Why is DU blasted with Pro-Ads for Clean Coal - On the home page & discussion boards

[debbierlus]

Coal is a highly polluting energy source. It emits much more carbon per unit of energy than oil, and natural gas. CO2 represents the major portion of greenhouse gases. It is, therefore, one of the leading contributors to climate change. From mine to sky, from extraction to combustion -- coal pollutes every step of the way. The huge environmental and social costs associated with coal usage make it an expensive option for developing countries. From acid drainage from coal mines, polluting rivers and streams, to the release of mercury and other toxins when it is burned, as well as climate-destroying gases and fine particulates that wreak havoc on human health, COAL is unquestionably, a DIRTY BUSINESS.

It is a major contributor to climate change – the biggest environmental threat we face. It is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, emitting 29% more than oil, 80% more carbon dioxide (the main driver of climate change) per unit of energy than gas.

Mercury is a particular problem. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), mercury and its compounds are highly toxic and pose a ‘global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.’ Coal-fired power and heat production are the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions. There are no commercially available technologies to prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

“Clean coal” is the industry’s attempt to “clean up” its dirty image – the industry’s greenwash buzzword. It is not a new type of coal.

“Clean coal” technology (CCT) refers to technologies intended to reduce pollution. But no coal-fired power plants are truly ‘clean’.

..............

More:

http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/campaigns/climate-change/climate-impacts/coal/the-clean-coal-myth

Between this & the removal of a post about the decision of the Bush admin now continued by the Obama administration & Congress (dem & repuke alike) to spend the vast majority of money on bad debt & insolvent banks & insurance companies with little to no government regulation & control & a only a pittance of money spent on actual spending in the real economy...A post that had no negative comments & was recommended onto the greatest page... post about corporate rescue over rescue of actual people deleted because it implicated Obama (sorry, DU, go read about Geithner & the corporate lobbyists who hold first position in Obama's ear & then do a cursory google search about the actual cost of the bailout - about 9 trillion & the direction of funds...

DU has become surreal as of late.

But, hey, this will probably be deleted as well.

[NYC_SKP]

1. It's a clever and nefarious plot to make readers donate.

Brilliant, isn't it? :P

[BlooInBloo]

2. Because you don't donate.

[Marrah_G]

3. I don't see any ads

The Admins probably don't have control over the content of the ads.

[Laelth]

4. There's no such thing as "clean coal."

But the President still refers to it, and I have every reason to believe he intends to subsidize it. Perhaps he will surprise me. He is, after all, a very smart person.

:dem:

-Laelth

[alwysdrunk]

5. "reduce pollution"

This is bad.....why? Is the only other option to ban coal as a fuel source all together?

[John Q. Citizen]

9. The problem is clean coal is a dream, like a cure foir cancer or mining mars.

In the mean time it should be banned, just like putting cancer causing chemicals where people are should be banned.

If we found a way to make sure people didn't get cancer, we could dump dioxin in our compost heaps.

But since dioxin is a deadly carcinogen, we can't dump it on our compost heaps until we fix the problems with dioxin.


Coal is more deadly than dioxin, if we take magnitude of the earth effected by it's pollution into account. Yet it's effects take longer to manifest. So we are blinded to the problems of coal pollution compared to problems caused by dioxin pollution.

So yeah, if wishes were fishes we'd have a fish fry and clean coal. But right now the oceans are dying and coal is dirty as sin.

[Solon]

10. But it doesn't reduce pollution, that's the point...

Clean Coal "technology" removes all the heavy metals and pollutants out of the coal and dumps them in the lakes, rivers, and streams in the area. Its skips the old middle man of burning it first, and then waiting for these pollutants to precipitate out of the air, and into these same rivers, lakes and streams.

[NYC_SKP]

12. True, that...

And pumping the CO2 into underground cavities, etc., that's really gonna work, too. :eyes:

[Solon]

16. If you think dumping Mercury straight into the water table is any better than letting it rain into..

the same watertable after being released from coal, then you are an idiot. Also, carbon sequestration is expensive, and the effectiveness of it hasn't been proven yet.

[NYC_SKP]

18. Yep. What took millions of years to create should not be burned and it's...

constituent elements spread throughout the ecosphere.

That's what erosion, weathering, etc, is for.

And there are no shortcuts.

[billyoc]

6. For the money.

[camera obscura]

7. Reminds me of McCain/Palin putting ads on FiveThirtyEight when their win chance was 1%

Better they waste their money where it'll be mocked instead of where it could actually influence people.

[derby378]

8. The admins don't have complete control over the ads themselves

Some control, I think, but not total control.

[burning rain]

11. Haven't seen 'em, but...

it's a fair bet the Clean Coalies might see a similar sense in putting ads here, as with MSNBC, hell, if you can peel off lefty opposition to coal, that's stellar! Transparent but cagey in its limited way.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I don't see no ads!

[obiwan]

14. It's advertising, which every Web site needs to survive.

The idiots at Clean Coal think you are reading their message. We know the truth. Ignore them.

"Clean Coal" = "Tactical Nuclear Weapon".

[masuki bance]

15. It's part of Obama's plan for new, green jobs

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

* Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
* Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
* Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
* Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/

[Raine]

17. Obama knows that "clean" coal

doesn't exist, so coal isn't a real option. If the coal industry thinks it is, they better clean up.

[GreenTea]

19. K&R

[DRoseDARs]

20. I believe Skinner has explained this SEVERAL times over the years...

Every time some very obviously non-liberal, non-progressive ad appears, people inevitably bitch about how conservative and evil DU has turned. Jesus Sitting-on-a-Dildo Christ, they're Google Ads and Democratic Underground has little to no control over the appearance of such objectionable ads. DU can only request, after-the-fact, that the individual ads not reappear.