Hello everyone. You may have recently seen a story on MSNBC extolling the glorious future of liquefied coal. If they're right, it will soon power the nation's automobile fleet. Apparently, it's cleaner, greener, and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. OK, one of those things is true, we have enough coal in this country to run cars for a hundred more years without importing anything from anywhere.
But I promise you this, if we get ourselves dependent on liquid coal, things will not get better. This world cannot continue to burn fossil fuels the way we do now for another hundred years.
Liquid Coal is worse than a band aid it's a step backwards. Liquid coal might be chemically more pure, and thus cleaner when it burns, but it produces significantly more carbon dioxide than gasoline, and the Coal to Liquid plants produce huge amounts dangerous chemicals and huge amounts of carbon dioxide.
But the biggest ecological difference between coal and oil is the footprint. Oil is pumped out of the ground, leaving a relatively small footprint. The most economic way to remove coal from the ground, on the other hand, is to completely carve up a mountain, remove the coal, and fill river valleys with the slag. Even the industry calls it MTR, Mountain Top Removal Mining. And it's destroying the Smokey mountains as you read this. The last thing our country needs is to further our dependence on coal. It might be economically viable, and reduce our dependence on unstable countries, but one hundred years of America burning liquefied coal would solve one problem while creating many more.
EcoGeeks move forward, not backward. MSNBC might think that Old King Cole is looking fine and fresh, but we know that he's just up to the same old tricks.
If you've got Google Earth, check out the damage that's already been done by MTR mining.
written by Preston, December 23, 2006
written by Vivian Stockman, January 04, 2007
Nuclear is good.
written by Suricou Raven, September 28, 2007
|< Prev||Next >|