Coal. It's a four-letter curse word according to environmentalists and much of the news media. According to them, it is the "dirtiest fuel on earth" and is a bad choice even when more power is a necessity. The New York Times on April 23 favored alarmism about the climate in a front-page story about Italy's return to coal power. The article called the coal plant "dangerous" and warned that "critics say that 'clean coal' is a pipe dream."
When it comes to global warming, much of the media advocate the idea that human-caused carbon dioxide is the problem and something must be done. So it is no surprise that the coal industry didn't stand a chance in getting balanced coverage against the climate change alarmist camp.
Reports included calls for a "moratorium" on coal from left-wing global warming alarmists Dr. James E. Hansen and former vice president Al Gore. The April 6 Washington Post focused on Hansen, labeled him "perhaps the best-known scientific advocate for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions" and quoted him saying: "We simply cannot burn the coal and put the CO2 in the atmosphere and avoid having serious changes in the atmosphere." The same story quoted Gore who said, "I think we ought to have a moratorium on any coal-fired power plant that doesn't have the capacity to capture carbon."
Global warming is the cause du jour, so the media have heavily criticized coal for not being environmentally friendly, usually by quoting left-wing sources. Stories in The New York Times and Washington Post included left-wing groups like the Center for American Progress, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club. One Los Angeles Times story portrayed those environmentalists as heroes in the legal battle against coal.
"You could argue that power plants harm everyone all over the country," said Nick Persampieri, a Denver-based attorney for the environmental law firm Earthjustice, in the April 14 LA Times. According to that April 14 LA Times story, exclusively about the Sierra Club's war on coal, Persampieri is representing the organization in its fight against a coal plant in Kansas. But Persampieri's remark completely ignored the benefit coal brings to Americans every day by providing half the nation's electricity in a safe, reliable manner. The LA Times didn't provide any rebuttal to his dramatic claim.
Because reports took for granted the perils of greenhouse gas emissions, journalists criticized a "return to coal." "But the return now to coal, even in eco-conscious Europe is sowing real alarm among environmentalists who warn that it is setting the world on a disastrous trajectory that will make controlling global warming impossible," warned The New York Times on April 23.
The report goes on to talk about the one, lone, little problem with this mission: we need more power. To do away with coal would not only destroy the biggest energy source we have, but our economy, as well.
Coal plants provide about 50 percent of the electricity for the United States and supply mining jobs to more than 80,000 people, according to The Wall Street Journal April 14. The U.S. has even been dubbed the "Saudi Arabia" of coal because of its vast resources, according to Time magazine and other publications.
These environmentalists are looking to eliminate our biggest source of energy with 'vast' resources available and put literally tens of thousands of people (and more if you include the supporting industries, like transportation, processing, etc.) out of jobs simply for the myth of excess greenhouse gases being harmful, which is itself in dispute at the EPA (some even say now that CO2 is a good thing!)! And the MSM is helping them snow the public into buying the dangerously inaccurate hype:
Despite the need for power and the abundance of coal, the media have focused on environmentalists who push for "renewables." That ignores the reality of a society that constantly demands electricity, even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
Coal, according to Duke Energy's spokesman Tom Shiel, has several benefits over other forms of energy: "Relative cost, availability and the potential technologies to mitigate its carbon footprint. It is also safe and efficient."
Coal is one of the best sources of energy we have. In this time where we need all the cheap energy we can get, we simply cannot afford to lose it, too. And the issue is not going away:
The EIA projects demand for electricity will rise by more than 26 percent in the next 22 years – from 3.934 trillion kilowatt hours in 2008 to 4.973 trillion kilowatt hours in 2030.
The New York Times even admitted February 5 that "electricity shortages are a distinct possibility in coming years," because utilities have been "stymied in their plans to build coal-burning power plants" and are turning to more expensive energy options. That didn't stop the paper from promoting anti-coal activism in other reports.
I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn that Senator Hillary Clinton has jumped on the kill-the-coal bandwagon with the MSM:
"I have said we should not be siting any more coal-powered plants unless they can have the most modern, clean technology. And I want big demonstration projects to figure out how we would capture and sequester carbon," said Clinton.
But the media have not always made it clear that carbon capture is not a fully developed technology; also, it is expensive and cannot work in all locations.
What, only telling half the story? That's got to be a first for both Clinton and the MSM! Clinton has pledged to steal money from 'big oil' if she becomes President; I wonder if she'll do the same to 'big coal'? I think it's a safe assumption.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, this is just another example of radical environmentalism harming real people for no real reason. Don't buy it. If you do, you'll be in the dark in more ways than one.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment