Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSpeak Now Against Bush's Great Coal Giveaway
With our attention focused on the Wall Street crisis and the presidential election, the George W. Bush administration took an extraordinary step last Friday to give coal companies a couple of departing gifts before the end of this year.
This is the really dirty side of coal we rarely hear about.
Put aside, for a moment, that no presidential candidate can actually tell you when the 100-year-old slogan of "clean coal" can be implemented on a nationwide utility scale, or at what cost, or if the security is proven, and put aside the fact that over 10,000 coal miners have died from black lung disease in the last decade and thousands have been injured or died in accidents, and put side that millions of acres of fertile corn fields and farm land, virgin forests and waterways have been strip mined across the country.
Here's the really dirty part of coal. First, this preface: After a year of record profits, coal operatives will receive nearly $2.8 billion in tax credits in the recent Wall Street bailout.
And last Friday, with all of the banter about "clean coal" drowning out the critics, the Bush administration quietly moved to alter one of the last remaining laws protecting against the wholesale clear-cutting and horrific strip mining practice called mountaintop removal in Appalachia. This is the process of blowing the tops off mountains and dumping the remains into the waterways or valleys -- over 1,600 miles of streams and 470 mountains in central Appalachia have been erased from American maps.
Since 1983, coal companies have had to follow a stream buffer zone rule, which said their mining could not disturb areas within 100 feet of streams. When the Bush administration first proposed to end this stream buffer zone last year, over 40,000 citizens responded their outrage to the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement.
Disregarding this remarkable opposition, the Bush administration has moved the proposed change to the EPA, which now has 30 days to review the change, and must issue a written statement that the new regulations would comply with the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
If this ruling is passed, the Appalachian coal fields, the backbone of our first American frontier -- and the very place that gave birth to abolitionist, labor and civil rights triumphs, Black History Month, literary naturalism and the first Nobel Prize for Literature to an American woman (Pearl Buck), the godmother of muckraking journalism, and a treasury of music -- and the focus of the swing states of this election, will brace itself for the most brutal strip mining campaign in our history.
In November of 1955, only days before Rosa Parks would alter history with her refusal to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus, Nobel Prize winning novelist William Faulkner addressed a group of historians in Memphis. Dealing with the issue of segregation, Faulkner admonished his fellow Southerners to "speak now against the day, when our Southern people who will resist to the last these inevitable changes in social relations, will, when they have been forced to accept what they at one time might have accepted with dignity and goodwill, will say: 'Why didn't someone tell us this before? Tell us this in time?'"
Faulkner challenged the Southerners who would sit quietly and allow the South to "wreck and ruin itself in less than a hundred years."
It is time for Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, both of whom have signaled their concern with mountaintop removal, to speak now against the day of this subversive change in the strip mining law.
Otherwise, coal will not only be dirty, but devastating.
20 Comments so far
Show AllNo matter who gets elected, we will have to pressure for truly clean energy and conservation. Radioactive waste has no good solution. No coal is clean. Oil and gas will run out in a matter of decades, coal in a century. The environment is rebelling mightily against burning carbons. We are the biggest users of energy in the world and have been for some time, and thus have the the greatest responsibility in our hands on this issue.
The best case scenario is that we leave the increasingly dire problem to another generation. We can imagine hordes of billions of our great great grandchildren living like Stone Age people without heating, transportation, food due to our inattention to this obvious problem. There will not be enough mammoths or streams to support this population.
Will this be another case where we ignore fact and reason, as we did for the Iraq war and the de-regulation of finance? In this case the consequences for the world will dwarf the other disasters that have resulted from our hubris.
We need to develop solar and wind and other such clean technology. Period. End of story.
Also, Siouxrose, you are so correct about our careless ways. We live in an everyday environment that was designed with no concern for conservation. We need to stop over-cooling and over-heating in buildings. Complain about arctic AC as you freeze at the job, in the movies or wearing a paper robe in the Dr's office.
In my apartment, the heat came on recently, driving the temperature up to 94 degrees. You cannot turn on/off the radiator without a special wrench from the super. The radiators must be either fully on or completely off. We had them turned off. So we will eventually have to turn one or two back on in the dead of winter. Many other tenants will just open the windows wide and let the excess heat out into the neighborhood while the oil bills (and ultimately the rent) soar. It would be worth it to get grants or tax credits to do little things like install adjustable gauges to allow for a little bit of heat. Right now, other tenants, beset by some many other concerns, cannot be bothered with this. We need to raise consciousness on the energy issues.
Free public transportation wherever possible would save lots of energy too.
And naturally I completely endorse ending the fetishes of militarism that create profit for a few and misery for most. It is the most unjustifiable waste of life, treasure and energy. Unfortunately, a lot of people think we need to have a huge military on tap, complete with maneuvers, flyovers, hundreds of bases, etc. etc. etc. draining energy (both physical and psychic) from our nation. This is another big area where public needs to hear alternative stories about how we can be safe. It is completely intertwined with the energy issue, as we would not have to fight all over the place for oil if we had better energy policy.
We need to divert the coal tax credits to jump start clean energy and conservation initiatives. We need to do the same with military spending. PEACE!
Joe
"Clean coal" is yet another racket that reaps ever more pay dirt from the elite's unsustainable fossil fuel enterprise while suppressing the energy alternatives. The main thing the elites want to suppress is mass economic/political independence that comes with small scale renewable energy. "Clean coal" not only helps the elites suppress renewable energy but adds yet another ultra high-energy processing step, yet another unnecessary racket to trap even more people in economic/political dependence, not to mention the rest of the ecological strains. The people's choice is very simple - if the elites push an idea, REJECT IT.
"Clean coal" is another "public relations" construct carefully designed by the elites to turn the devastation of their unsustainable fossil fuel enterprise into ever more pay dirt while suppressing the obviously far superior energy alternatives. The main thing the elites want to suppress is mass economic/political independence which small scale renewable energy enables. "Clean coal" not only helps the elites suppress renewable energy but adds yet another high-energy processing step, to trap even more people in economic/political dependence per BTU delivered. The people's choice is very simple - if the elites are pushing an idea, REJECT IT.
Sioux Rose
This point has been raised before but it remains germane to this discussion. Perhaps with dollars (or their previous value) reduced, Americans will have no choice but to get with the PROGRAM of conservation. We ARE a wasteful nation. For one thing, no one needs the AC on to pump as much power as they tend to demand so they are always oh, so cool. Ditto with heat. Maybe it should come down to ecological credits and rationing!
Second, our delightful military uses the lion's share of fossil fuel and it's mostly to move around all those ghastly machines of carnage. I, for one, would be quite pleased to see this behemoth come to a stop in its lethal tracks.
USAGE patterns influence our so-called need for energy, and probably 40% could be reduced by using the above suggestions. Beyond that, every dollar given to the banksters on Wall ST in this latest debacle, and/or the military should be directed towards wind and solar power. EVERY HS should have a $1000 grant to the science department to that student who comes up with even the remotest ecological idea that can be implemented. And NOT A DIME of subsidy to big oil or big coal or nuclear. Can my fellow CD readers believe that this insanity is being perpetrated at the same time as announcements about increased melting of the ice caps and higher rates of methane gas escaping are going on? And still those with a responsibility to respect public welfare are arguing over how to burn GAIA the fastest? It is a HOLOCAUST against the GREAT Mother, down to this blasting off of her breasts, like the cancers spreading into too many women's bodies, similarly being "treated" by lopping off body parts rather that REMEDYING the conditions, the exposure to poisons in every nuance of our tissues.
The barbarians truly are inside the gates.
This election will teach us about the knowledge level of voters that ignore the truth.
Sen. Edwards proposed a plan to bring new jobs on Green power to West Virginia and other coal mining states. THAT is the first step.
To begin an energy plan with blocking the use of Coal is deceptive and impossible.
Facts: "Clean Coal" is a self-contradiction. Two facts clarify the issue:
1. There is no data, at all, that it is even possible and feasible.
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that to reverse a process, you must spend more energy than you extracted because the Entropy (whatever that is) is higher.
The problem is that when Carbon (c) burns with Oxygen it produces CO2 Carbon Dioxide. The idea that if you take all the gas coming out of a powerplant and reverse the proces, split CO2 into C and O2, there is no way you can possibly break even.
Another plan is to find some bacteria that eats the CO2 and then they are pumped into some hole deep in the earth. Two problems, the bacteria is only in laboratories and nobody knows how to produce Mega Tons of it, This process and the burial process will use at least a third of the energy orginally produced. Simple math tells you that the energy we buy to run our TV will triple in cost, if they knew how to do it, which they do not.
Nuclear Power is a con-job. All energy companies know that on a Mega-Watt power rate, it is the costlies way to produce electricity. Further, the security problems increase with time. People are not robots, to do precisely the same thing, over and over and over, may have led to the 3-Mile Island and the Chernobyl disasters. There is no estimate yet on the total costs, people are still born with defects and dying of radiation induced cancer. The big Sarcophabous build around the original plant, by HEROIC Russian workers, willing to work under known killing radiation and actually died after long painful years cannot be measured in terms of money but, it has now deteriorated so much that a second one, much bigger than the first, is being build around the radioactive first one.
Hint: No American Insurance company will insure a Nuclear Powerplant.
The deal killer is that it is illegal to build a Nuclear Powerplant in the US before there is Congress approved site for Nuclear Waste.
If they cannot get done in the next two weeks, do you think the Democratic controlled Congress will ever approve a Nuclear Waste site, anywhere?
Only someone from another planet can believe this possibility is real.
But he's our whore: "There's no shame in voting for the lesser evil"
Noam Chomsky (copied form above).
While the price of electricity produced by nuclear power is exhorbitant, the price of energy from windmills continues to drop. It was over 20 cents per Kilowatt-hour about under Pres Bush The First but dropped to less than 4 cents per Kw-hr under Pres. Clinton. Not even Solar cells can compete with windmills, why do you think we see so many everywhere.
In Denmark, great many are offshore and there is no limit to that. Actually, in 1991, EPA determined that Kansas, North Dakota and Texas, together, have enough wind power patterns to supply ALL the electriciy of the entire nation, contrary to recent propaganda that claims that the limit is no more than 20 Percent, those people like to lie a lot.
The worst aregument is "What if the wind stops?", only a moron would believe that each house is linked to ONE Windmill. That is false, the windmills share their electricity will all other powerplants and the first to go off line, if there is an excess, is the dam powerplants and the second is the oil and gas fueled powerplants. The Nuclear powerplants are run at one constant speed all the time 24/7 and windmills run whenever there is wind. Note: each windmill farm site was first studied to determine the long term patterns over more than a year.
Geothermal energy sources are greatly underutilized. Most, but not all, nations could produce much geothermal power. If you owned oil fields and geothermeal sites, which do you think bring the most profit?
Remember, in Los Angeles the auto companies did buy the local rail transit lines in the 1930s to make sure cars would take over. Don't underestimate our enemy!
Thanks you all!
MikeSar
Would you really want to make lots of a bacteria that 'eats CO2'? Maybe its because I read lots of science fiction, but that seems to have a rather obvious drawback. If it got free into the world, we all die.
Plants need CO2, so if a bacteria got loose that 'eats CO2', then most of our plants would be starved of a key thing they need to live. And if all our plants die, we ain't too far behind them.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Gray goo theory :-)
How far down do you have to dig for geothermal energy for homes? I don't think it could work in Florida, at least near the coast. And for homes, can geothermal energy actually generate electricity, or just heat water (which is still a large portion of electricity use for homes)?
The high coal and nuclear subsidies currently in the US Government approval "pipeline", if approved, will effectively shut down the renewable energy industry. Why would anybody invest in renewables when the subsidies are token compared to coal and nuclear subsidies?
Has Obama done anything concrete to oppose mountaintop removal mining? Or does he just express some vague concerns? And let me guess, did he just express those vague concerns while campaiging in the KY and WV primaries?
Me, I'm not holding my breath that he'll do what the article author suggests and come out strongly against this ruling and try to stop it. Since he's already promising big new subsidies to big coal, my guess is he won't oppose this.
But, we'll know very quickly, won't we?
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
This is THE KEY issue: Do candidates know the facts on all the key national issues?
For example, I have studied energy for years but know very little about our educational problems. But, if our workers don't have the skills, we will have to import more than the current 100,000 legally brought each year with a IB Visa.
Has Obama ever heard the term "Mountaintop Mining"? Maybe, we should send him an email. No need to bother with McCain, that was his name, wasn't?
Thanks you all!
MikeSar
Obama seems not too interested in nuclear energy, saying the radwaste problem has to be resolved.
McCain wants to build 45 more nuclear plants, with his faith-based damn the torpedoes full speed ahead plan.
Besides trying to please his corporate contributors, Obama may be convinced that the high energy needs for manufacturing can't presently be met with existing green energy alternatives. He seems to consider "clean" coal and oil as a bridge to green alternatives.
As with nukes, McCain wants to exploit "clean" coal and every other energy resource, ignoring health and environmental safeguards in order to forever keep our military and mercenaries killing and looting for the empire. The old school conservative Republican "solutions" to every problem are drilling, exploiting, polluting and killing while the Wall Street Casino takes care of the rest.
"Obama may be convinced that the high energy needs for manufacturing can't presently be met with existing green energy alternatives. He seems to consider "clean" coal and oil as a bridge to green alternatives."
Manufacturing? What manufacturing? We're barely manufacturing jack until we start producing a ton of wind turbines, solar panels, and equipment for geothermal and tidal generators.
Are you joking? One of Obama's big funders is Exelon, the nuke plant operators. Obama has been a supporter of nuclear power all along. For instance, if you find the transcript of his convention speech here in Denver, one of the few specific policy details in that speech is Obama promising big new subsidies to the nuclear power industry. In fact, I believe its in exactly the same sentence where he also promises big new subsidies for the coal industry under the rubric of 'clean coal'.
Amazing, Obama's supporters don't even seem to listen to their own candidate. Obama supports nuclear power. Always has for as long as he's been on the national stage, and hasn't shown any sign of wavering from that.
Obama's energy plan, at least the one he announced here in front of 70,000 people in the football stadium is big federal subsidies for coal and nuclear power.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"Obama's energy plan, at least the one he announced here in front of 70,000 people in the football stadium is big federal subsidies for coal and nuclear power."
You in Miami? I know that's where he was today...I'm planning on going to the Clean Energy Conference down there on November 21st, you should stop by it too.
PS ... here's what the nuclear industry people are saying about Obama (from the NEI blog at http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-on-nuclear-energy.html )
The funny part is that they approach Obama the same way the Obamabots do. Ie, they seem to assume he'll be on their side once elected, even if he won't say so now. Of course, the difference is that the nuclear industry, and Exelon in particular, has already bought Obama with big contributions both to his Senate and Pres campaigns.
I guess the difference is that the lefties for Obama have vague dreams that he might be better than he seems, while industry groups like the nuke industry are just assuming that the politician they've already bought will stay bought. The latter seems to have more substance to it.
From NEI blog ....
"I recall a conversation about Barack Obama with a good friend at the ANS summer meeting. That friend happened to be from the Argonne National Laboratory outside of Chicago. He is somewhat active in Illinois politics.
He told me that Obama is supportive of nuclear technologies, but that he has toned down that support while working on getting the nomination from the Democratic Party. It seems that he has continued to reduce the volume on his support knob to the point where it is reaching the fiducial level.
It is a strategy that does not please me at all, but it seemed to work for him in Iowa. I just hope that people who lean towards the liberal side and who vote as Democrats will work to make it possible for candidates on that side of the aisle to speak more openly and more supportively about the importance of nuclear power.
I think it is absurd to allow anyone to assert that wind and solar are going to make any impact at all. Their potential production is trivial no matter how must subsidy they get. We need to say that over and over again. At least with nuclear subsidies - which make me a bit uncomfortable - America gets a return on its investment."
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
But he's our whore.
"There's no shame in voting for the lesser evil"
Noam Chomsky
The same google search that found the above, also found this 'fact-checker' piece on CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-is-obama-against-nuclear-power/)
"The Statement:
At a town hall meeting Wednesday in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Sen. John McCain repeated a standard line from his stump speech in support of nuclear power, telling voters that it's "clean and it's safe and we can recycle — excuse me — reprocess and we can store. My opponent is against nuclear power. … "
Get the facts after the jump!
The Facts:
Sen. Barack Obama tells crowds that his policy "as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."
The Obama-Biden New Energy for America plan, posted on the Obama Web site in June, has a bullet-point section involving diversification of energy sources entitled "safe and secure nuclear energy."
Watch: What is Obama's position on nuclear energy?
"Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option," the plan said.
Obama does say that nuclear fuel and waste security, waste storage, and proliferation must be taken into account "before an expansion of nuclear power is considered."
Verdict: False"
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
We are going to have to continue to speak even after Bush is gone - Obama will be creating more problems for us all that we have to attend to on a regular basis. Obama supports "clean coal" - how about if we all pledge to only support progressive candidates? We COULD turn it all around!
I at any rate greatly appreciate that you bring the Appalachian rape to the forefront of attention, and thank you for taking the time to do so.
One must ask, how much rape can we withstand before we act in the interests of ecology and human rights?
Those who claim "profit" from raping the Earth and ruining the lives of untold thousands are truly the enemy to human brotherhood.
You know, all those coal company owners DO have identities...and addresses...and human emotions...and can be brought to heel at will...given the will.
I never knew anyone who managed to talk a mad dog, or a pathological liar for personal material profit at any cost to others, into docility, did you?
Case closed.