roads with something that won't hurt the environment - or wear out.
There are about five different car models sold in Europe that get 120mpg.
Glen, I think your confusing MPG with Kilometers Per Gallon which would be about 73 MPG. This is about what the first honda insight got on a good run and it was considered to be one of the gas champs of production cars world wide. I had this car but seldom got that level but a friend of mine who is more eco minded gets about 75 MPH in his insight.
I have no doubt that oil, gas and coal industries try their best at discouraging competition but I also believe/know there have been countless urban myths about this or that backyard or garage project (carburetor, fuel additive, special engine) that would deliver incredible mileage. This myths (and countless others about various topics) circulate periodically and make for wonderful barroom conversation. Of course if you had persisted in the fuel conservation direction that Carter had us going in 35 years ago we would have developed some very high mileage cars. Whether there would be some miraculous cheap breakthrough is another thing. Right now the trend toward higher mileage cars seems to be just old fashioned improved engineering. Lighter more stream lined bodies, more efficient engines with extra electric boast (from regenerative coasting and breaking) and just plain old slower more conservative driving. The former two are not inexpensive magical fixes.
Ultimately the best personal car is no personal car but mass transit, which is more integrating and less alienating than individual cars competing against each other while giving others who are desiring to do exactly what you are doing: get to your desired destination, the finger.
Ultimate ultimate answer is to improve individual/group environments to such a degree that we really have little desire or need to go running all over the place looking for some fictitious rainbow mirage of happiness.
What was to be the premier "clean coal" project in Mattoon, Illinois, was abandoned last year by the Bush administration when the projected cost doubled to nearly $2 billion.
I believe it was at the conclusion of one of the last G-20 type meetings attended by George Wanker Bush that he punched the air and said, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." When did concern for the environment or a few billion dollars ever stop that gang of killers, thieves and liars from screwing over the environment or the tax payers? Somebody didn't get their skids greased and that's why the project was buried.
Representative government is the best money can buy.
Representative government is the worst, until you compare it to all the other forms of government.
Comparing corrupt representative governments to idiot dictators is a straw man argument. Corrupt representative governments are the best, until you compare them with all honest forms of government.
Except for this one:
http://books.google.com/books?id=MSVary9Nf2wC&dq=direct+democracy+in+switzerland&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=Zaezh39ZvI&sig=5k5Xc5nSu9XRZqOvLg9PvO11Lww&hl=en&ei=ACOgSYvbCdLjtgeBg5n3DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPP1,M1
Dr James Hansen former director of Goddard Space Lab has lectured extensively on the dire need to come down in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the current 388 to 350 ppm and he says in his lectures that coal fired plants MUST NOT be built: coal is the dirtiest fuel containing also mercury and sulfur and we have to be as aggressive as possible to get away from coal which of course causes that mountain top removal of the Appalachians-- you can see it from the air if you fly over the area- horrible!!!
Every week, a 120 car load of coal train is delivered to near Buffalo to create electricity-- we must switch to solar and wind and yes some nuclear too rather than that dirty coal.
"For every 1,000 pounds of mercury released by all industrial sources in Texas into the environment in 1998, there was a corresponding 2.6 percent increase in autism rates in the Texas school districts in 2002."
"For every 1,000 pounds of mercury released by Texas power plants in 1998, there was a corresponding 3.7 percent increase in autism rates in Texas school districts in 2002."
" Autism prevalence diminished 1 percent to 2 percent for every 10 miles from the source."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424120953.htm
Even if it were possible to burn coal cleanly, there's still the issue of mining it. There's no way that coal mines will ever be environmental friendly or human friendly. RFK is totally correct.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
It is hard to believe there is plenty of coal when MTR is necessary and miners must resort to mining the support pillars( as in the UTAH cave in) in order to secure high grade coal.
"It is the dirtiest of all fuels that we know of," said Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club"
In order as I understand it is Coal, Ethanol, Gasoline.
Given that its highly unlikely we will be able to stop using coal in the near future, is it not a good idea to explore every option in reducing emissions as much as possible?
Based on the reasoning in the article we'd have to abandon electric cars because they are not cost effective. That seems as faulty to me as abandoning coal emission reduction research.
Well the order for fuels in the base form, in terms of pollution, is coal, oil, and natural gas. And coal plants can be converted to burn natural gas, which emits less CO2 (although I have been told the process to converting it to liquid natural gas for long distance transport cancels out that CO2 benefit), and as far as I know does not contain uranium, mercury, etc like coal does...that would be a good interim step while creating as much renewable energy as possible. Coal just needs to go, as soon as we can replace it.
zmann
We have plenty of pipelines to transport Natural Gas which we have in abundance. I'm a fan of natural gas mself.
The enviornmental board in California has just finisged a report that shows ethanol is dirtier than gasoline, which is what I was basing my order on. No great surprise that.
"that would be a good interim step while creating as much renewable energy as possible. Coal just needs to go, as soon as we can replace it."
Reasonable conclusion.
"Given that its highly unlikely we will be able to stop using coal in the near future, is it not a good idea to explore every option in reducing emissions as much as possible?"
In an ideal world, yes.
In the real world, things have costs. Financial costs for one. The money you are spending on research into clean coal can be spent elsewhere. It isn't as if clean coal technology exists right now.
Great Oxymorons in History:
"Clean coal"
"Military Intelligence"
"Extraordinary Rendition"
"Healthcare Insurance"
"Political Integrity"
"Hot Water Heater"
"Jumbo Shrimp"
"Religious Freedom"
"New and Improved!"
"Refreshing Low Tar"
and finally:
"Executive Privilege"
I'd add political correctness and Congressional morality,if I may sir.
This ABC news article is a total distortion and has caused quite a flap. RFK Jr called members of the Bush administration "indentured servants" of the coal (etc.) industries. This sort of thing doesn't belong on common dreams and I'm very disappointed.
See here, for corrected account with many links from Climate Progress ("indispensable climate blog"-Tom Friedman) and others:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/22/abc-rfk-obama-indentured-servant-to-coal-industry/#more-5868
ABC intentionally misleads viewers, claiming RFK called Obama an ‘Indentured Servant’ to coal industry
April 22nd, 2009
...... excerpt.....
The reader is left with the distinct impression that Robert Kennedy Jr. called President Obama an indentured servant to the coal industry today. RFK has been calling politicians “indentured servants” for years. One problem: he didn’t actually say it about President Obama. Essentially, ABC pulled together a collection of old quotes and mashed them together out of context to create tension in their story.....
......He did not use the phrase “indentured servants”. He referred to President Obama as a “very sensible politician” and a “great man”. Mr. Kennedy was clear with Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, offering strong support of President Obama and his energy policies on November 5th.
The headline and caption used by ABC were a deliberate attempt to mislead readers. This misinformation is especially dangerous because it is inevitably seized on by sites like Hot Air who will use it to whip their gullible readers into an Obama-Kennedy hate phrenzy. This is worse than tabloid journalism because it is sold to the public as legitimate news.....
..... All of this from The Blotter, which is brought to you by Brian Ross and ABC’s Investigative Team. The Blotter reads every message they receive through this form.....
Eric Boehlert at Media Matters weighs in:
That’s just awful journalism by Ross and ABC News.
...... end excerpts
And so on. Even the WSJ Environmental Capital (sic) blog has pointed out the same thing. RFK didn't say this about Obama and ABC made up the story out of past remarks about BushCo.
RFK DID NOT SAY THAT ABOUT OBAMA. You're actually reprinting a lie from ABC here.
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200904220005
If it is expensive to sequester Carbon dioxide from burning coal--the question is really--how expensive. We should have one demo project to answer the question. If that cost per KwHr is very high it will be a good argument to use cheaper renewable sources that can meet the same criteria--no CO2 emission.
Lizardo and rabo have it right, this article is refering to a propaganda piece by ABC news that manufactured the Obamaslam attributed to Kennedy. And without checking up on it, the authors dove right in, catapulting the propaganda. They are wrong and should publish a retraction (as if).
The purpose of this would seem to be to create a rift between Obama and Kennedy just when he's being considered for a post at EPA, where he'd be excellent.
Lefties wake up, you are being manipulated into believing that Obama is the enemy. Take extra care with these kinds of allegations before you mindlessly repeat them, don't be Republicans.
Just one more to add to the list to whom Obama is an "indentured servant" of;
Clean Coal, Wall St., Military Industrial Complex, (the not-so-federal) "federal" reserve (there ain't no reserves either), AIPAC (Israel)....
There are a lot of political spigots out there intent on controlling flow and I’d have to say Huffingtonpost contribute their fair share.
What did RFK JR say?
The entire counterargument being repeated from the above huffingtonpost opinion writers is that RFK JR never DIRECTLY called Obama an “indentured servant”! Oh, the nerve of ABC to infer such a connection from ABC Ross’ April 14, 2009 interview with JFK JR:
======================================================
"Ross: Have you seen the commercials they're running now with President Obama, "Yes, we can" talking about clean coal? What's your reaction to that?
KENNEDY: Well, again, I think it's sad when political leaders feel that they are so indebted to these industries that they, and so fearful of them, essentially, that they have to endorse conditions that clearly are wrong.
ROSS: And you say that about President Obama?
KENNEDY: Yeah. Anybody who looks at this understands that the term "clean coal" is a dirty lie. That coal is neither cheap nor clean. It's devastating to our country, it's bad for our economy, it's devastating towards our communities, and we have wonderful alternatives in this country if we'd only invest in them. ” ….
... “ROSS: Do you think President Obama's been hoodwinked or has there been political pressure? What do you think accounts for his continued endorsement of clean coal
KENNEDY: As I said, I think that it's a sad testament to the impact of campaign contributions in our system and the political clout of this industry that you have very sensible politicians, including great men like Barack Obama, who feel the need to parrot the talking points of this industry….”
End
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7400698&page=1
====================================
“indentured servant” implication is underlined by words like ‘indebted’, ‘fear’ …RFK JR states those who endorse these conditions understands it's a ‘dirty lie’…. And (omg) if we follow RFK JR’s reasoning, those who know this but continue to ‘parrot the talking points’ must then be pushing dirty lies
RFK JR is very specific. Counterarguments muddling RFK JR’s sentiment aren't being upfront with their audience. ABC including previous references of RFK JR using "indentured servant" reinforces their contention it is reasonable to infer RFK JR was implying this during the April 14, 2009 interview. The fact journalist found supporting evidence to back up their claim should be applauded.
In attempting to dilute focus put to Obama, the HffPost/ Nelsons and their internet soldiers end up sandbagging RFK JR's political message: No matter your greatness, if you endorse clean coal, you parrot dirty lies.
Show me a politician who is not "owned", and I will show you one who has trouble winning election. Our campaign system is designed to promote "ownership" of politicians, lest we suffer a "surplus of democracy."
If you don't want Obama bought-off by the coal industry, you'd better start making some big campaign contributions yourself, or work for serious campaign finance reform such as the clean money effort at Public Citizen.
I love our planet and all of it's inhabitants. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how we can achieve all that everyone wants in the timeframes they desire or more appropriately, "demand"?
I have been a coal miner for over thirty years. No doubt, coal mining is a rugged and often dangerous industry which requires the extraction of the mineral (coal) for the production of two of man's current basic needs, energy and steel. Without either of these essential products, none of us could enjoy most of the comforts of our 21st century lives. Granted, there may be, and likely will be, more eco-friendly sources of energy available for mass consumption someday. However, unfortunately, there simply are none IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE to us today. No one has yet brought to market an energy alternative remotely close to what we currently produce from coal. It simply doesn't exist... today.
I find it remarkable that the majority of my environmetalist friends have no idea that over 50% of the energy in the USA today is created from coal fired power plants. But this alone is NOT the worst ignorance. The greater blindness, is that most of my friends assume that to change to another form of energy is as simple as making a choice. They believe our nation and the world can change from coal to wind, solar, hydro-electric or other, more eco-friendly sources in a simple, unfettered manner; by simply "deciding" to change. To them, they feel it is as simple as turning off one switch and turning on another. This kind of ignorance is mind boggling and even dangerous.
I do not believe that we should continue as a coal powered energy nation. Because coal actually makes a far better liquid fuel (for planes, trains and automobiles) than it does a pure thermal fuel. However, I'm not so naive as to think that we can change our current dependence on coal overnight. Instead, I see coal as a bridge energy ... a reliable, abundant resource that can continue to power our economy and way of life, while we diligently pursue the next best alternative. Furthermore, we do ourselves no service by denigrating our current energy supply until we've found a viable alternative. That is unless we seek an immediate and certain death both literally and figuratively. Just think about how long we can hope to exist without refrigeration ... or electric tools such as computers, telephones or the hundreds of other resources we so easily take for granted. How many x-rays, eye surgeries or tooth extractions do you suppose can be performed without electricity? Do we really want to attack coal as the "enemy" of our way of life? Wouldn't it make more sense to acknowledge that "we are where we are" (in an energy sort of way); and then reach out to the energy producers and seek funding, laboratory resources, and technologies for the discovery and development of replacement fuels. Real ones that can supply ALL the energy we need, not just a handfull of windmills in isolated areas.
I see so many environmental groups behaving analagous to this:
You've been traveling for days on a road you thought would take you to your Florida beach house. But alas, one day you awaken to realize that you are actually heading north toward snow country. But, instead of turning the vehicle around and driving south, you decide instead to set fire to the car!
It's abundant so long as we are willing to destroy our landscape to scrape it out of the ground. And I'm not willing to do that.
zmann:
Can you name anything that is harvested for human consumption that doesn't "harm" something else in the process? When we harvest corn for food, do we not "harm" other of the earth's inhabitants in the process? The numerous birds, bugs and other wildlife that extract thier food from these grains ... are they not "harmed". Man does not live in a vacuum. We are not self existent. Like all of God's creatures, we are dependent upon our environment for our existence. We are either part of the environment or we are aliens. And if we are part of the environment, then we must cultivate, harvest, manufacture, and create the habitat in which we dwell or we become cavemen (who themselves were hunter-gatherers). This means other "things" of necessity must be "destroyed" or broken down in some fashion in order for us to use them. Can we have furniture without cutting a tree? Or leather shoes without some animal dying? Thus the issue is NOT whether these things must be harvested, but rather are the being harvested in the most ethical manner ... ie with an eye to the long term effects of the environment as a whole.
Now with regard to coal mining, as a 30 veteran of this industry I can assure you that the envrionmental laws and oversight of this industry are among the toughest in the world. We are contiunally under the scrutiny of the regulators and groups like this one; and maybe rightfully so. Be that as it may, the simple fact is either you like having these 21st century tools (electricity & steel)or you don't. If you do, then help us find a way to convert our energy demand to something else. Don't just decide that mountain top mining must end, simply because you find it "unsightly". The fact is, and be honest here please; most of the environmental advocates have NEVER visited a fully reclaimed coal surface mine; one that has been fully seeded, planted and now has a reforrested growth of self-sustainable hard wood timber growing on it. Why not?
I don't know where you live, but I invite you to come visit me in West Virginia and I'll personally take you to some of these old mine sites that are over 20 years old and completely reclaimed and I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut hole that you'll think you are standing on an old farm site or pioneer homestead. Your first comment will be something like so many of those who've never looked at the final product, "Wow, this is a beautiful! Who would have thought that you'd find a farm like this on top of one of these mountains."
Final thought ... does your home or any home "under construction" appear liveable while the construction is underway? There is lumber staked in the lawn, cement trucks around back, old shingles lying around in a waste pile on the side of the house etc. It is usually an unsightly mess. But, you understand this is only a part of the process ... NOT the final product. The final product will be a very liveable dwelling with a neatly groomed lawn. The final product will be a home you are pleased to dwell in. So, which "image" do you want your family, friends and neighbors to see ... the under construction phase or the finished one? Well coal miners are no different. We do a damn good job at our profession and all we're asking is for the environmental community to be honest in their assesment of our work and "inspect" the final results of our efforts. Judge us upon completion of the work, not during the demolition stage.
"If you do, then help us find a way to convert our energy demand to something else. Don't just decide that mountain top mining must end, simply because you find it "unsightly". The fact is, and be honest here please; most of the environmental advocates have NEVER visited a fully reclaimed coal surface mine; one that has been fully seeded, planted and now has a reforrested growth of self-sustainable hard wood timber growing on it. Why not?"
Mountaintop removal is not a process that leads to reclaiming of the missing land; the mountain is gone forever and the local topography is permanently altered in rather bad ways. And no I have not visited a reclaimed surface coal mine...but how does that compare to removing a mountain? And I am somewhat active in the renewable energy movement, so I am trying to find ways to convert our energy demand to something else. I'm thinking of pursuing a graduate degree in a related field so someday soon I'll be in a position to better help with it.
And as for farming, timber harvesting, etc; farmland is re-plowed and is more or less a renewable resource, unless the practices used harm the land in such a way that it becomes unusable in a while. And trees can and are replanted, though of course it's impossible to re-forest much of our landscape. But there is no replacing a mountain...or 500.