Advertisers:
advertise on this site

Steve Clemons interviews Eli Pariser

Former Executive Director of MoveOn.org, Eli Pariser discusses his new book "The Filter Bubble" and how the architecture of the internet is evolving to match our interests and filtering out information that might challenge our opinions.

Steve Clemons on Obama's Approach to Libya

Steve Clemons argues that in addittion to being ineffectual militarily, a no-fly zone will change the narrative of the Libyan uprising and shift the focus from the decisions of the Libyan rebels to the actions of Western nations.

Ian Bremmer On the War Between States and Corporations

Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer discusses the political and economic impacts of the economic recession, as well as rising economic powers.

More videos are available on the Video Archives Page

The Washington Note is now a member of the Political Insiders advertising network:
Find out more...

VA Loan and VA Refinance
Information from VA Mortgage Center

Support The Washington Note

Using PayPal

Coal Here vs. Coal Over There

Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Wednesday, Apr 23 2008, 1:39PM

CLOSE

SOCIAL WEBSITES

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/04/editorial_comme/&title=Coal Here vs. Coal Over There&topic=political_opinion" target="_blank">Digg

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

Riddle me this: why is coal "the dirtiest fuel on earth" when Europe burns it but a potential global warming and "energy independence" solution here at home?

Elisabeth Rosenthal writes in the New York Times:

"At a time when the world's top climate experts agree that carbon emissions must be rapidly reduced to hold down global warming, Italy's major electricity producer, Enel, is converting its massive power plant here from oil to coal, generally the dirtiest fuel on earth."

I don't take issue with the characterization -- coal is the dirtiest fuel on earth bar none. But would such a characterization ever appear in a debate over U.S. energy choices? I doubt it. Editors are generally reluctant to let their reporters weigh in so bluntly on such a controversial and high-stakes political issue.

"Clean coal" will probably be cost-effective at some point. It's worth spending big money on research to make it so. But right now it is not.

Whenever coal industry execs push for incentives for new plants now in the U.S. on the strength of "clean coal technology" that is not yet available for large-scale commercial use, media outlets should display the same kind of candor that NYT is exhibiting in its European coverage.

For the time being, coal is dirty -- no matter where it is burned.

-- Scott Paul

« Previous Article - PETRAEUS SUCCEEDS FALLON AT CENTCOM
» Next Article - Clinton-Obama Immaturity Can Be Fixed by Joint Ticket

Reader Comments (4) - post a comment

Posted by Tahoe Editor, Apr 23 2008, 2:42PM - Link

The biggest billboard between Reno and Carson says, "COAL: A BAD BET" with a dirty hand holding playing cards made of coal.

http://nevadacleanenergy.com/

Posted by WigWag, Apr 23 2008, 3:17PM - Link

Steve, you ask a good question, why criticize the construction of coal burning plants in Europe but not the United States? There is simply no question about it; coal is filthy and it releases unacceptable amounts of carbon. But Europe claims to lead the world in addressing global warming. The EU has never shied away from lecturing others about the need to reduce carbon emissions. In light of this, you have to admit, the hypocracy of a major European power turning to coal is worth commenting on.

Posted by Kathleen, Apr 28 2008, 6:03PM - Link

Peabody Coal Co. is one of John McCain's top ten contributors. They mine coal in Black Mesa, AZ. on tribal lands. They enjoy a really sweet deal.

Posted by Mr.Murder, Apr 29 2008, 12:46PM - Link

When Enron folded it stopped a coal plant being here near a WMA.

Thankfully the Enron umbrella of companies that resulted from the fallout of its meltdown took it over.

Jeb Bush's state in particular.