We have all heard about "clean coal" in the media. Keeping in mind the video we saw in class and our general discussion on the environment as an influencing factor to health, please explore these three websites. What do you agree with?
www.coalcandothat.com
www.TheClean.org
www.thisisreality.org
-Tyler
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteif truly interested in understanding the culture and social sturctures of some of the poorer places in this country you should watch the movie called Matewan. it is set in west virginia a historic town and event. notmuch has changed since the actual events depicted.
ReplyDeleteI found the "coal can do that" site to be of particular interest because they are really approaching the growing energy crisis with "the ends justify the means" philosophy. As long as the world gets its cheap energy, nothing else really matters. It was ironic that they said coal fuels can improve the quality of life. Sure, people will have the energy they desire, but what about the environmental costs?
ReplyDeleteAs a biologist, it would be downright ignorant of me to support the burning of coal for energy. At this point in the game, with global warming being exasperated by human activities, we need to be focusing on more alternative energy sources AND dealing with environmental problems now before its too late. I say problems because most people focus on global warming as the most pressing environmental issue. There are other issues going on now that fewer people know about.
Its bad enough that human activities (including the burning of coal) have spewed tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but the oceans are in big trouble right now--which is my concern. The ocean is a biological pump; it can sequester carbon dioxide to the bottom of the sea, removing it from the atmosphere. This is a normal healthy process. However, this process cannot keep up with our activities, which is resulting in ocean acidification, killing the very organisms responsible for this pump. So, we are losing species diversity; the oceans are warming as the result of climate change; and we are over exploiting marine resources-which is truly the coup de grâce.
In relation to this, I suggest that everyone see the movie Sharkwater. It was a documentary released last year that exposes the shark finning industry (which in case you don't know, involves slicing off the fins of a shark, often while it is still alive, afterwards it is thrown overboard to bleed to death). It is a vile practice, and it too is having a major impact on the ocean's ecological balance. It also discusses overfishing of other resources. This is a very personal issue to me as I am pursuing studies in shark biology.
People should be more concerned about these problems because 71% of the globe is ocean, and most of the air we breathe comes from biological processes in the ocean. I did not mean to stay on the soapbox for so long, but activities that have an adverse effect on the health of the oceans really makes me mad.
The 1st website "coal can do that" is an advocate for using coal as America's energy source. They believe that this energy source could be the solution to the energy crisis. There is no mention anywhere on that site about any of the side effects of burning coal for the environment or the people that it will affect.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd and 3rd website are about creating awareness that burning coal is not the answer in solving our energy crisis or for helping to stop pollution and global warming. I agreed with these last 2 websites and think that this kind of awareness and knowledge should be what the government should be concerned about.. not what the easiest energy source is
I agree with Angie. Instead of finding a "quick fix" to the energy crisis we need to be researching a safe way to produce energy. In my opinion, i'd rather pay a little more money in tax dollars searching for safe and efficient ways to produce energy than to simply resort to something that produces mass amounts of pollution into the environment.
ReplyDeletethe first website was definitely paid for for by coal companies and coal investors. They seem like they want to use this new clean and capture c02 method but i dont know if it is even true after reading through the other websites. This website keeps downing the windmills and how they don't produce'that much energy' but if you look at how many windmills there are compared to how many coal burning plants the numbers would not be even. I liked the anti-coal activism sites much better. They seemed much more honest. Coal is not the answer, even if they can make it burn 'cleaner' it is not renewable like solar or wind power is. Someone there needs to figure that out!
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting how drastically different the first website was from the second two. It just goes to show that the interests of the people putting out the information reflect what is said. The first site talked about how important coal was for electricity and how it would be so beneficial to have clean coal power plants which there are none of today. The other sites talked about how clean coal doesn't exist and the dangers of coal such as it's huge contribution to global warming because the pollutants are not captured and stored. It is important put money into finding other sources of energy that are efficient and safe for the environment. The second two sites seem more truthful and realistic in talking about coal, especially after seeing the movie we saw in class about how much pollution affects the people that have to deal with it in their lives every day. I think that something needs to be done about the unequal distribution of pollution in the world because its not fair that certain people are exposed to it and have it affect their health more than others. I agreed with the last two websites and think that it is important for people to be educated about the negative effects of coal burning as an energy source so they can help find a better solution and be aware of the pollution they are being exposed to.
ReplyDeletethe site that resonated with me the most was the last one. it was the most honest and offered what seemed to be the most raw information. as a society we have already recognized our enviormental problems but we have yet to collectively work together to try and fix our growing problem. the first website, "coal can do that" offered little help with the problems we face today. coal might be clean one day but it is going to take years for that technology to be widely used. it was full of propaganda paid for by big coal companies. it should change its name from "coal can do that" to "coal might eventually be able to do that" instead, we should look to other forms of clean energy such as wind, solar, and bioenergy to help supplement our growing energy needs, becuase lets face it, we might not have the time to wait for coal.
ReplyDeleteI guess i never realized how much of an issue coal was before reading these articles. Even though the first article said that 50% of energy comes from the burning of coal, I still feel as though there can be many alternatives that can be much better assets to our environment. The last sight really brought the effects of coal to the surface. All this talk about clean coal seems to be just a cover up to make us feel better about what is to come and to make us forget about the positive alternatives such as wind power and solar power. For example, the last website made the point that millions of dollars are being spent on advertising for clean coal yet zero clean coal plants exist in the U.S today. If clean coal is going to be such a benefit to our country's energy than why has something not already been done about it? I think that alternative sources should be researched more and coal should be used less over time.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way Casey does, I never realized how big of a contributor coal was to global warming. The first website definatly left out key points that coal is a pollutant. The second and third websites, take the approach that there is other options for energy. For example, wind and hydro- power. Its important for us to let our government know we want more research going into clean power, not coal and other polluting engery sources. I'm sure this will become a more well known topic as time goes on and resources are maxed out!
ReplyDeleteI too feel like I never really thought of coal as a major source of pollution related to global worming. I mean of course I was aware it played a role but I am used to thinking of cars, and the oil we burn for heating fuel as the big contributors to the global warming issue. It would be interesting to see the actual numbers as far as what emits the most and how they weigh against each other. I was really surprised that neither of the two anti-coal ads/fact sources mentioned the high risk to individual miners, and those directly around the coal burning facilities. Facts like that may have a more reactive response from individual viewers/consumers because they make people think, that could be me, where the collective ads like these ones state general impacts on the environmental process, and the corporate politics but less on individual hazards and health risks. Thanks for posting this stuff and making us more aware about these current issues, Keep up the good work T!
ReplyDeleteI think that is is clear who is funding the first website. It does not make a mention anywhere about the negative affects of coal usage, but instead makes it seem like it is the solution to all problems. It boasts about how it is going to stay the main fuel source for decades.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the third website was really creative by giving facts as soon as you clicked the link. I can agree with everyone else in saying that I never honestly thought about how much damage fuel can actually do to our environment such as the major role it plays in global warming. The second and third websites were real eye openers for me.
I think I'm like a few others in the sense that I do not hold a lot of knowledge in this area, so navigating through these websites and reading various pages of information was intriguing. What stuck out to me the most was the last website because it was easy to follow and the clearest, in an up-front way. Rather than only reading the "reality fly by's," I also followed the link to read blogs, which were more like shortened articles, but each were informative again in a clear way.
ReplyDeleteEven though I may not have agreed with the first website, I think it is important that we see it. In order to form an educated opinion, it's crucial for us to see all the facts and sides of stories. So, although I don't agree with that one, it helps make my now formed opinion even stronger.
My hope is that other members of our community can find websites such as these to become more educated and make a difference. What I worry about though is that so often we find one website and allow it to be our only source of information, when it isn't always the best... So what this has also done for me is to always look at more than one source for information.
If it is true that coal is a non-renewable resource that is inadvertently harming the environment, then why would we spend so much money trying to clean it for it's one time use. The smarter plan would be to research other renewable alternative to energy such as solar or water power. I recently came across this article that looks into rain drops as a source of energy. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/rain_power.php. It is really interesting to think about how we can manipulate things in nature to provide us with endless amounts of energy without harming the enivorment. This is what we should be spending our money on as a society and not drilling for oil and using coal as our main sources of energy.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the this is reality website and I was shocked at what I was reading. One of the facts that really shocked me was that there is more coal emissions than cars and trucks running in the United States. I was trying to picture it in my head how that can be and I still cannot wrap my head around it. I also thought that this site was a really effective site on how they chose to get their point across. Something else that is disturbing to me is that they talk about the clean coal and yet they have not done anything about it. I feel like that one will be talked about for a while and without anything being done about it.
ReplyDeleteThe first website, Coal Can Do That, was quite different than the other two promoting the continuing usage of coal as our primary energy source. I feel that this website certainly doesn't look at the reality of how coal influences the environment and our society. I would definitely disagree the most with this website out of the three.
ReplyDeleteThis is Reality, the third site, was the one that caught my eye. I enjoyed the straight facts and quotes that are presented which seem to draw more supporters in. The way that the data is provided and the truths are revealed helps understand the problems that coal can cause the environment. It is especially helpful for people, like many of us, who may not fully understand the impact that coal burning has on the environment. I also agreed with this website because by showing the harm of coal, people are more likely to support the usage of alternative energy sources that are more efficient and less harmful than burning coal.
The first website is clearly different from the other two websites in that the first supports coal fuel to energize America, whereas the other two point out reasons as to why coal use is adding to global warming effects. In the website, This Is Reality, I prefer how they have short, yet straight to the point, facts explaining how fuel is bad in our environment. I like the quote, "Clean' coal is like a healthy cigarette." "Clean" and "coal" are two words that should not go together.
ReplyDeleteIts hard to believe that people are advertising and pushing coal so much, even though they know the affects are worse and harmful to the environment and people living in it. The movie that we saw in class hit me hard, to think that some people are suffering from pollution in some states. The fact about how kids that are participating in outside sports are put at more affect for getting asthma or something along the lines of that. I agree with rachel in the idea of giving a little extra money to pay for the research to find a safer and a cleaner way of providing energy in America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous comments. I think we need to stop worrying about the now and focus on the future. Our energy sources are not only polluting the environment but are limited and will eventually run out as well. We need to find more efficient and environmental friendly fuel sources.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading a couple articles on the first website, I actually laughed. I agree with everyone above who stated that the coal companies obviously funded such outrageous statements. I could not believe that the coal companies actually want congressional funding for "clean coal" usage. I think the last website said it best when it stated that there is no such thing as clean coal. I watched the reality TV clip on the website and it had a profound impact. Clean coal does not exist, our government should not fund, and support "clean coal" development in our country, or any other country. It is scary how much damage we have already done to our planet, and how this has affected our society. I am confident that we will develop new and efficient means of energy production in the U.S., but I am equally as confident that these new developments should not implement the use of coal. The last two websites are supportive of my beliefs on the subject and I am hopeful that for the health of society, we make major changes as soon as possible!
ReplyDeleteI agree that we need to look into other renewable forms of energy since the sources for energy we have now are limited and harmful to the environment. just the other day when i was driving they were talking on the radio about harnessing ocean power due to the big difference between tides here in maine. i believe they said france does this already.
ReplyDeleteAs previously mentioned, the last two websites were geared more towards awaring the audience of the risks of using coal as an energy source--in comparison to the first website which merely stated that "clean coal" is the answer to our energy deficiency. These articles prove that there are many companies/organizations that may be biased one way or another and it is important to get all the facts to make a well-rounded decision. I enjoyed reading the last website with the pop-up facts. It really caught my attention and made me more aware of the side effects of using coal as an energy source in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteWow, I had always seen the term "clean coal" used on TV and other media. I wondered how that could be and how clean it really was. I think our society is always looking for the "quick fix" to any problem, including this problem. Instead, we need to look to what will truly help in the long term. Wind power I think has great promise. The major opposition to this is when a company wants to put it in their community and all of a sudden it's the worst way to get power. I think people really need to look critically at what is the best for the community and what is best for the generations to come, instead of whining about how it will disrupt there view.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see the drastic differences between the first website in comparison to the second two. Like Casey said, I never realized how much of an issue coal has been until I looked at these websites. As Marisa pointed out, the first website is founded on the idea that coal is the solution to the United States problems while not sufficiently examining its effects like the other websites do. I particularly liked the third websites animation and how it gave facts when you clicked on the link from the US EPA, US Department of Energy, and IEA and MIT Databases. My favorite fact is on how the coal industries are spending millions on advertising clean coal, but there is not a single clean coal plant that exists in the United States. Definitely something to think about and consider.
ReplyDelete