Normally I don’t forward chain emails. However, I agree with the email I received from www.wecansolveit.org, and I find it unfortunate. If you’ve watched the debates, the candidates have been tossing around terms like “clean coal” and “alternative energy.” As someone who has been involved with energy efficiency since 2000, I can tell you that nothing I have seen or heard about coal indicates anything but dirty. Clean coal is currently a dream, and a very expensive one at that. Almost every report indicates that the long-term cost of creating energy via “clean coal” would be far greater than the cost of creating energy in a clean way, such as via solar or wind. That being said, coal is an established business in the United States, with 50% of our electricity being generated that way. Coal is also being exported overseas at increasing rates, as coal-fired plants in Asia are being built at a rate of one/week. Someday, the Smokey Mountains in West Virginia will be barren plateaus from all of the mountain-top blasting. I believe we need to stop using the term “alternative energy.” To me, it reminds me of “alternative medicine” and unfortunate visions of witch doctors.
We talk about healthcare, security, and taxes. But tell me something, if seas rise a few feet someday, and several million coastal inhabitants are displaced, do you think anyone’s going to give a hoot about who raised taxes or voted for the Iraq war? If you are inclined, check out the site, and pass along.
On a different but similar note, I've heard nothing about global poverty. When you have a significant percentage of the world's population living with little or nothing, there's bound to be "terrorism." www.one.org is another site I frequent. Hundreds of thousands of One members have sent in questions to the moderators. So far, no luck. Sorry for venting, but thanks for listening.
1 comments:
Normally I don’t forward chain emails. However, I agree with the email I received from www.wecansolveit.org, and I find it unfortunate. If you’ve watched the debates, the candidates have been tossing around terms like “clean coal” and “alternative energy.” As someone who has been involved with energy efficiency since 2000, I can tell you that nothing I have seen or heard about coal indicates anything but dirty. Clean coal is currently a dream, and a very expensive one at that. Almost every report indicates that the long-term cost of creating energy via “clean coal” would be far greater than the cost of creating energy in a clean way, such as via solar or wind. That being said, coal is an established business in the United States, with 50% of our electricity being generated that way. Coal is also being exported overseas at increasing rates, as coal-fired plants in Asia are being built at a rate of one/week. Someday, the Smokey Mountains in West Virginia will be barren plateaus from all of the mountain-top blasting. I believe we need to stop using the term “alternative energy.” To me, it reminds me of “alternative medicine” and unfortunate visions of witch doctors.
We talk about healthcare, security, and taxes. But tell me something, if seas rise a few feet someday, and several million coastal inhabitants are displaced, do you think anyone’s going to give a hoot about who raised taxes or voted for the Iraq war? If you are inclined, check out the site, and pass along.
On a different but similar note, I've heard nothing about global poverty. When you have a significant percentage of the world's population living with little or nothing, there's bound to be "terrorism." www.one.org is another site I frequent. Hundreds of thousands of One members have sent in questions to the moderators. So far, no luck. Sorry for venting, but thanks for listening.
Post a Comment