'Clean' coal? What a joke

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Richard Hiatt

Published December 13, 2007 at noon

Text size

More Speakout

More stories »

It’s not surprising that Southern Colorado’s IREA would publish a newsletter denying global warming.

Its recent Watts & Volts (September issue) spells out the “myths” around greenhouse emissions. Leaning on its own data, it announced “new research ... on climate change hysteria.” It reports that warming trends are “natural fluctuations”; hence, nothing to worry about. Second, it makes California’s programs on emission control synonymous with its failed “deregulation” programs — which are two unrelated issues. Third, its data comes from the Friends of Science which has strong ties to the oil and gas industry. (Friends of Science “does not disclose ... their funding sources”). Fourth, Colorado Media Matters reported the IREA’s efforts to “cloud scientific consensus” by contributing $100,000 to a prominent critic of global warming. Fifth, not once does the newsletter mention coal.

The October issue of Watts & Volts is dedicated to a report by Professor S. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia – a renowned global warming skeptic. What isn’t mentioned is that Singer consulted for the oil and gas industry for 20 years (Exxon, Texaco, ARCO, Shell, and the American Gas Association). And, finally, the word “coal” is mentioned — as being a better energy source than natural gas.

Singer says the 2,500 scientist-consensus at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “is an illusion.” He says environmental organizations like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund are “financial rackets” benefiting hugely from “climate scares.” He says there are clear “upsides” to global warming. And, finally, he contends that there are far more serious problems to worry about — like national security.

The Colorado Renewable Energy Society says the IREA is a “99 percent coal-fired facility.” It is committed to the belief, according to IREA Voices, that global warming is “a hoax.” And not surprisingly, the facility did not notify its own “member-owners” before building the Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant near Pueblo.

General Manager Stanley Lewandowski asked for a provision allowing IREA voters to “opt out” of Amendment 37 if the majority disapproved. Then, like clockwork, the next Watts & Volts reported a landslide vote against the amendment. Yet the Rocky Mountain News reported very different voting results — and — the Amendment passed. According to Western Skies, the IREA was “the only utility” wanting to bypass the amendment.

With fires burning California, floods in New Orleans, and Atlanta running dry, it’s time this Colorado energy provider confessed the truth about coal: that it contributes 40 percent of the Earth’s fossil fuel emissions, that it is the primary cause of mercury in fish (dangerous to pregnant and nursing mothers), that by 2013 the northern icecap will be “virtually gone” (causing methane releases worse than carbon dioxide), that polar bears are now “cannibalizing” each other, that whales and penguins are starving, that migrations are erratic, that the Gulf Stream could shut down, that the Amazon rain forest threatens collapse, and as Atlanta runs dry of water “five” more states may follow suit within “six years.”

The recent 14-page report submitted to Congress on the effects to human health is the most definitive report to date. It mentioned “disease” caused by floods and drought. The White House and fossil fuel lobbyists censored “10” of these pages and diluted it to something virtually meaningless.

Coal’s effects on climate cause 70,000 deaths per year. One-half of the world’s species will be extinct within a century and a half (polar bears and penguins within 50 years). The government’s own U.S. Geological Survey also submitted “nine” reports on the Arctic stressing that fossil fuel consumption must be reduced.

The fact is that, according to the IPCC, our planet must see an 80 percent reduction in emissions within 40 years. It says we’re on “a threshold” and dramatic steps must be taken — now.

The good news is that on Oct. 18, Kansas became the “first” state to reject a coal-fired power plant, a facility that would have spewed 10 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. Hopefully, this is the start to national trend and a bane to the IREA. Unfortunately, Wyoming just approved an even dirtier coal plant which the IREA undoubtedly celebrates.

As you watch trainloads of coal rolling through town, use it as a reminder of what coal is doing. Use it to remind yourselves what our IREA values most: “profit” concealed in a desperate propaganda drive.

To invest in coal is to keep a mind-set that sees/speaks/hears nothing else. It is a pledge to the old capitalist ethic that to exploit nature for “short-term, high profitability” is the “American way.” And the consequences? Well, that’s “somebody else’s problem” — our grandchildren’s.

Richard Hiatt is a resident of Guffey.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

Comments

December 13, 2007

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Who would you rather have providing you with energy this cold weekend, Stan or Richard? Face it, the Great Global Warming Scare is starting to jump the shark. This crisis de jour is on shaky ground. I would say the debate is all but over. Thanks Stan. Good luck with Commanche 3. It will serve your customers well. Climatologist from MIT are starting to call it a hoax. NASA JPL is starting to question it. Al's Hockey Stick doesn't exist, the glaciers caving are a sign of advancement not melting. Viva the debate.
December 14, 2007

9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

Again we have someone that completely ignors the past history of the Earth. It's weather has and is continuely changing. Man has not caused it. Mother nature has. Keep yelling wolf and believing it you Global Warming idiots...
December 14, 2007

9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Hydro_Man -

Do you have a source from a science journal (and not some political or psuedo-science website) to support the claim that the GW "scare" is on shaky ground? A source for the climatologist from MIT calling it a hoax would be nice as well (an original source, not someone interpreting what someone said please).

gary -

The science behind GW most certainly does NOT "ignors[sic] the past history of the Earth" - where did you come up with that bogus notion? Do you have any idea of the amount of research and the level of science's understanding of the earth's past climate??
December 14, 2007

3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

CL,

If I had a source credible source that was contrary to your view, you would claim it was not credible. You will not be swayed in your belief. In the past I've pointed out the fact that CO2 lags warming. Your response is "yes but it is different this time". You constantly ask for facts and provide zero from your point of view, other than "peer reviewed blah blah blah." The debate in your mind is over so deal with it. Research Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT or Dr. Gray from CU if you like. But at the end of the day anyone, no matter their credentials, will ever sway you from your belief of the infallability of the IPCC. Just as presenting overwhelming proof that Jesus was not the son of god would never sway a true Christian, nothing will get you to question your religion. Good luck with that. Why is your side so afraid of debate. If you truly believed your position, have your profit (spelling mistake intended) Al Gore debate Dr. Gray on nation TV. Have him explain how glaciers caving are a sign of warming. How Greenland got it's name. the fact that the famous hockey stick graph is gone form the latest IPCC report. The 6 meter of sea level rise is actually 0.6 cm in the IPCC report.
December 14, 2007

3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

CL..

Yes I do....and nowhere...repeat nowhere does it show that MAN has caused the ice age to end or begin... nor does it show that we control the weather at all....where do you get your "PROOF" that man can control the weather...show it to us.... there is none!!

Nuff Said...
December 14, 2007

3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

I'm sorry, I thought your claim was that man has cause global warming. I totally agree with you that man cannot control the climate. I believe that we should use as much renewable power as is economically feasible (but not artificilly raise the cost of coal fired generation to do so) and conserve as much as possible. But we should not eliminate our cheapest, most abundant resource from the mix (coal). To answer the original writer, clean coal is not a joke. The major emmission form a modern coal fired power plant is plant food, CO2.
December 14, 2007

6:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

gary -
"Yes I do....and nowhere...repeat nowhere does it show that MAN has caused the ice age to end or begin..."

And no one worth 2 cents claims that man did. Since you appear to have a poor understanding of what science and scientists say about GW, I seriously doubt you have much of a grasp of science's understanding of the earth's past climate.

"where do you get your "PROOF" that man can control the weather"

And when did you stop beating your wife?
I never said "man can control the weather", nor do I think that. Do you have anything to add that isn't bogus??
December 14, 2007

7:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Hydro_Man
"If I had a source credible source that was contrary to your view, you would claim it was not credible. You will not be swayed in your belief."

I doubt you know what my "beliefs" or "views" are so I don't think you would know what would be contrary to them. If the science of GW was falling apart as you claim, then it would be in the science journals. Such a huge item would certainly all over the journals Nature and Science but where are they? Do you consider those credible sources?

"In the past I've pointed out the fact that CO2 lags warming. Your response is "yes but it is different this time""

Well, GW theory doesn't say prehistoric temperature change was initiated by increasing CO2 levels and doesn't say that CO2 should have led warming. The current situation is CO2 levels leading temperature, so the present situation is in fact different. So what's your point?

"You constantly ask for facts and provide zero from your point of view, other than "peer reviewed blah blah blah."

My "point of view" is the science, so pointing out the actual works of science is exactly "from my point of view". I ask for "facts" (references actually) when something either interests me or I don't think there is support for the claim being made. It's rather interesting how often I ask that but either get ignored or begged off with one excuse or another.

"The debate in your mind is over so deal with it."

I never said that.

"Research Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT or Dr. Gray from CU if you like. But at the end of the day anyone, no matter their credentials, will ever sway you from your belief of the infallability of the IPCC."

I'm familiar with both Lindzen & Gray, and I have never cited the IPCC, so why would you think I believe it to be infallible?

"Why is your side so afraid of debate. If you truly believed your position, have your profit (spelling mistake intended) Al Gore debate Dr. Gray on nation TV."

I really don't give a damn about Al Gore or why he won't debate. I don't get my science from TV or politicians - but I find it interesting that you seem to think that's important but then pooh-pooh references to the actual science.
December 14, 2007

7:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

"I'm sorry, I thought your claim was that man has cause global warming. I totally agree with you that man cannot control the climate."

FWIW, I think there reasons to think man can and has influenced the climate, but not control it.

"I believe that we should use as much renewable power as is economically feasible (but not artificilly raise the cost of coal fired generation to do so) and conserve as much as possible. But we should not eliminate our cheapest, most abundant resource from the mix (coal). To answer the original writer, clean coal is not a joke."

I'm not far from that position myself. Much of coal fired generation currently online is already cleaner than it was a generation ago with such things as scrubbers and bag houses and that doesn't seem to have caused economic hardship. I have hopes that clean coal is financially feasible, but there more than likely will be some cost involved.
December 14, 2007

7:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Also,
"Why is your side so afraid of debate"
isn't accurate - my "side" constantly debates. Science is chock full of debate, it just isn't conducted in the same way (thankfully!) politics is.
December 15, 2007

6:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

kazacs writes:

For all these people saying they want proof that CO2 causes global warming and or global warming will not harm us please supply proof that it won't.
December 16, 2007

1:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

By clean coal I think the subject was low sulphur Western coal. Not that coal is "clean' overall. Western coal is younger, Cretaceous not Carboniferous period, and lower in sulphur.
December 16, 2007

10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghoax writes:

real tired of the whole global warming HOAX. The popular green slogan is great for marketing as the machine perpetuates the lie. A lie propogated by alarmists, envirnonmental Godless elites who's arrogance leads them to believe we can impact the earth's climate. The green fools can no more predict the weather much less the weather for 50 years...yet millions of lemmings buy into the lie. The lemmings can't accept that God made this world and we are part of it..part of the plan and He'll take care of it...why? because they've convinced themselves that their self proclaimed superior intellect is above God...deluded by their own illusion of power and limited understanding of the world we live in. It is absolute nonsense to believe the AGW lie, if you do, you're exactly what they want. You see, using the environment to sieze world control under the guise of "world peace" , re-distribution of wealth and elitist world control is the true motive here..and the sooner you AGW beleivers wise up, see the light ..the better off we'll all be. I for one don't feel like handing over what I've worked so hard for so some lazy bum can ride the easy train...
December 16, 2007

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brockage writes:

Western coal + state-of-the-art scrubbers = acceptable price levels for electricity as far as the eye can see.
December 16, 2007

6:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

robktherev writes:

It's funny how you global warming deniers always cite the same 3 'scientists' (oil industry lackies and FOX News contributors, mostly) and ignore the the THOUSANDS of independent scientists who contradict their positions.

Even the Bush Administration admits that that global warming is real and that we're causing it. (http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/...) The fact is that there's dramatically more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been over at least the last seven heating and cooling cycles. Scientists know this because they can sample air bubbles trapped in ancient ice near the poles (much like taking a core sample of a tree and counting the rings to locate a specific year). These heating a cooling cycles have been strongly correlated with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at the time. Atmospheric CO2 has risen unnaturally rapidly from 315 ppm to to 383 ppm since 1958 (data from NOAA/Scripps).

It is true that we cannot control the climate. If we could, global warming would not be a threat. But our collective actions do AFFECT it. Therefore, the fact that we cannot control the climate makes the unchecked continuation of our current oil/coal economy profoundly immoral.
December 18, 2007

7:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

VVVV writes:

I'm sure you're aware that when a coal fired plant is turned away, two gas plants are built in its place. As I'm sure you're aware that our only realistic alternative, nuclear power, is also opposed by the Sierra Club, et al. But do you know that California is now attempting to force Arizona to produce its power for them, effectively exporting their emissions? They haven't accomplished anything other than to crap on those they espouse to. Did you know that of the THOUSANDS of scientists on the IPCC, the majority of them were asked to profread, and not asked for their consensus? Nor did they give it.
I will start to listen the day after the Sierra Club, et al. vow to never use air conditioning, to never drive a car, and to have enough sense to endorse nuclear energy. Until then they are no better than any other political group out for their own financial interest.
December 19, 2007

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

me2

"By clean coal I think the subject was low sulphur Western coal. Not that coal is "clean' overall. Western coal is younger, Cretaceous not Carboniferous period, and lower in sulphur."

There is that, but "clean coal" also means the idea of treating the coal before burning it (ie gasification), how it is burned, and extracting CO2 & pollutants from the exhaust before it is released to the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal
December 23, 2007

8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

Over 30 years ago...the great "it will ruin the enviroment groups" fought the construction of the Pawnee Power Plant in Morgan County, Colorado. Thier claims were...too much sulfur in the air, it will cause acid rain and kill all of the vegetation for hundreds of miles around that and a lot of other B.S. Some farmers were dumb enough to believe this crap and sold thier farms and moved. Well, more than 30 years later and none of your great educated alarmists of the time, predictions have come true. You want proof. Study the studies and thier predictions made in the past. Almost all of them never materialized. Oh, I know, you have forgotten, a few years back, they predicted another ICE AGE was coming and we were all going to freeze!! So when you want to say the GW people know what they are talking about...it means nothing!
History proves they are wrong and mother nature does what she wants to do.

Home › Opinion › Speakout

'Clean' coal? What a joke

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Richard Hiatt

Published December 13, 2007 at noon

More Speakout

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs