Edwards not as green as you thought: When a ban isn't a ban
Why Edwards’ ‘ban’ on coal plants does little good against climate change 42
-
Posted 6:25 PM on 10 Sep 2007
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/david_h_roberts.
Related Stories
Not all green jobs are created equal
Mountaintop removal defenders disrupt July 4th music festival in West Virginia
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments View as Flat
askantik Posted 11:04 am
10 Sep 2007
Yay!!
Yet another reason NOT to vote for Edwards and TO vote for Dennis Kucinich!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:14 pm
10 Sep 2007
One small problem
"We will have to make it work, no matter how much public money it costs."
Money can't buy everything. We must have spent a trillion on fusion by now. Don't let him get away with this. We need a price on carbon and a moratorium on coal plants.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sirius Posted 12:41 pm
10 Sep 2007
Edwards has called for a ban.
Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89i9I7juUYY
It was recorded last Thursday night. In it, Edwards says the following:
"We should not build another coal-fired power plant in America, unless we actually have the ability to capture the carbon, which we don't have today. We don't need to make a bad situation worse."
That sounds pretty unambiguously like he won't allow any more coal-fired power plants to be built until they can be built with carbon sequestration technology. Now, I'm not up on the technology enough to know how far off that is, but reading between the lines of your article, I think that you're implying that Dodd's plan would give us 5 to 10 years to consider things, because that's how far off the technology it is. So if I read correctly between the lines of your article, Edwards would give us exactly the same 5 to 10 year time to ponder options.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:51 pm
10 Sep 2007
Maybe the staff person you talked to does not know
squat. Totally possible. Try to get Edwards on the line.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:08 pm
10 Sep 2007
Don't like that word 'unless'
Edwards qualified his statement effectively negating it. Cassandra is unhappy.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 2:33 pm
10 Sep 2007
Bottom line
What I take from this -- and from your other discussion of Edwards' position on sequestration -- is that he, like Clinton and Obama, doesn't fully grasp the gravity or urgency of the climate change problem.
One of them is likely to become president. We need to educate them somehow.
Permalink
kayser Posted 3:09 pm
10 Sep 2007
Question
Forgive me for questioning orthodoxy, but why is a moratorium on new coal plants part of the optimal policy on climate change?
- Does it address a market failure besides the externality of CO2 pollution or the spillover effects of renewables R&D investment?
- If not -- if this is simply another way to target CO2 pollution -- can we agree that a moratorium is not part of the optimal policy portfolio, and that instead we need a carbon tax?
A moratorium just sounds like heavy-handed command-and-control to me. If we have a solid idea of the risk-adjusted future costs of climate change, let's internalize those costs into carbon-emitting activities. What, separately, does a moratorium accomplish?Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:33 pm
10 Sep 2007
Well frankly
Well frankly if the plant can operate flawless with CCS from day 1 with no additional subsidy, then by all means.
I find that highly doubtful.
Whats more likely is that they build it, only to find that the CCS doesn't work, and that they get the permitters to bend, and allow for it's operation anyways.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:34 pm
10 Sep 2007
Or even more likely
The power plant operates with a big IOU of "we'll put in CCS sometime in the future".
That never actually comes.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:41 pm
10 Sep 2007
not quite
Again, if we immediately start building a bunch of IGCC plants, we will have irrevocably committed to CCS. We will have to make it work, no matter how much public money it costs.
Not quite. We can also shut down the old, existing coal plants and keep the more efficient IGCC units running. Of course, we will have to replace the lost generation capacity somehow, but we're going to have to do that one way or another. In the meantime, those IGCC plants -- which are quite expensive -- will have to compete on a capital cost basis with renewables. That probably means that relatively more wind, and relatively less coal, get built.
We might, just might, get five or ten years down the road with no net increase in coal generation. We aren't going to phase out coal entirely, though, for quite some time. If the plants we build now are IGCC, and we put a cost on carbon, then the incentive to shut down old coal is relatively greater, even if we don't have CSS.
In the short term, I'm not at all convinced that a total moratorium on coal plants (which is what a CSS requirement is, effectively, at this point) has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming policy. A requirement for coal to be IGCC might, though. I'd rather see a policy that handicaps new coal vs. renewables, and improves the overall quality of the coal generation assets, that actually has a chance of happening; rather than a policy which is better environmentally but has no real chance for survival in the political process.
Remember, the ultimate question is not what the candidate promises, but what we think they can actually pull off.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:55 pm
10 Sep 2007
Kayser,
A moratorium just sounds like heavy-handed command-and-control to me. If we have a solid idea of the risk-adjusted future costs of climate change, let's internalize those costs into carbon-emitting activities. What, separately, does a moratorium accomplish?
Fair question. A reasonable price on carbon will, I think, effectively act as a moratorium. Coal plants won't make economic sense in carbon-constrained world. But it will take a while for the price on carbon to rise to sufficient levels, and for the carbon market to mature.
Meanwhile, the coal industry is racing to build a buch of plants before that happens. And once you build a coal plant, it's spewing emissions for 30, 40, 50 years. The coal industry is trying to create facts on the ground, as the Israelis say -- a set of new plants that will, just by their existence, provide enormous incentive to keep plying the coal industry with subsidies, chasing the elusive "clean" coal.
The fight over coal is right now.
GreenE,
In the short term, I'm not at all convinced that a total moratorium on coal plants (which is what a CSS requirement is, effectively, at this point) has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming policy. A requirement for coal to be IGCC might, though.
What better chance to shape the space of political possibility than a presidential primary? If coal moratorium becomes the consensus position of Democrats, and Democrats win Congress and the presidency, then it would certainly have a snowball's chance. It's up to us to push them toward optimal policy, not exclude the possibility right out of the gate.
grist.org
Permalink
justlou Posted 9:32 pm
10 Sep 2007
Future Scenario of Coal and CCS
In an ideal world, politically and economically, and technologically and geologically, we might be able to trust that all future coal plants would be able to sequester carbon.
But, given our nature to muddle into the future, and given a rather bleak forecast of that future due to our propensity to muddle, very that few of these coal plants will ever sequester carbon.
Once society is dependent on these plants does anyone believe that we'll really have a shutdown switch under our control that will stop production if the costs exceed what an economically constrained society can afford?
And I can imagine that the "easy" sequestration would be done first. It is very likely that a curve of sequestration would follow -- a depletion of our technological and economic means to sequester.
So, then where are we? Further out on the proverbial overshoot limb of unsustainabilty with weakened means to fashion a truly sustainable future.
We are on the wrong path with coal. Ratcheting up the coal technology and complexity does not remove us from that path.
We need political leadership that helps us better define the mission to the right path.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 11:30 pm
10 Sep 2007
Interesting parallel with autos
One of the ways that auto makers have met their CAFE standards is by selling flex fuel vehicles (primarily to rental car arms). Thus, the ability to burn biofuels counts as credit even though the car (by virtue of it's flex fuel status) never burns biofuels.
I'm not trying to raise biofuels pro/con debates here, but it's worth noting that regardless of where you stand on that particular issue, you would probably agree that a car getting 20 mpg on gasoline ought not to be seen as a good thing from a CAFE perspective. And yet that is exactly what the flexfuel rules have done.
Of relevance to this debate because the path that seems to be suggested by Edwards is that coal plant could greenwash themselves simply by burning more coal but with the potential to deal with the carbon. Or in the interim, that Edwards could greenwash himself by voting for potential action rather than real action. Let's not make the same mistake twice.
Permalink
justlou Posted 11:50 pm
10 Sep 2007
But
Neither Edwards nor Dodd is likely to win the nomination.
Clinton and Obama would keep us on the coal "transition" path. Technocrats, finding the middle way to steady the forward stampede but taking us further from sustainability.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:51 pm
10 Sep 2007
Cheaper and cleaner than 'Clean Coal'.
USA has enough coal to kill the world. We can afford natural gas,
Coal power moratoriums must include coal export moratoriums.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 11:51 pm
10 Sep 2007
I agree...
Sean, that's exactly my fear -- that Edwards' qualifiers are a greenwash -- he gets to look like he's making a really strong statement (no new coal), but in the end he'll be too quick to back off.
Although in terms of policy-making after the election it won't matter exactly what's been said during the primaries, their statements do provide a window into all the candidates' thinking. And I fear they don't quite get it.
That said, I think Edwards gets it a bit better than the other two. But all three are quick studies. They just need to hear the right voices.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:08 am
11 Sep 2007
Kayser & GreenE make some good points
A platform calling for a coal moratorium might keep the Dems out of office. It would be easy for the Republicans to paint a picture of people shivering in the dark or sweltering in the heat from power blackouts. Our first priority is to get a Dem in office. Let's not be naive. The American public put Reagan and Bush in twice.
Calling for a moratorium at this point might do more harm than good. Politicians often blow off pledges they made once they get into office anyway. If we can get a price on carbon it will kill coal plants. Building new ones knowing they will be killed in five years by carbon costs should freeze out investors.
Dave's points are rational. Unfortunately, people aren't.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:20 am
11 Sep 2007
Coal to natural gas
Conversion underground using natural bacteria would bolster natural gas reserves and leave the coal mess where it is. No more mining.
Still GHG to deal with from the natural gas, but with the extra gas as backup power, wind and solar could proceed. And 70% efficient solid oxide fuel cell/turbine power plants running on natural gas would reduce GHG from present levels with 30% efficient coal power plants.
These fuel cell plants can run on biogas digested from manure and other waste as well, preventing a lot of methane release (methane is a 23 times worse GHG than cO2).
We need a team comprised of the new cabinet to campaign in the presidential race after the primaries. Gore as energy secretary championing renewables and plugin vehicles, Edwards as corporate monopoly corruption fighting AG, and so forth.
A team of democrats ready to start fixing the mess-o-america that duuuhbya's mess-o-potamia has left behind. Every aspect of our country neglected and all the money gone to bush friendly corporate contractors to not-rebuild Iraq.
Driven across a bridge in rush hour traffic lately, be afraid? Has it been condemned yet? Who would know, everything is secret, for national security.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:37 am
11 Sep 2007
Biod
That's fine, but just because we might like other bits of his platform doesn't mean we ought to grant him an environmental cloak. Your point about Bush is illustrative - if you were a traditional, small government conservative you might have had some real reservations about the way Bush II presented himself in the primaries. (Recall the debate where he giggled when asked about the Florida execution gone awry when the guy's head caught on fire. Shades of Abu Gharib notwithstanding, it suggested a man at odds with keep-government-out-of-the-morality-business precepts of libertarianism.) But that wing of the Republicans gave him a pass, figuring he was better than the alternative. 8 years later, the R's can no longer position themselves as being fiscally responsible or libertarian, which has long been the central pillar of the GOP big tent. To the long-term detriment of the party.
Today, the D's have a lock on environmental issues, but we shouldn't take that as any more of a given than the R's historic grasp on small government. Giving Edwards - or any other D candidate - a pass on environmental issues only risks squandering this point of advantage.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:40 am
11 Sep 2007
Fuel switching is not shivering in the dark.
Coal is finished. Even the wealthy do not want coal. I do not believe a dedicated coal constituency exists, just disconnected politicians sucking up coal money.
Permalink
mkayser Posted 1:04 am
11 Sep 2007
Dave,
Thanks for the response.
A reasonable price on carbon will, I think, effectively act as a moratorium. Coal plants won't make economic sense in carbon-constrained world. But it will take a while for the price on carbon to rise to sufficient levels, and for the carbon market to mature.
Meanwhile, the coal industry is racing to build a buch of plants before that happens. And once you build a coal plant, it's spewing emissions for 30, 40, 50 years.
Sorry, I don't understand. A tax on emissions will rise to a significant level before 30, 40, 50 years, right?
So presumably coal plants, including new ones, will only be profitably dirty until the tax phases in to a significant level. This should both
(1) discourage production of coal plants right now (the expected lifetime profit of the plant is lower), and
(2) ensure that CO2 emissions do not last the lifetime of the plant, but only until the CO2 tax gets sufficiently ramped up.
Permalink
marky367 Posted 1:12 am
11 Sep 2007
Assigning the real costs
There will be significant dislocation and higher energy costs that result from capping carbon from coal. But the situation is dire, so we must enforece a fairly painful carbon austerity.
If the thought is depressing, have a laugh.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:46 am
11 Sep 2007
Good one, Marky
"But have you ever sat in your car in rush hour gridlock with the air-conditioning roaring, an ocean of running automobiles stretching out to the horizon in all directions, the heat waves and fumes radiating upwards into the haze, and felt a thrill of panic? Well, you should have, because there is absolutely no reason to believe that nature can absorb that punishment, and every reason to believe she can't."
I've been there more times than I can count. That's why I love my hybrid bike so.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:16 am
11 Sep 2007
Put it this way
If putting in IGCC without CCS would save us a whole 10% CO2 reduction.
Chances are there are a lot cheaper options to reduce 10% of that energy use, or introduce combined heat and power, or just cogeneration to meet that 10% mark, MUCH more cheaply.
Building a bunch of IGCC plants will merely burn a hole in our pocket, effectively starving funding that could have just as easily been invested in renewables.
It's all about Opportunity Costs.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:33 am
11 Sep 2007
True that ,GreyFlcn
Gasification is an extremely expensive way to reduce a single coal plant's emissions by a mere 10%. Reducing the load on any conventional coal plant or increasing the efficiency of how its electricity is used 10% would produce the same result and a lot cheaper.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Paulp Posted 4:32 am
11 Sep 2007
coal carbon sequestration
It is time that everyone stopped buying into this fraudulent fairy story about sequestering carbon dioxide from coal plants. It was just invented to make coal plants, which are massive carbon dioxide producers, sound more green. And the environmental community is falling for it.
A simple chemical calculation shows that one pound of carbon from coal produces 3.7 pounds of CO2, a gas that cannot be stored. Methods being waved around are fantasies - pumping it into a hole in the ground and expecting it to stay there, or reacting it with lime which has to be made by producing much more CO2.
Don't fall for their sucker stories. Coal is a loser. Period! Sequestration is a story for children.
Permalink
John Passacantando Posted 4:59 am
11 Sep 2007
The Meaning of "Is."
Conratulations to Dave Roberts to exposing this little dance Edwards is trying to do with his position on coal plants. Hopefully this exposure will make Edwards clean up his position. To much is at stake to have a politician parsing works for political maneuver. The days of poltitical silliness (Clinton/Lewinsky) are long past.
Furthermore, even if you capture and sequester all the carbon emissions from new coal plants (which is currently technically NOT POSSIBLE) the beautiful mountains of West Virginia are still going to be ground up and burned. How to cut emissions without nukes or coal? Plans abound, here's ours:http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/global-energy-scenario ...
Permalink
askantik Posted 5:20 am
11 Sep 2007
Hmm...
Someone said, "One of them [Obama or Clinton] is likely to become president. We need to educate them somehow."
The only thing I want to educate Obama, Clinton, or Edwards on is that they aren't the best candidates. I don't agree with the media. I want to educate them and tell them that I ain't votin' for them, and neither should you.
Permalink
Chaoslillith Posted 6:12 am
11 Sep 2007
A few things
First off the other diary had no named source from the Edwards campaign. The author of that is basically passing unverified gossip.
From the very link you site:
If you look further on Edwards' site you will see the following:
Yes coal is in there. However, Edwards realizes the whole world cannot get off coal. China is pushing a lot of initiatives to try to get their country healthier before the Olympics but they have a long way to go. If we can create technologies that make coal cleaner for those countries as well as our own it will help. We will eventually get completely off coal due to the emissions caps Edwards wants to put in place, but we need something transitory until then.Edwards also wants to push localization of renewable energy.
So don't take one thing someone supposedly was told as the gospel truth about Edwards. Look at his whole plan and then decide.
Come check out my blog. www.environmentalprogress.blogspot.com/
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:03 am
11 Sep 2007
Chaoslillith,
I didn't say anything about Edwards' whole plan. I happen to like his plan -- it's easily the strongest of the top three Dems, regardless of this particular issue.
However, I'm not passing on gossip. I talked to a source on Edwards' energy policy team -- the team that developed the policy. I agree that the language on his site is ambiguous. That's why I called. He was very clear about the policy.
grist.org
Permalink
BruceMcF Posted 7:40 am
11 Sep 2007
I think I see a gap in the logic here ...
To date, I am still waiting for the policy statement or media spokesman statement that requires electric utilities to build IGCC plants.
That is, in the sense that they are required to meet a 25% portfolio standard for renewable power ... they have to build the IGCC plants.
Indeed, the policy statements quoted do not make clear whether sequestration equipment has to be included ... if it is possible to return to the un-named media spokesperson and have them provide a precise answer, that would clear up the ambiguity.
However, assuming the worst case (which would remain superior to the policies of Senator Clinton and Obama), if a utility chooses to build an IGCC plant, and then at a later date can neither sequester the CO2 nor obtain the carbon permit to operate the plant with mineral coal, shutting it down or operating it as a back-up power plant with biomass coal is precisely what they would have to do.
And, indeed, if we have established a solid national industry in renewable power generation, thanks to the 25% national RPS, by that time allowing the plant to shut down, or act as an emergency reserve, would not be politically controversial ... since there would be a substantial degree of economic/political clout wielded the renewable power industry.
Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:59 am
11 Sep 2007
I have zero tolerance for coal.
We have scalable alternatives. Coal is not necessary. Not shutting down coal is denial of the climate change disaster.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:27 am
11 Sep 2007
Please Stop Attacking Fellow Environmentalists
I am appalled by all of the bashing of fellow environmentalists going on here. A political candidate has a fine environmental platform and Dave Roberts and other "environmentalists" insist on attacking him because of a minor and not even proven policy disagreement. Sure, Edwards might not be perfect, but in a world where 99.99% of people don't give a damn, at least he is trying to do something to protect our environment. How about being more supportive? You are only providing ammunition for the right wing candidates to use against progressive candidates. Voters will start to wonder whether there are any presidential candidates that will please environmentalists.
Very sad. Very very sad.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/4/123247/9991/#40 ...
Forward!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:07 am
11 Sep 2007
Bush told Gore he would regulate CO2 emissions
Will Edwards fool me twice? Are they fellow environmentalists? Be skeptical, be very skeptical.
Permalink
BruceMcF Posted 10:44 am
11 Sep 2007
Of course, it addresses the ...
... tendency to continue using existing technology until pushed into a new technological channel. That is, after all, part of why a renewable energy portfolio standard is so important.
Of course, under Edwards plan, increased energy demands over the first decade would be met through improved energy efficient, by the end of that ten year period electric utilities will have to have substantial new renewable energy generating capacity if they are going to be on track to meeting the portfolio standard, and by that time as well the increased cost of coal from the need to buy permits will be shifting the commercial appeal of coal.
So under that plan, any new coal plants commissioned in the first ten years would be replacing older, dirtier coal plants, rather than being the expansion in coal generating capacity that the author of this post envisions.
Virtually Yours, BruceMcF Energize America 2020
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:04 am
11 Sep 2007
Depends
I look at it the other way.
Politicians are only as green as their constituents.
And silence is the same as acceptance.
Besides which, without an unyielding green, there's nothing to baseline what "compromise green" is.
_
In a weird way, politics is a lot like haggling.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:21 pm
11 Sep 2007
Wiscidea is engaging in satire
She is satirizing David's framing of any criticism of offsets as personal attacks on offset buyers.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:12 pm
11 Sep 2007
Heh
Well, I think frontloaded biological offsets are crap too. If they can't prove it will happen, then it's not legit.
And depending where the trees are located is a big factor. All trees aren't worth the same.
Planktos, so far I'm convinced that they aren't gonna make anything really happen.
Some offsets are good, some aren't.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:43 pm
11 Sep 2007
Gar,
I don't frame any criticism of offsets as attacks on offset buyers. I frame attacks on offset buyers as attacks on offset buyers. Grey's right: some offsets are good, some aren't, and I'd love to move the offset discussion along to at least that level of sophistication and away from the moralisms, wild generalizations, and bad analogies that have dominated it so far.
Wiscidea, your attempt at a gotcha point is silly -- there's no parallel where you're trying to draw one -- but regardless, you've made it four or five times now. That's enough. Next time I'll delete it.
grist.org
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:17 am
12 Sep 2007
Go right ahead...
Mr. Roberts wrote:
"Wiscidea, your attempt at a gotcha point is silly -- there's no parallel where you're trying to draw one -- but regardless, you've made it four or five times now. That's enough. Next time I'll delete it."
As though every one of your analogies is perfect. As though no one else here repeats the same point over and over and over and over and over and over. As though the Grist website isn't dripping with sarcasm.
I'll be posting the same comment the next time it appears appropriate. I thought you were tired of criticism of fellow environmentalists. I thought you were looking for more positive discussion. All hands on deck! We have to unite to defeat greed and consumerism! Stop criticizing your fellow environmentalists if they are at least trying to do something! Divided we fall!
Rather than directly attacking Edwards for one minor policy disagreement, how about focusing on articles telling us why other candidates are better? This would be far more productive than further illuminating every prominent person's flaws. FOCUS OF THE POSITIVE. Isn't that what you've asked for?
Perhaps you should just block my access to your website right now. It would show that environmentalism is becoming an intolerant faith-based religion and your are hoping to become one of its high priests. Time for a new inquisition. Weed out all dissent. Make sure those participating in discussions are 100% behind the party line. Perhaps let them speak just a bit -- to suggest open rational dialogue -- but not so loud that others start to pay attention.
Forward!
Permalink
Willinois Posted 3:14 pm
05 Dec 2007
Edwards' $1 Billion Coal Subsidy
Edwards got the endorsement of the United Mine Workers by pledging $1 Billion in subsidies to the coal industry to research "clean" coal technology they need to survive. That's technology the coal industry needs to survive, not the public.
It amazes me that people keep beating a dead horse about Obama supporting some funding for research into coal to liquid and distort that into full support for it. Yet Edwards gets a free pass on the much, much larger subsidy he's proposing for the coal industry.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:10 pm
05 Dec 2007
Coal is the Enemy. Period.
When it comes down to it coal is the true enemy in the climate change debate.
Air transport can shift to biofuels in limited quantities and lighter than air aircraft (Zeppelins) for everything else.
Shipping can go back to sail and use solar power to supplement.
Rail and road transport can go electric run by solar panels lining the right of way if needed. Slot cars work all the way up to the semi-truck size.
Bikes will make us all thin and fit and they have neat bells.
Farms can go organic and use permaculture and terra preta techniques to beat corporate ag. We can let pigs be pigs again, cows be cows, chickens be chickens and still be able to eat. Mixed farms are more productive on an EROI term anyway.
But electricity is largely fueled by coal around the world. Coal that starts as a solid and becomes a gas weighing 3.5 times as much and increasing in volume some ungodly amount. Put an inch of boiling water in an empty wine bottle, cork it and shake it (point AWAY from face). That gas requires a lot more space than the liquid did didn't it?
Sure we could go on a crash course of geothermal power plant building, building retrofits, geo-exchange HVAC installation, swirly light bulbs, solar roofs and windmills on every ridge. We could mandate efficiency and reliability standards for all new power using appliances so that they ran cheap and well and gave a return on the investment of producing them. We know that each of these methods works and could take a little slice out of the power useage pie.
We could quit selling so much crap. I have kitchen utensils that I have used daily for 25 years and expect to use my whole life. New stuff falls apart within months. I don't want to talk about the dismal condition of new clothes.
Or......
We could continue to burn coal, pretend we are going to capture the emissions and forget about it in ten years and watch the world burn. Atlanta first if there's any justice. Burning coal burns the planet. It's as simple as that. A plan that includes any growth in coal burning is simply a lie.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink