Should "clean coal" be a major part of plans to fight global warming?

  • Yes, any progress is good.

    There is going to have to be more done than process "clean coal" for sure. However, it is a start and any start we make is good progress. So we need to do that and then continue to search for alternative energy forms that are not involving the use of fossil fuels.

  • Clean coal technology should be used to fight global warming, because pollution levels are out of control.

    Today, the world is groaning from the burden of endless pollution. Any technology that can mitigate pollution and fight global warming should be utilized. All life needs clean air to breathe. We need clean water to drink. Without clean air and clean water, life on earth would ultimately perish. If clean coal use can reduce environmental pollution, and reduce harmful ultraviolet rays, then it should be used.

    Posted by: DamagedJosue60
  • I think anything is better then what we are dong now.

    At the rate we are going now, we will destroy our world in no time. We need to embrace any idea that may solve this problem, and we need to come up with new and better ideas to improve on those ideas. We only have this one world, and we need to take care of it any way we can.

    Posted by: 5c0tJung
  • The environment requires us to change our behavior now, and we must explore our options.

    Although "clean coal" may not end up being the solution to our environmental and energy problems, we must explore it as a possible option. The environment needs protecting right now, and we need to think of ways to solve energy problems, as well. We should explore clean coal, as well as a variety of other options. This is new territory, and we have to experiment to see what will be best for our future world.

    Posted by: SpikyWesley
  • The reason I chose this position on clean coal is to help get our country away from dependence on foreign countries for oil.

    I support this evidence because of my belief on the fact that gas prices are soaring each day. Also, foreign countries almost hold us and much of Europe hostage, when it comes to oil prices. The recent oil spill did not help the environment any either. Also, Japan had its recent disaster with a nuclear power plant. It would just make common sense to use clean coal as extra help, until we could increase solar power and other sources of energy.

    Posted by: TremendousCornelius99
  • Clean Coal, if viable, should be considered as a possible choice for alternative energy.

    If proper standards for what truly defines clean coal can be established, then by all means this source of energy should be explored and considered as an alternative energy source. If there is contention over the actual pollutant levels of output of clean coal production, then further research and discussion should be undertaken. I feel that this is a reasonable approach to battling global warming.

    Posted by: OmeroAnnon
  • Major parts of plans to fight global warming should include harnessing natural sources of power.

    The world is full of numerous natural and renewable sources of energy. The Weather Channel states that if all of the solar power in Arizona were captured each day, it could electrify the whole USA on a daily basis. Add to that other sunny locales, thermal energy and wind power and there is plenty of natural and renewable energy to go around without harming the environment.

    Posted by: Ramon Griffith
  • Cleaner coal should be used if there is incentive by businesses to do so, in the form of a tax credit or something similar.

    Nothing bad can happen by pumping out less pollution into the atmosphere. Business should be given incentive to do so. While "global warming" is the center of debate concerning this issues, local air pollution is a less talked about issue. Everyone around industrial areas benefits from cleaner fuels being burned by having greater health.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • "Clean coal" actually can fight global warming effectively by providing a "transition" energy source.

    In the search for alternate energy sources, "clean coal" provides the best of both worlds: it is readily available and usable at the moment like other fossil fuels, but it also does not nearly produce the pollutants that some current energy sources do.

    The burning of clean coal produces a far smaller amount of sulfur dioxide and particulates, the leading cause of acid rain, and also has a much smaller carbon footprint, which is the main culprit behind global warming.

    Posted by: deikkena
  • Clean coal is safer than nuclear ways of energy.

    I think that if they decided to make clean coal a priority it would help society greatly and that could allow people to breathe in cleaner air and be more healthy and live longer. Clean coal is safer and more efficient than something like nuclear energy and hat is very good for the environment.

    Posted by: waffletime
  • Stagnate technology isn't progress.

    This simply delays making better technology. Why would we do this? Clean Coal just puts the pollutants elsewhere, it doesn't eliminate them. There will likely be new problems from this short-sighted solution (which isn't really a solution, its just a con-job to keep doing the same thing and not progress).

    Coal wants to stay in business, they don't want better energy producing solutions. I can sympathize, there will likely be job loss (though I think they are more concerned with stock price, they use the job loss as a defense when they could care less). If the coal companies gave a damn about their workers, they would be the ones innovating. It would cut into their overall profits, they would have to train their workforce in the new technology (as well as costs to develop it)... But in the long run, if they had support, would sustain these companies into the future.

    Maybe their solution is to keep polluting the world, if its messed up around the same time as the coal is all gone... Well, I guess who cares? But if you are interested in more than profits, interested in preservation of our planet and species... This is a terrible idea.

    My greatest fear is that another country will develop the next great energy idea. Then the US could rapidly become more and more irrelevant.

  • No, there are better alternatives than clean coal.

    There are far cleaner technologies that are better at producing energy that don't pollute nearly as much coal. "Clean" coal technology is extraordinarily expensive and tenuous at best as a long term solution. We need to focus on clean coal for short term use, but in the long term, it would be best to focus on replacing it as major part of our energy mix.

  • It is not really clean.

    Clean coal is a misnomer. There is still the issue of blasting mountains. The washing process still creates water pollution, so the pollution is still created, but just put somewhere else. Clean coal is just an excuse for people working in the coal industry to keep their jobs a little longer. I don't want them all to lose their jobs, but if the industry is causing the planet to be destroyed, then we need to find them somewhere else they can work.

  • No, because clean coal isn't truly clean, and is only a bandage to the issue.

    Clean coal isn't truly clean. The CO2 is only sequestered elsewhere and other pollutants are created as a result. It is also costly, and commercial usage of this technology won't be available until 2020 or later. Last, it does not address the issue of coal extraction, which is also environmentally damaging.

    Posted by: TickoNest
  • "Clean coal" does not reduce CO2, which is the main cause of global warming.

    "Clean coal" purports to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted by coal burning power plants. Regardless of the veracity of these claims, "clean coal" does not have anything to do with fighting global warming. While some pollutants may be captured, the carbon dioxide (CO2) is still released. This is the cause of global warming and "clean coal" does nothing to reduce that.

    Posted by: tacomoon
  • I don't think clean coal should be used to fight global warming, because I believe that when it is used, it actually contributes to the problem of global warming.

    I don't think clean coal should be used to fight global warming, because I feel that the name is very misleading. It is still coal that is being burned. When coal is burned, it releases toxins into the air and depletes the ozone layer. I believe that we should use other alternative energies, such as solar and wind power, as solutions to our energy deficiencies.

    Posted by: w00dwitch
  • I do not believe that clean coal is the best way to help fight global warming.

    There are other forms of providing clean energy. For example, wind mills, or solar power. There needs to be more research on how to make solar power more effective, but it would be worth it for cleaner energy.

    Posted by: NiI35Kix
  • There is no such thing as clean coal, and coal is one of the biggest contributors to global warming.

    Forget about clean coal. There is no such thing, no way to avoid the consequences that are already happening just from coal ash in this country. It's a non-renewable energy source, there is a finite amount to be had, as with all fossil fuels, and it's extremely dangerous to even extract to begin with. Wasting time trying to clean it up is pointless. Find jobs for the coal miners who will be out of work, but don't try to gloss over how harmful coal is for everyone and everything from the people who mine it to the atmosphere it is damaging.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • Clean coal should not be a major part of plans to fight global warming because it's just a short-term solution.

    Clean coal should not be a major part of plans to fight global warming because it's just a short-term solution. It's not going to fix or solve the problem completely forever. It's a positive step for right now, but real, universal, renewable, green sources need to be found instead of focusing too much on solutions that will not solve all the problems in perpetuity.

    Posted by: H0bi3Invader
  • There is no such thing as clean coal because of the social conditions and dangers involved in mining.

    Even if there was a way to mine coal without blasting off the tops of mountains and in the process ruining the water tables below mining, the social conditions of a miner's life are not an acceptable cost for mining. Even if the miners themselves weren't doing one of the most dangerous jobs in current society the families of the miners are isolated with them. The social ills involved in company store environments produce crime and social ills unmatched outside of the most depressed urban areas. We have to think not only of the way we will power our society, we must also think of the people that our energy habits will produce. I don't want to have to deal with that level of inequality, even if that does mean that energy will cost more.

    Posted by: groovybox

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.