Skip to main content

View Diary: Electoral Math for "All You Climate People" (46 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And don't forget crap like "clean coal" (5+ / 0-)

    Yet another climate change diversion foisted on the American people, particularly during this election. I cringed a bit every time "clean coal" came up.

    I'm guessing that most Americans think that "clean coal" is, well, CLEAN! That the pollution magically disappears, that mountaintops don't get lopped off, that cancer rates in coal mining communities suddenly plummet, etc, etc.

    Yeah, not quite. I know there are various technologies to reduce the impact of coal use, but it's obviously far from "clean." I'd rather we spend the money on things that actually are clean...

    But like you point out, it's not electorally feasible at the moment to take on Big Coal. (Yet another reason to support NPVIC!)

    •  Definitely can't beat Big Coal yet (5+ / 0-)

      I definitely agree that we're a ways off from taking on Big Coal head on, but I feel no compulsion to acknowledge the existence of "cl$%n coal" or even put those two word together.

      That said, I never got too worked up about President Obama talking about it, because I recognize that it's a buzzword that his campaign advisers insist he use, but that has no basis in reality.

      •  It has to be acknowledged, to debunk it (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, WheninRome, DawnN

        I fully agree with your premise that we need to do more to bring proper clean-energy projects to coal-producing regions. But we're spending...hundreds? of millions on developing "clean coal", which many people likely think is a useful goal to combat climate change.

        I wish those words wouldn't get stuck together, either...but they have been, so one of the things we need to do is make sure people realize "clean coal" is NOT an environmentally friendly replacement for "normal" coal burning.

        We can't push solar/wind/nuclear/pick-your-actual-clean-energy as well if the public thinks "oh, that 'clean coal' stuff will solve the coal problem!"

    •  Don't think he is saying that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      holeworm, Jakkalbessie, DawnN
      it's not electorally feasible at the moment to take on Big Coal.
      Rather, think diarist is saying that funding and boots on the ground should be found to take them on in an effective way?

      Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

      by divineorder on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 01:54:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah...I'm still stuck in "2012 election" mode (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder, Lazyhorse, DawnN

        It wasn't feasible to take on during the last election, certainly...

        I completely agree with the diarist's point that we need to roll out actual clean energy tech to coal country, rather than mostly ignoring those regions (past telling them "we're gonna develop 'clean coal' so you can keep mining that coal!"). I imagine those areas would indeed move away from supporting coal if we do make a better effort to include them in clean energy development.

        I guess my point was more that we need to make sure that it IS electorally feasible to talk about it in future elections...part of which is not selling people on "clean coal" and similar shams.

        •  Ah - I get your point (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          holeworm, divineorder, DawnN

          And it's a really good point, holeworm:

          I guess my point was more that we need to make sure that it IS electorally feasible to talk about it in future elections...part of which is not selling people on "clean coal" and similar shams.
          Perhaps it is more damaging than I've acknowledged, when you look at it that way. I think I just had a big hole im my thinking filled by a holeworm....

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site