worldonfirepodcast.org

One Response to “Corporate energy fighting for and against the climate”

1. David Lewis Says:
   October 23rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm

   I think these knee jerk comments that “there is no such thing as clean coal” should be reconsidered.

   Big Coal’s all talk, no build, lobby behind the scenes so they will never have to build approach to carbon capture and storage has poisoned the atmosphere in more ways than one.

   But many scientists call for rapid development and deployment of the technology. Read the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage which states:

   “This report shows that the potential of CO2 capture and storage is considerable, and the costs for mitigating climate change can be decreased compared to strategies where only other climate change mitigation options are considered.”

   The InterAcademy Council is a creation of the world’s science academies. Quoting from the IAC report, “Lighting the Way”, written by a committee that Steven Chu chaired, on carbon capture:

   “CONCLUSION 3. Technologies for capturing and sequestering carbon from fossil fuels, particularly coal, can play a major role in the cost-effective management of global carbon dioxide emissions.”

   The delay in building the first full scale plants was engineered by the Bush Administration when it cancelled FutureGen. The applause in the environment community which seized on this cancellation as evidence that the technology must be too expensive is countered if you read any of the literature. Here’s what Stephen Chu stated in his Senate confirmation hearing when he was appointed head of the DOE earlier this year:

   “I also say many times in my talks that coal is an abundant resource in the world. Two-thirds of the known coal reserves in the world lie in only four countries: the U.S., first and foremost, followed by India, China, and Russia. India and China, Russia and the U.S., I believe, will not turn their back on coal. So it is imperative that we figure out a way to use coal asa cleanly as possible. And so for that reason, and I think, again, my optimism as a scientist, we will develop those technologies to capture a large fraction of the carbon dioxide that’s emitted in coal plants and to safely sequester them. So if confirmed as secretary of Energy, I will work very hard to extensively develop these technologies, so that the US and the rest of the world can use it.

   I also think that, I mean, there are other, some people in the US who feel perhaps we should turn off coal. But even if we do it, China and India will not. And so we are in a position to develop those technologies so that the world can capture the carbon. So I feel very strongly, as you know, in my communications to you, before the nomination, that I feel very strongly, that this is not only an opportunity – its something the US, with its great technical leadership, should rise to the occasion to develop.”

   When people claim that there is something drastically wrong or even corrupt with politicians or even lobby groups who support carbon capture it does seem odd. We’re supposed to pay attention to scientists when they say do something about climate, but ignore them when they provide their best effort at assessing what we should do?

   So what would be preferable when speaking of a lobby group working for Big Coal is to mention that the “clean coal” campaign was a delaying strategy carried out by an industry that could care less if it kills the planet, rather than attack the technology itself, which just seems weird. Since when did any industry control its pollution unless it was forced by regulation or taxation?

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website