Another Coal-Sponsored Debate Without Questions on Global Warming
Last night's Democratic debate in Texas was sponsored (once again) by polluting coal interests, whose laughable ads about pie-in-the-sky "clean coal" littered CNN's debate coverage. Gee, what a surprise then that no questions were asked about global warming in the state that is the number one emitter of CO2 emissions.
The candidates practically invited the question -- both referred to proposals for greening the economy and seemed ready to differentiate their plans to address impending climate chaos. But they were never pressed by the panel to even elaborate on their green jobs proposals. Not a single question about how America could kick our oil addiction, or how we might rejoin the international commitment to address global warming. Nada.
Instead viewers were left with the coal industry's ridiculous ads -- part of a $35 million PR campaign by the coal industry -- which further confuse Americans about King Coal's pollution legacy. When will CNN and other debate hosts ask the tough questions -- or any questions -- about the biggest threat to the planet?
With the coal ad money pouring in, I'm not holding my breath. But every kid in America might have to start if Dirty Coal is allowed to pump even more CO2 into our choked atmosphere.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You see, asking the candidates about Global Warming opens up a whole can of worms. Then, the candidates would have to explain why they fly private jets everywhere and what they do with the millions upon millions of pieces of propaganda they leave at every campaign stop.
Of course, my question about Global Warming is "when are we going to start the debate?" We have the Global Alarmists already wanting to stop the debate when we've never had a debate.
My other question about Global Warming is "if we know so much about our atmosphere, how come we can't control the weather in a small area"? We just had a big drought in the southeast while the plains states were pounded with precipitation.
Geez, if we could have stopped the rain in Miami last year, maybe my Bears would have beaten the Colts in the Super Bowl!!
Don't forget that Laurie also flies a private jet everywhere. She certainly hasn't decided to live a "simple" life - she still lives in mansions and she is also paid for her speaking appearances.
Do you realize how much money Al Gore has made a result of that movie? When he left office he had about 3 million and now he has about 100 million.
I'm trying hard not to be nasty today so I won't insult her the way I usually do but I really can't stand narcissistic celebrities who get free publicity by telling us to respect the earth while they don't make any sacrifices.
It is always nice to know that we still have belivers in the concept that we can manipulate the weather to behave to our own satisfaction: Rain when the ground is dry, sunny when it has been cloudy for too long, cloudy when it has been too hot and sunny at your favorite desert resort and now sunshine when our favorite NFL team plays better on dry turf.
Don't you have something better to do such as reading a science book. I am sure you can find one at your local library on the failure of silver iodide aerosol cloud seeding. Perhaps we can launch some big fans into the atmosphere days before the next big sporting event and just blow the rain clouds away so your team can win next time.
All I'm saying is that it is quite arrogant for people to "believe" man-made CO2 is wrecking the atmosphere when in reality, we know very little about the atmosphere. Very very little.
I don't think either candidate wanted to stick their foot in this one. Even though it really is "saving the world".
Doesn't mean we have to sit and wait for a politician to tell us to act.
Its not actually saving the world, if anything (and assuming the "CO2 induced global warming is a disaster" theory is true) ending global warming is only a way of saving current human infrastructure and habitats. The world will be here irregardless of temperature.
Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty good.
This is a must-read reom Down Under:
http://www
I know Obama said that he wanted a hard cap on greenhouse gas emmissions in his Houston rally speech. I remember that specifically because I thought it was a pretty gutty thing to say, right there in the energy capital of the world. It was like when he challenged auto manufacturers to start building higher mileage vehicles - in a speech in Detroit.
Good for Barack. If you're going to say something that's going to piss somebody off, say it to their face.
Capping emissions would really hurt businesses in the the short term. The Democrats will need to decide if they want to get the economy back on track or try to fix so called "global warming" (in a few years it won't matter anyways, China will be the number 1 contributor)
I think there's so little disagreement between Obama and Clinton on this issue that it's not an effective debate topic right now. We need a lot more awareness about climate change, but the debate had a different goal. I'll be far more concerned if the trend continues in the Presidential Debates, where the huge disparity between those two positions can serve both to distinguish the candidates and start mobilizing the public's response.
Didn't Australia just outlaw coal? Wasn't coal their number one polluter? Isn't Australia a leader in the arena because it is lacking more ozone protection than any other place on earth?
So ban coal because Austrailia did it?
BOfever,
This is an informative read from Southern Australia: http://www
No, because it needs to be done.
BOfever; Think of it this way - ban coal because it causes terrible air pollution that leads to deaths and illnesses and also greenhouse gases. Solar is cheaper. It's like banning a tb patient from going around freely infecting innocent people.
Actually New Zealand has less ozone protection than Australia. Sitting in the sun in New Zealand is actually a painful experience. Skin cancer in Australia is astronomical and catacts are increasing.
Depletion of the ozone layer (oxygen gasses) has nothing to do with CO2 emisions (adding carbon dioxide gasses).
Why should we choose either coal or nuclear when we have wind, solar and water that hold loads of energy?Besides earth's natural resources, we are now learning new ways we can harness energy through our everyday tasks. For instance, we can power a gym by human use of treadmills, cycles, stairclimbers etc.
Though wind, solar, and to a lesser degree hydro power are promising clean energy technologies, they will never play a major role in a complete energy solution. There's no way those clean sources will EVER be able to fully provide the massive amounts of energy we're accustomed to. Coal is very efficient, but a stupid option for replacing oil since it's finite and far dirtier. Nuclear is really the only way to go.
But what to do with the waste? In Washington, we have Hanford, for instance.
I don't see why the other sources you mentioned can't replace fossil fuels, when combined with new technology. I know it sounds corny, but "if we can put a man on the moon..."
The 2 trillion dollars wasted in the Iraq invasion and occupation war crime could have replace ALL electricity generation in the USA,
with solar and wind.
Energy Crisis Solved.
Only with a gigantic reduction in energy use.
2 trillion dollars. current cost for solar 8$ per average watt, 2.5*10^11 watt.
current electric USA use: 2.3*10^11 watts.
Wind is much cheaper.
New Solar tech have begun shipping much less expensive solar.
http://www
Dream on. It sounds fantastic, but remember whenever someone offers you something that sounds too good to be true, it usually is. See, the sun don't shine all the time, and the wind don't always blow. These are two valuable components of a balanced mix of baseload power generation sources (coal, nuclear, natural gas) and renewables (including solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, but please, please, no biofuels - they're an environmental and economic disaster).
That said, gee do I ever agree about the 2 trillion (or whatever it is) blown on blowing up people and places no threat to us. Wish we could have that back and do something really useful with it, and stimulating solar and wind generating capacity falls in that category, but it is very far from the full story. Overselling it as "Energy Crisis Solved" does a disservice to your noble cause.
I doubt that but nice theory.
Research; That is so true and so sad. America has lost its lead, its value economically but the oil companies have made a fortune. As have the coal companies. The difference is coal is worse and you have to consider the destruction of the Appalachians by blasting the top off the mountains with no heed for the people who live there as a crime against humanity.
Yes. To both of you.
How you gonna run all those cars, trucks, SUVs, and busses? Energy crisis not solved.
It is true that the commentators did not mention Global Warming - but fortunately they are not running for President. The candidates took it upon themselves to bring up the issue of energy policy and the country going Green.....
http://the
Global warming is a pointless topic when most of the USA is have a terribly cold winter.
Thank Global warming for your terribly cold winter. You may be suffering the very effects that can occur with global warming -- extreme weather patterns.
Please visit: http://www
Here is an exerpt:
"More importantly, it [global warming] took no account at all of the huge costs that climate change would impose on us. Extreme weather events, like the Sydney hailstorm or the Canberra bushfires, lost farm production, lost tourism from a bleached Great Barrier Reef, and the commissioning of desalination plants have imposed large economic costs, far more than any credible estimate of the cost of reducing our greenhouse pollution. "
The question to ask is what can we do about this?
First, we can write to both candidates and ask them to consider who is sponsoring the debate before agreeing to do it. (OK, for next time.)
We can ask that the candidates insist that one ad is run, free of charge, for an environmental NGO that is reputable and that both parties agree upon, during the debate.
We can ask the candidates to INSIST on being questioned about environmental issues, global warming in particular.
We can ask the host network to make sure they include some questions on global warming in all debates.
I'm home sick today so others will have to come up with more. I need to lie down. But there's no sense in sitting back and complaining about it - let's follow Laurie's lead and get this thing moving!
Isn't the "Clean Coal" technology featured in the ads 10 years away from the marketplace?
Probably not cost effective, ever.
Clean coal is fiction.
FullChat;
dream on. Maybe you think you can eat all you want and lose weight too.
The USA faces a number of choices for the generation of power:
Burn coal with a risk of further air pollution & more expense to get a 'cleaner' burning fire.
Go nuke with problems in training those who operate those who operate nuke plants on a 'hands on basis', the expense & danger of disposing of spent nuke fuel which is slow decaying & will be a danger to all for 100's, if not 1000's, of years.
Use 'alternative' ways to generate power which are no panecia for supplying 'enough' energy to meet current & future 'needs' for power of a society which consumes energy at a very great, if not excessive, rate.
Take draconian steps to limit the use of power to only the 'most essential' needs of humanity to subsist.
Combine the above methods to sustain a most frugal existance for the 'greater good' of all humanity.
Stay stoned till you die to avoid facing the earth & humanity's problems. Waiter, bring me another double CC & ginger ale. Please put it on my tab.
Larry: Perhaps you wish to only subsist. I wish to live!
I am curious. Where can I go to get the truth about "Global Warming"? Are there any scientists who are saying they do not believe in "Global Warming"? I am in Chicago, and I for one hope the planet is warming. Damn it's cold.
Same here in Minnesota, this has been the coldest winter in a long time. Only 1 day above freezing in a month, including a couple of -40 windchill days.
I no longer believe in any of the global warming.
It is precisely that kind of ignorance and willful stupidity that makes it so difficult for the American public to deal with any problem more complicated than a sports doping scandal. You are proof of the failure of science education in this country.
Climate is not weather. I'll say it again. Climate is not weather.
Climate is an averaging of weather conditions over time. Climate change refers to trends in global temperatures which indisputably show a rise over the last several decades far in excess of any previously identified cyclic fluctuations. A few cold winters in one location, in fact a few decades of extreme cold in isolated locations, would not disprove the data showing a global rise in temperature.
And you should not believe in global warming. It does not exist. The earth has been cooling since 1997. The earth gets warmer, and it gets cooler. Think of it as the earth breathing. it is cyclical. Always has been, always will be. "Global Warming" is about money and power. Dig deep, you will find the truth, and the truth is, Al Gore and the rest are simply making money. Cap and trade? Where is the reduction in CO2? Should there be reduction in CO2? What is the amount of CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere? How much has it increased or decreased in the past several hundred years? These are questions that should be asked and answers found by all who want to know whether or not Global Warming is fact or fiction. I am not satisfied that it is fact.
TeddySalad,
This outta heat you up:
http://www
TeddySalad,
Google and read or watch videos by NASA scientist,Dr. James Hansen. A must see - a documentary called "Everything's Cool" can be rented from Netflix or bought (worth it to pass around) on amazon.com.
This is a site started by Rick Piltz a senior associate from the government office that coordinates federal climate-change programs, who resigned March 2005 because he felt strongly that what has been going on to stifle the science from you and I was wrong.
http://www
Another good site is www.thehea
Many of these sites will not display at first - a music site comes on, but keep entering it - I swear I think the powers that be have their own hackers who try and prevent people from easily accessing the information.
I used to believe the crap that we were fed, that it is disputed, not certain, not proven, not true, a hoax.... DIG deeper - it is sobering my friend.
Teddy; Ignorance is not bliss. It is stupidity squared.
As I already said to one "witty" dimwit: Move to Atlanta, but bring your own water.
One way to supply ourselves with electricity without coal is nuclear power. But unfortunately, most ecovangelists have a typically reactionary stance on that as well, with no knowledge of the actual facts regarding transport and disposal of waste. I think Obama actually supports nuclear, which is one reason I like him (seeming willingness to accept rational ideas). But when liberals claim to be a group based on facts and reason rather than emotion, it pains me when I hear rhetoric like "addiction to oil". I refuse to listen to anyone purport to know what to do about oil dependency (assuming the premise of man-made climate change) unless they first have a) a thorough knowledge of economics and trade and b) an equally thorough knowledge of automobile mechanics and electronics.
Why should we choose either coal or nuclear when we have wind, solar and water that hold loads of energy?Besides earth's natural resources, we are now learning new ways we can harness energy through our everyday tasks. For instance, we can power a gym by human use of treadmills, cycles, stairclimbers etc.
Oh swami Cool Cal:
We kneel before your superior knowledge of how to to transport and store the thousands of tons of radioactive waste produced by nuclear power now. Oh, that's right! You haven't told us how you will safely store all of this stuff for the next twenty five thousand years, have you?
Nor have you addressed the environmental degradation of the areas which are being mined for uranium now, much less the further immense amounts that would be needed to replace coal and oil facilities.
Nor have you addressed how much water nuclear facilities use to generate the electricity and how it will be procured in a drying environment.
Nor have you addressed the hundreds, nay thousands, of billions of dollars that taxpayers will have to hock up to build and ensure new facilities to take over where coal and oil electricity generation is taken offline.
I confess that as an "ecovangelist", it gives me pleasure to hear that you feel actual pain when faced with arguments about our "addiction to oil", all "facts and reason" to the contrary. Perhaps you should continue to listen to such as Greenspan, a man no one could accuse of allowing anyone to indulge in an irrational exuberance or emotion based economic policy. Maybe he could even fix your car for you...
And asthma creates jobs ...
I don't think Obama would have votes if he supported nuclear.
The big reason why we are still on oil is because the change may be rigid on the economy. That is why the politicians have agreed to 80% reduction by 2050.
That doesn't mean the rest of us have to go on being wasteful as the politicians work this whole earth thing out in their agenda.
How do you dispose of the radioactive waste?
How do you protect the site for the hundreds of years necessary for the low level contamination of the concrete to decay?
You stick it in one of those bomb-proof big plastic transport tubs and you leave it there for eternity. Low level radioactive concrete down in some geologically stable area is never, ever going anywhere. Nuclear waste ins't wet, gooey sludge, it's spent fuel rods--which are little lego-blocks of uranium. Talk about easy to store.
Plus, if we emulate the French nuclear system, we can re-energize those fuel rods so they don't need to get buried at all. Problem solved.
Loading comments…
Posted February 22, 2008 | 12:11 PM (EST)