Burn more coal, and this could be your city!

[eppur_se_muova]

http://images.library.pitt.edu/cgi-bin/i/image/image-idx?c=smoke&g=imls&page=index



Photos taken between 10:55 AM and 12:20 PM.

[MADem]

1. Sixty seven years ago, maybe. When those pics were taken.

The argument is a bit disingenuous. The idea behind burning coal isn't for everyone to have a little Franklin Stove full of the shit, in their homes.

The idea is to burn it in a plant with scrubbers in the stacks.

That said, I am not a "coal cheerleader." I do think we need to be accurate when making arguments, otherwise the arguments have no weight.

I think the mining process is horribly dangerous and puts lives at risk unnecessarily--we need to have those miners turn into XBox operators, manipulating robots remotely.

And then, there's the aftereffects of coal. They're getting better in SOME places at restoring the land, but not universally. Their failure to do the restorative work injures the health of families living nearby.

The air isn't the worst of it at all, and even less so if they PUSH for aggressive regulation and not allow corporations to buy bullshit "credits" for spewing shit into the atmosphere.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. How many years back is Bu**sh** planning to take us? Middle Ages?

OK, it's a *little* disingenuous. I knew that. But take a look at these recent pictures of Shanghai (apparently China's not really investing in scrubbers):


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=87060&mesg_id=87243

[MADem]

3. That is the whole point behind the US "clean coal" initiatives that so many have touted,

Senator Obama among them. That we are NOT as bad as China, who are pollution pigs. Big pigs. The liquefacted coal burns as cleanly as gasoline, which isn't great, but not as bad as a total stinkpot of coal. It's not "good"--it's simply "Nowhere near as BAD."

That said, as I noted above, I am not a coal cheerleader.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html

Who, but who, would soil the environmental reputation of Barack Obama?
The Democratic senator from Illinois gets stellar marks from greens. Just a few months ago he was calling global warming "real," saying: "It is here. . . . We couldn't just keep burning fossil fuels and contribute to the changing atmosphere without consequence."

So why then, environmentalists ask, is Obama backing a law supporting the expanded use of coal, whose emissions are cooking the globe? It seems the answer is twofold: his interest in energy independence -- and his interest in downstate Illinois....The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline.

Environmentalists say focusing on coal does nothing to arrest climate change. Instead, they say, lawmakers should back cleaner alternative fuels and stricter automobile and industrial emissions....."The rationale is, 'We have a lot of coal in the ground, let's put it to some use,' " said Frank O'Donnell, president of the D.C.-based nonprofit group Clean Air Watch. "It's not the best use of the coal and it's one that's almost certain to exacerbate the global warming problem." Obama's advocacy of coal liquefaction, he said, might have to do with his getting "hammered" by Illinois coal interests.

National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich counters that "our friends in the green community . . . don't want us to use our most abundant fuel," and adds: "They're sort of indifferent to the trend line toward greater importation of transportation fuels."

But at the end of the day, the one thing we know is that all politics is local:


"Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Senator Obama believes it is crucial that we invest in technologies to use these resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

[BeFree]

4. The thing is

Our society has spun out of control and that spin was fueled by cheap imported oil. But like an intoxicated person, the "Give me another drink" is the rule of the day.

We have, like most drunks, drunk too much, and the collective hangover we shall suffer will put a hurting on us.

As prices rise to meet paying the true cost of our imbibing, we will be forced to find a way to live within certain boundaries.

Those boundaries will encompass a society that becomes highly efficient and self sustaining, and if we're lucky it will happen sooner rather than too late. We shall see.

But certainly, we have the technological capabilities to live with less, eh?

[ramapo]

5. Looks a bit like NJ today

The air today is positively putrid. Temp is mid-80s+ and ugly.

[MADem]

6. Here's one real truth. It won't happen before the 08 elections.

And "clean coal" like it or not, will probably be part of the transition process.

That said, we can live with less IF we get off the consumer bandwagon. If "spare" becomes fashionable, maybe people will feel less need to buy absolute shit that they don't really need. Or maybe pay a bit more for quality, rather than buy vast quantities of crapola.

Of course, that's not what producers of goods want to hear. They want us to buy, buy, buy.

We just don't have a 'balance' yet. And Al is right--EARTH is in that balance!

[BeFree]

7. And it's spinning out of control

Well, not the earth itself, obviously, but the balance we should have. A spin that is helped, too, by the human overpopulation. A population, mind you, that you and I are a part of.

Many years ago I was part of a campaign to get coal plants cleaned up. Most people didn't want to hear about it, but enough of us made enough of an impact to get the local company to make solid moves to clean up its act.

People that know me say that I walk the talk. They see that my personal consumption level has declined. But I know it is still to high given all the other humans using the same resources.

I'm prepared to reduce further, but what use would that be if everyone else goes on making babies that grow up to become mass consumers?

[MADem]

8. We need a Jimmy Carter, then.

Turn down the heat, put on a sweater, turn off the lights, weatherstrip, carry your own bags, reduce the size of the entourage...Jimmy set the example. George sure as hell won't.

Remember Jimmy? He walked the walk, too. Pity he wasn't reelected. We'd probably be in much better shape, energy-wise, today if he had been.

[Javaman]

9. Read the book "Coal" sometime...

it will give you a description of Pittsburgh you will never forget.

So much soot in the air, it was hard to tell day from night.

[NNadir]

10. Great book. I recommend it.

[eppur_se_muova]

11. Yep, headlights at noon. That's what the thumbnails are meant to show...

I couldn't link to larger pix. Apparently the site is set up to discourage unrestricted copying, but you can browse the larger images from anywhere.

Thanks for a reminder about the book. It's on my (admittedly very long) "must buy" list.