jeffgoodell’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dirty deal?

  
  If the coal industry cannot sell its coal it will not politically allow us to change over our economy to a non-carbon energy world.  We just don't have the political will for that. The coal industry is too big of an obstacle.
  

  Very interesting point, and one that I've heard from a number of smart beltway enviros. They know that CCS is a boondoggle, but, in their view, supporting it is the only way to advance carbon legislation.  So we get this Potemkin Village-style debate that pretends to be about science and technology but is in fact about political horsetrading. Is it a smart strategy?  Maybe, maybe not, but it surely contributes to the reality distortion field around this issue. On Why clean coal is so darn appealing posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Star Wars for the fossil fuel era

  I agree wholeheartedly with David's analysis, esp. the non-linear aspects of change in our energy system.  I've come to see the whole notion of "clean coal" (that is, CCS) as something like the Star Wars missile defense system.  That is, a technological pipe dream pushed by grant-hungry scientists and engineering firms and beltway mojo that will eventually collapse from the weight of it's own absurdity.  I mean, clearly we're going to see some limited deployment of CCS in the near future, but the notion that it is somehow going to make coal a viable fuel in a world that takes global warming seriously is, IMHO, downright delusional.  The sooner we admit that and get on to smarter, more sustainable ideas, the better off we'll be.On Why clean coal is so darn appealing posted 1 year, 11 months ago 37 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  This is nothing new for Fred

  The following is an excerpt from a 1996 speech that Fred Palmer gave at coal conference in Madrid, during the run-up to the Rio Treaty (the forerunner to Kyoto):

  To understand Rio and what is behind it, then, you have to
  understand the powerful political force that modern day
  American environmentalism represents and how American environmentalists
  approach energy issues. The Rio Treaty is based on
  a vision that rejects the developed world's industrialized past and
  the industrial evolution of mankind. Rio is based on a vision of
  apocalypse, scarcity, drought, famine and pestilence. Rio is
  designed to limit the material progress of the human community
  based on a moral view of the present and future that by definition
  rejects the pro-human vision of all of the world's great religions.
  The Rio Treaty is based on a vision put forth by American environmentalists
  that seeks to separate the human condition from
  conditions on Earth. That is, because environmentalists exalt an
  undisturbed Earth above all other values, the footprint of human
  activity on Earth must be minimal.

  Coal and oil, the use of which are most threatened by the Rio
  Treaty, are among God's greatest gifts to the human community.
  Formed over eons, these fuels have laid in wait for development by
  humans as they carry out the Old Testament command. In
  Genesis, it is written:

  God said, Let us make humankind in our own
  image according to our likeness! Let them have
  dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the
  heavens, animals, all the Earth, and all crawling
  things that crawl upon the Earth!

  Bear fruit and be many and fill the Earth and
  subdue it! Have dominion over the of the sea,
  the fowl of the heavens and all living things that
  crawl upon the Earth!

  And, of course, humans have done just that....One reason for human
  success is the Earth's abundance of fossil fuels particularly coal and
  oil. It is easy to conclude that, under a preordained plan, coal and oil lay in wait for
  exploitation by humans to permit our creation of an environment on Earth conducive
  to the spectacular success of our species.On Notable quotable posted 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I'm with David

  There is a big difference -- a rhetorical Grand Canyon -- between supporting coal plants that are "compatible with" CCS and actually requiring them to do it. "Compatible with", from the industry POV, could mean anything -- hell, there are plenty of people in the industry who argue that conventional coal plants are "compatible with" CCS -- of course, it might take a few decades to figure out how to do it, but hey, what's the rush?  I've been a fan of Edwards climate proposals, but I think somebody needs to press him hard for a clarification on this.  On How does Edwards' union support mesh with his ambitious climate-change platform? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  the return of big science

  Agreed, it is inevitable.  Better we sort it out now than when the seas are five feet higher and rising.  Edward Teller's protege is way out front on this...

  http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/12343892/can_dr_ev...On U.S. response to IPCC is ... something posted 2 years, 10 months ago 7 Responses