Comments SteveCHarris has made

  • RE: Coldly Unsupportive

    I agree to a certain extent that animal rights supproters can be narrow minded in their approach, as can all of the specialists out there. An economist looks at the cost of infrastructure for trains and dismisses them as a waste of money, whilst missing the points of lower carbon, increased safety, etc. I'm sure animal rights people do the same when it comes to humans.
    But in the end, aren't they overlooking human poverty because the "lesser" creatures in the animal kingdom have no way to fight back? Who wins in a fight between the poor villagers in Bangladesh and a Royal Bengal Tiger in the mangrove forest, for example? They are both competing (at times) for land and resources due to human population growth. There are over 140 million people in Bangladesh and less than 300 tigers left, so why do animal rights activists favor the tigers in this competition? I think we often have sympathies for the underdog, even if we belong to the ruling class...but I value your point that impoverished humans should always be taken into the equation.On Upton Sinclair on downer cows posted 1 year, 9 months ago 20 Responses

  • Different sponsors

    Interesting how much sway these sponsors seem to have over the questions being asked. Environmental Defense was a top sponsor for the CNN Republican debate on the 30th and the candidates were asked about the CA EPA waiver issue.On Tonight's climate-less Democratic debate: Brought to you on behalf of ABEC posted 1 year, 10 months ago 4 Responses

  • Coal representative?

    I had no idea I was representing or supporting the coal industry...nor do I pretend to understand why utilities choose to invest in coal-fired plants. Nonetheless, over 70 new coal plants will be built within the next eight years in this country. Between China, India and the United States, nearly 850 new coal-fired plants will pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.  The US will also need to undertake significant refurbishment of their existing coal fired fleet over the next 20-30 years.

    We need a pathway to carbon neutral coal power that mobilises public and private sector investment in carbon neutral coal-fired technologies including advanced combustion and CCS. I don't pretend that CCS is perfect (in fact it reduces energy production and is quite expensive, as you point out), but (for now) it's going to be a necessary part of the mix if we are to drastucally reduce emissions in the coming years. Fitting CCS to power plant can reduce the CO2 emissions by 85-90%.

    I would be happy to see new technologies replace CCS as the better choice, but for now I don't understand why enviros should not advocate CCS adaptation for new plants. If the utilities are actually embracing this technology, why shun them and take a hard line that is impractical? Again, you mentioned the economics, but the political reality is another story.On Breaking: Dept. of Energy pulls support for FutureGen posted 1 year, 10 months ago 20 Responses

  • CCS in the U.S.

    Not defending the cash cow dubbed FutureGen, but carbon capture sequestration is a worthwhile technology to pursue in the United States. Cheap coal is not going away anytime soon and we should do everything we can to limit and reduce GHG emissions from current and proposed coal fired plants.

    I don't think the end of FutureGen is necessarily a "green" victory, though the DOE completely mishandled it in my opinion.On Breaking: Dept. of Energy pulls support for FutureGen posted 1 year, 10 months ago 20 Responses