Can Coal Be Green?

wap writes "A coal-industry sponsored group, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices thinks coal is green, and has been running television ads to make its point. The ad shows an eagle unable to fly because of smog, and then talks about how much cleaner coal is now and will be in the future, with a sub-title saying that this is because of EPA regulation. Coal burning is much cleaner now than it was due to new scrubbing technologies, but it still emits just as much carbon dioxide as ever. Carbon emissions can be reduced by increased efficiency through gasification, but the only way to stop coal from emitting carbon dioxide is carbon sequestration. Everyone agrees that sequestration is expensive, but not everyone agrees that it's even effective in the long term. Should we instead follow the suggestion of James Lovelock and go nuclear as has been discussed here before?"

Comments

Unbiased?

[Nagatzhul]

No, but it certainly presents a bias that is different from what is currently being shoved down our throats. Current junk science tries to blame man and his activities for the global climate when in fact man puts less than 6% of "green house gases" into the atmosphere. You also don't hear anything about the sun's cycles and how those affect our global ecology. It also tries to state that the current climate is the perfect one; one that stayed in perfect balance until man came along, when in fact the current state and it's stability has been an aberration in a historical sense.

You are right, it is biased, but at least with the information presented there, among other sites, you are limited to one bias.