AT ISSUE: Ending reliance on coal doesn't make sense
By Emma Marin
Published July 24, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
The June 29 Differing View commentary ("Closing coal plants good for ratepayers, health") offers environmental and economic arguments for eliminating Colorado's reliance on coal. They are not convincing.
First, the author ignores the tremendous progress the coal-based electricity sector has made to reduce emissions. Since 1970, the use of coal to produce electricity has tripled; at the same time emissions are 33 percent lower. This is due to investments in cleaner coal technology, which we should continue to support.
On the second front, it makes no economic (or practical) sense to phase out coal if we are trying to keep electricity affordable for Colorado families. This state relies on coal for more than 70 percent of its electricity generation, and renewable energy - despite its advantages - is not yet cost-effective on a large scale and cannot provide the baseload generation we need for a reliable flow of electricity.
We need our utilities to leverage the best aspects of all these fuels - coal, nuclear, natural gas and renewables - to develop a reasonable energy policy that protects both the environment and the economic well-being of all Coloradans.
Emma Marin is a resident of Denver.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
2008 Voter’s Guide
Use our Ballot Builder tool to compare your viewpoints to the candidates.
-
A Dozen on Denver
Sandra Dallas wrote 'Lennie's tavern' for our ongoing fiction series. Check it out!
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's totally biased pregame rant about the Broncos-Jaguars game.
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
-
Latest from Dove Valley
Click for more broncos videos.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
No. 44 means a lot to Floyd Little
July 24, 2008
5:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
The author is correct in saying that the power industry has cleaned up much of its act in the last 20 years, albeit by government mandate. SO2 emissions are under control and Mercury is coming under control. CO2 is the 500 pound gorilla in the room for those of us who believe in Global Warming. Ways exist to control Co2 emissions as well, although some will increase the cost of coal based power.
CO2 may be sequestered in old mines and exhausted oil fields where, due to its heavier than air nature, it should remain trapped indefinitely, thereby not contributing to global warming. An even more promising concept is algae based biodiesel. Algae growing plants may be located close to coal-fired plants where they may soak up the power plants CO2 as part of the photosynthesis process. The end results are low CO2 emitting coal plants and a viable biofuel. That would be a win for the environment, the power and coal industries and will buy time for development of other renewables to add to the energy mix.
July 24, 2008
6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fisherman writes:
Greenleaf:
Are you saying more algae will grow if we increase CO2? Then, CO2 must act as a fertilizer. So, wouldn't increased CO2 levels simply be soaked up by plants? Don't we want the earth greener? Then, what's the problem with a little more CO2 in the atomsphere?
July 24, 2008
7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
rhtawney writes:
Ms. Marin doesn't seem to understand that the coal plants in question, which should in fact be shut down for both economic and health reasons, are more than 50 years old. It is not unusual for aging plants to be shut down when the cost of operating the plant (or the cost of adding emission controls) exceeds the cost of building new, cleaner generation. Keeping half-century old coal power plants operating is not responsible for the reduction in emissions. It makes perfect economic sense to phase out expensive, unclean coal.
Carbon sequestration is being marketed as a solution. However, it has enormous costs and is not economically feasible in most places. It's not a long-term solution.
By the way, the EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule, which regulates SO2 and NOx emissions in the Eastern United States, was recently struck down by a federal appeals court panel. For those of us who believe in clean air, this is not good.
July 24, 2008
7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Fisherman,
No, my friend, CO2 isn't a fertilizer in the traditional sense. Fertilizer is in mineral form : potassium, phosphate, and nitrogen, along with trace elements such as iron and magnesium. Co2 provides the essential building block : Carbon.
The Algae based system I was referring to enhances the growth of algae by making it available in concentrated form. The individual plant absorbs and uses what it can and then passes it on the next plant and on and on. There are upward limits to what any plant can absorb and use even in the presence of optimum amounts of water and fertilizer.
The same phenomenon occurs in nature: Plants use only what CO2 they actually need. A plant that is starved of water, fertilizer, or light will absorb less CO2 than one that has optimum amounts of these.
Having said this, some plants absorb more CO2 than others: Algae and vines (such as Poison Ivy) are among those.
In short fisherman, more CO2 should increase plant growth and over a long period of time will soak up excess CO2. This assumes that vast new quantities of the gas aren't being continually produced as is our current situation. Assuming man produced no new CO2, and clear cut no additional forests or disrupted the process with agriculture or other large scale processes, balance might be achieved in some distant time (perhaps a hundred years or so). As it is, with no modification in our manner of releasing CO2 in large quantities and by eliminating carbon sinks by deforestation, desertification and increased cultivation of soil, we can't expect balance for who knows how many centuries.
July 24, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Emma you say: "at the same time emissions are 33 percent lower." That's only true if you ignore the greatest emission of all - C02, which has done nothing but skyrocket. Reminds me of the Washington DC mayor who said that if you don't count the murders, Washington was a safe place.
July 24, 2008
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fisherman writes:
Greenleaf,
Thanks for your answer. You seem knowledgeable about CO2 so I have another question for you. Why are levels of CO2 vertually the same over the Amazon and over the Sahara?
July 24, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
If you close down the coal fired plants and replace them with natural gas ones......your rates will skyrocket higher than the 19 percent increase we a going to get real soon.
We need to continue to use our coal. Natural gas can not meet the demand and remain economical.
Global Warming has been going on for millions of years..man is not the cause and most certainly can not cure it.
Nuff Said!
July 24, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
An_Engineer writes:
greenleaf and SheikYurBooty,
Perhaps both of you should return to school and learn exactly what carbon dioxide is because it definitely is not the problem both of you attempt to portray it as. Carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas that plants utilize for growth, with the byproduct of the photosynthesis process being oxygen released to the atmosphere. In other words, no carbon dioxide, no plants. No plants, no other forms of life.
But, more to the point. Both of you seem to equate carbon dioxide emissions with global warming. There have been numerous challenges to the theory that fossil fuel generated carbon dioxide is the sole driving force behind the fluctuations in temperature that have occurred since humans developed the capability to measure temperature. These challenges are backed by empirical data derived by valid scientific methods. The only proof offered to support the role of human generated carbon dioxide causing temperature changes is that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased while temperatures periodically show an increase in averages. Oddly though, there are periods of time (from the 1940's to the 1970's for example) when average temperatures were decreasing while carbon dioxide levels increased. For that matter, since 1998 global average temperatures have developed a downward trend even as carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase. So, there is reasonable scientific doubt that temperatures are driven by carbon dioxide levels. Additionally, correlation of two data sets does not prove a causal relationship.
There are a number of resources available that demonstrate that the connection between human-generated carbon dioxide and temperature variations have not been proved by any valid scientific method:
“Historical Data on Global Warming provided by U.S. Government Agencies”
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangb...
“What Americans Should Know About the Global Warming “Crisis””
http://www.colo-earthfriends.org/
Until the role of natural influences on average temperatures (such as the effect of water vapor {the real “greenhouse” gas}, variations in the sun's output, cosmic ray influences, orbital changes, Earth's axis wandering, the effect of aerosols, the influence of clouds, etc.) are completely understood and proved to be not the reason for temperature changes, and at the same time human generated carbon dioxide is proved to be the sole source of variations in temperatures, there is no need to consider limiting output of carbon dioxide by limiting our access to energy.
As such, please provide the empirical data that proves the cause and effect relationship between carbon dioxide levels and variations in temperatures. And, just to be clear, the output from climate models {ala Hansen at NASA} is not considered valid empirical data derived by the scientific method. Neither is the Summary for Policy Makers from the first through fourth IPCC reports.
July 24, 2008
7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"...ignore the greatest emission of all - C02,..." - Sheik
This is what the lies are producing. We have people like Sheik labeling CO2 an "emission" - like it was in the same category as toxic pollutants and other harmful substances. That is absurd. CO2 is a NATURAL by-product of life on this planet. Humans produce it everytime we exhale. Plants need it to perform photosynthesis. The greatest producer of it are the earth's oceans. Now we have people thinking that CO2 is some type of "emission" or pollutant?
greenleaf - You talk about "balance". Balance as defined by whom and for what purpose? What is a "good" balance and what is a "bad" one? What I always take away from these discussions and blogs with people who think that AGW is a real threat to the "planet" is that all man-made activity is "bad" and the world would be better if no humans existed at all - or at least if we did, we lived like those in the 18th century. That is NOT going to happen. I am all for moving towards better and cleaner technology - I really am. But CO2 as an emission that is harmful? How can any constructive discussion begin from a premise like that?
July 24, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
An_Engineer - I said only that CO2 was an "emission." You got a problem with that? Reread my post.
Water is essential too - until you are drowning in it.
July 24, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
goodspkr writes:
You have to believe in AGW to be concerned with the carbon coming from coal power plants. I don't.
First let's look at the Shiek's comment,"That's only true if you ignore the greatest emission of all - C02, which has done nothing but skyrocket." CO2 is a trace gas. Notice the word trace.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is .000384 or .0384 percent of the atmosphere. It is not the biggest greenhouse gas which is water vapor. As greenhouse gases go it represents about 3% of the total greenhouse gases. And because it absorb heats only in a narrow bandwidth, it's ability to heat things up is greatly restricted, that is to say, double of CO2 doesn't double the amount of heat it absorbs. Here's an analogy. If you had a light that wouldn't go out you could wrap a towel around it and it will dim the amount a light getting through. If you wrapped a second towel around it, the second towel wouldn't dim the light as much as the first towel did. The majority of the dimming was due to the first towel.
I don't think the miniscule effect of CO2 is causing the warming.
But let's say you do believe in AGW. Shouldn't we just go to nucs?
July 24, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Fisherman,
I don't claim to be any kind of atmospheric scientist. However, I believe the answer to your question is that the atmosphere constantly mixes with lower level winds and storms and the jet stream aloft. Maybe others will have a better. more detailed answer.
An_Engineer,
"you seem to equate carbon dioxide emissions with global warming. There have been numerous challenges to the theory that fossil fuel generated carbon dioxide is the sole driving force behind the fluctuations in temperature that have occurred since humans developed the capability to measure temperature..."
Climatologists equate Co2 and methane and water vapor, for that matter, with Global Warming. My 35 years of experience in the field of botany don't qualify me to question climatologists any more than your ??? years as an engineer qualify you to interpret their research. As an applied scientist, wouldn't you take umbrage at having a theoretical scientist such as myself interpret and question your schematics or mechanical drawings? Of course you would! This is why I also laugh when you suggest I go back to school to learn more about plants and CO2's effects upon them. So you are an now an engineer, climatologist and botanist? Amazing! All in one small package too!
As for your links: thanks but, gee, I don't know. It was you that once referenced the George Marshall Institute which distorts scientists data to support industry agendas. First it was cigarettes effect on health and now its CO2's effects on Global Warming. I am not a great believer in "dueling links" arguments anyway. I'll examine your links if I have time today.
I apologize for my tone, but I am a little offended by your "botanical" lecture.
Michael,
Stasis is a better word than "balance". Balance, as you imply, means different things to different people . Stasis means a return to a fixed point of relative stability.
All non plant organisms produce CO2. For humans, it is dangerous and even deadly at the extreme (it is heavy and displaces
oxygen). Plants on the other hand require it to produce the proteins that and carbohydrates that animals consume. It is essential to life(as are many other things). CO2 is also a powerful agent of change. Some changes associated with increased CO2 and Global Warming will certainly be beneficial for some, while extremely harmful to others. Who belongs in which group? I don't know, do you? All I know is that we are in a time of rapid change that will be hard to adapt to. We are accustomed to hundreds of years of relative stasis. I would rather take some steps toward efficiencies and reducing CO2 emissions(and Methane for that matter) than to find out at some later date that we have, by doing nothing, doomed succeeding generations to an uncertain and perhaps unpleasant future.
July 24, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
knatale writes:
Global warming is the mass hysteria of this century. CO2 emission as the cause of any global warming has been discredited, but some believers still promote this flawed theory. NASA now confirms the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was 1934. Six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 were before 1954. Over 3000 robots have collected data from the world's oceans and that data shows that the oceans have been cooling for the past 5 years. While it is true the Arctic ice is thinning, the Antarctic ice has been expanding for years. This last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest on record.
The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Because of an ideological belief (discredited by the facts) some are willing to sacrifice the life-blood of our economy- inexpensive energy. Solar only works when the sun is out and requires huge expanses of land. Wind only works when the wind is blowing. Even the best performing wind farms only produce 14% of their rated capacity. They are environmentally destructive, a blight on the landscape, and kill millions of migratory birds each year (many of which are endangered).
Nuclear is a great solution but only if the political obstacles that have existed for a generation allow opening waste disposal sites.
Natural gas is expensive and should not be used for power generation because the better use is for home heating. Any use for power generation drives up the price for heating our homes.
Therefore, coal is the only viable choice for power generation.
The global warming alarmists, led by high priest Al Gore, demand radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly, etc.
Global warming is a monastic, penance driven religion as opposed to a healthy, life-affirming one. Go King Coal!
July 24, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eagle5 writes:
I believe the author is correct and, yes, the coal plants are too old. A mix of well-planned, researched, and sound energy and environment practices is crucially needed to get the energy problem under control. Hope everyone is smart enough to accomplish this without being too extreme either way.
July 24, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
knatale wrote: "Even the best performing wind farms only produce 14% of their rated capacity. They are environmentally destructive, a blight on the landscape, and kill millions of migratory birds each year (many of which are endangered)."
14% efficiency? Who supplied that number? Even so, 14% from nothing sounds good to me. Wind turbines can produce up to 70% in just a 20 mph wind. Don't believe me? take a look here for accurate, repeatable data:
http://www.k0lee.com/turbineeff.htm
Please explain how towers spaced half a mile apart are destructive, without mentioning birds (which is addressed below). Yes, some soil is excavated, with much of it being returned as fill material. Wind turbines do not disrupt streams or rivers, cause no known distress or harm to ground-dwelling animals, and eliminate some need for coal obtained from strip mines.
A blight on the landscape? By whose definition? I think they look just fine, a tribute to mankind's engineering prowess. I also enjoy seeing them because it beats looking at a coal-fired or natural gas-fired power plant.
Scientific information on bird kills can be found at Treehugger.com, which is operated by environmentalists. They found that far more birds were killed by cars than wind turbines, and few of those killed were endangered. Proof can be found at:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/...
knatale, if you can find information supporting your claims, please post it here, along with a link to the sorce. In the meantime remember that wind turbines are powered by a clean, non-destructive, non-polluting form of energy which is unlikely to ever run out.
July 24, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
greenleaf
My, you've been busy on this blog this morning.
I left a return post for you on the other GW discussion.
As to this one: I believe coal is a viable option for the long-term future. The emissions can -- and will -- be cleaned up by advanced technology. Mostly, it's a matter of waiting for the "fix" to be made economically viable.
I just hope it happens before we end up electricity that's the equivalent of $4.00-a-gallon gasoline!
July 24, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
knatale writes:
Acemon,
I was wrong on the 14% number. The actual number is 17% and comes from a book published in 2008 "Gusher of Lies." The author, Robert Bryce, notes that "in July 2006, wind turbines in California produced power at only about 10% of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17% of their rated capacity."
July 24, 2008
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
knatale,
I looked online for Gusher of Lies and found many reviews of the book, but no facts to back up his claims. Perhaps his book cites sources and peer-reviews research, but I couldn't find it. Bryce is a journalist who wants to sell books, and few things generate as much publicity as controversy. By contrast, the information I cited above (with website links) is the result of scientific research, not thoughts or feelings.
Even if Bryce's claims of 17% efficency is correct, I'd still like to read your justification for claims of environmental damage and the death of birds, especially the endangered ones.
July 24, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Here's an interesting look at Gusher of Lies by the National Review:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=...
I just hope the Rocky's spam filter doesn't cut off the link.
July 24, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Darwin writes:
Acemon, I agree that we should utilize wind power where viable. As to knatale's comment as of 17%, I took his comment to mean that he was referring to wind generators capacity, not efficiency. Fortunately/unfortunately, there are not many places that have a sustained wind of 20 mph (I know, less is required for them to generate electricity). As to the birds, I still believe I come before the birds, though I would not go out of my way to do them harm. As to their attractiveness, tell that to the people in Cape Cod, etc. where the prevailing attitude is NIMBY.
I don't see this as an "either/or", but believe we should utilize all viable options.
July 24, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
The simple answer to what probably causes global warming ( and a big chunk of pollution ) is a close as your nearest hot springs or VOLCANO!!
People overlook the fact that WE SIT BETWEEN TWO GIANT HEAT SOURCES!!
The ARROGANCE of MAN has a lot to do with this " the sky is falling " approach. Are you ready to cool down the Earth's core? The same SOLAR POWER ( read your FACTS on how much ENERGY a single square meter of surface area that has sunlight generates? )
Yes, we MAY have GW, but MAN has little to do with it...
If you REALLY were worried about an energy shortage, just CREATING a geothermal plant would give you the energy you need..
But right NOW, the US ( remember US? ) has plenty of COAL....
The only thing we have to do is properly learn how to use it...
And COAL use has been getting cleaner..( often by the proper STICK and CARROT being applied )...
And to make matters worse, I KNOW that the domestic oil producers have been lying to us....the numbers the CRAY systems ( they used them for calculating the size of underground oil fields ) get are not the numbers they report PUBLICLY...
July 24, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
blueman writes:
I have been interested in this subject for many years, but I have no claim to expert knowledge, so must rely on others. I am pleased that commenters so far seem to be more objective and to be trying to exchange information better than most I have read over the years, which are usually just political polemic. I do know that the coal industry and the electric power industry, like most American industry, will not do anything to reduce environmental and human impacts from their activities until they are required to do so. That is not necessarily because they are managed by evil persons, but just the inevitable result of capitalism. In the course of continuing to operaate as they always have, some enlightened, forward thinking companies, who can obtain or allocate the capital, will study other ways of doing business for possible implementation if and when they deem it woth the risk. Along the way, industries and their lobbyists will do lmost anything to keep the public uninformed, orsometimes even misinformed, about what is happening that the public may find offensive enough to demand that their political leaders do something about it. Again, that is not necessarily because companies are managed by evil persons, but because they are trying to reduce the risk of being forced to implement costly changes to the way they do business. A natural decision making process in a capitalist system. That is why capitalists deem anyone who would force them to incur such costs for the "good of society" to be socialists.
So, now that you know why I am following this issue and how I think about the discusion of it, please continue to inform me and the others who are interested, and allow me to comment or respond further. Thank you.
July 24, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Man made global warming is nothing more than a component of Socialist dogma. CO² has become the fire and brimstone of the Marxist religion.
July 24, 2008
4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
blueman writes:
"That is why capitalists deem anyone who would force them to incur such costs for the "good of society" to be socialists."
Hmmm, I guess that means that even though they think like Socialists. act like Socialists and speak like Socialists it's not OK to call them Socialists... How SOCIALIST is that? After all look at how much Socialism has contributed to society...
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"
Adolf Hitler, (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
BTW the Federally mandated increase in minimum wage went into affect today, further distressing the small business owner that already is overburdened by taxes and and rising fuel costs that are a direct result of the "good of society" leftist idealogues that don't want to be called Socialists...
July 24, 2008
5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Thought-provoking quote, T, thanks.
I tend to believe that most people are not evil, and have good intentions. I believe the "mainstream" liberals are not really trying to upset the applecart. Most of them just want to make the country better -- a goal most of us share.
I think more people in the USA need to become aware of the goals of true socialism. That way when someone presents them new ideas, people can consider them more critically and evaluate them more fully. Education is power.
July 24, 2008
6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
P_Denver you are absolutly correct in your assumption that most people are not evil, but a much higher percentage are ignorant, that is why propaganda works...
July 24, 2008
7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Correction; a much higher percentage are ignorant(of the past), that is why propaganda works...
July 24, 2008
7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Hello P_Denver,
Yes, I did see your other posting - thanks.
I did get a little carried away on this forum today. I had intended to do my usual "infomercial" posting and then leave the debate to others but, as so often happens, it developed a life of its own and I was drawn into it.
I understand that as humans operating in both an artificial and a natural world, that we cannot separate the economic concerns from the environmental .To do so would be folly. So many environmental concepts are fiscally conservative in nature. Embracing efficiency in our energy use saves people money over the long run and benefits the environment as well. Intercepting coal emissions, while initially expensive, keeps SO2, NOX and particulates out of our lungs. It also intercepts mercury that we would otherwise consume. We not only save health dollars but add years to our lives in the process. Its simply good public policy. I know that there will always be those that doubt man's contribution to global warming. To them, any attempt to sequester CO2 is a waste of money. It is for them that I mentioned the algae based biofuel in my first posting on this thread.
I believe that finding cost benefit in our energy calculations can pay a dividend for the environment and public health as well. If a concept is a good fit for the economy, but also benefits the environment there should be little controversy in its swift adoption. Its only those energy solutions that offer consideration of one concept but not the other that sabotage our forward movement.
Thanks for the consistently reasonable tone of your postings. Some of us try to tone down the rhetoric and skip the insults so as to have a good discussion with those of opposing views. We have some big problems in our country and the world. We need to find understandings and middle ground so that we can move forward for the good of all. Thanks for being part of that process my friend. I'll watch for you in future threads.
July 24, 2008
7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
greenleaf, while I disagree with you on a lot of topics I appreciate that you are a voice of reason and you have made me think... Thanks
July 24, 2008
7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
Next on WFC live from Afghanastan... Obama v/s Osama...Cage match for supremacy of the world.... Watch as the Chicago social worker battles the International terrorist in a one on one match to see who can rule the world...
July 24, 2008
8:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
Total man caused GHG emissions is only 0.20% of total atmosheric GHG's. Hardly enough to drive climate change. Ice core data show CO2 is a lagging indicator of climate change not a leading indicator. We are coming out of the med-evil ice age and the natural warming has caused a very slight up tick in CO2.
China placed 186,000 mw of new coal generation in 2006 and 2007. Since 2005 China has built 150 new coal plants. What we do in this country will have no effect on CO2 or climate. In fact if we would shut Colorado down to a zero carbon footprint tomorrow the world would overcome this reduction in a mere 30 days!
Man caused global warming is a hoax and an attempt by the left to institute a new brand of socialism. The thouroughly discredited Al Gore wants to make tons of money in carbon trading with the carbon trading companies he owns! Gore is a fraud!
Coal is the energy answer, not the problem!
July 24, 2008
8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hazardous_T writes:
"I have ridden the mighty moon worm"
Al Gore... :D
July 24, 2008
9:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Hazardous,
We don't have to agree on every subject to find some common ground. I simply believe that its important to try. In trying to influence the debate, we are ourselves influenced. Most people have arguments worth listening to if we can just get beyond insults and partisanship. In the last year that I have posted on this forum I have learned a lot and have modified my approach to on line conversation. I now start with the assumption that the other person is intelligent and well intended. I've had some very good conversations as a result. I'm sure that we'll have some too. Thanks for the complement. Mostly I'm glad that this process forces me to think:>) Its all good!
Later friend!