He could have written an article whose main point would be: "We really need strict Carbon Limits because that is the only way we are going to get cleaner technology, including maybe even a kind of coal extraction that doesn't screw up the land, destroy rivers and ruin the climate." He says as much in the article. It is a key point, and a point he probably thinks is a key point, but he chooses not to emphasize it.
Instead, we get an article that screams "WE NEED CLEAN COAL!" which will be further reduced in people's minds to "CLEAN COAL!". He throws in some very long shot ideas on a clean extraction process, and essentially, it becomes another unpaid-for Clean Coal ad whose purpose is to muddy the waters with a product that doesn't exist.
This may seem a bit cranky on my part. But I live in a state that is going to lose high speed rail because polluting industries helped elect an idiot for a governor who doesn't believe in addressing the climate as a problem. So for Fallows to criticize clean energy advocates by saying "We need all climate solutions, including clean coal", I wonder why he isn't directing that back at all the folks from Coal and Oil industries fighting climate legislation and clean energy transportation?
And why does he consider it "theological" to believe in wind and solar as tas answers, but not "theological" to think we are going to be saved by another version of the "clean coal" scam?
Set a strong cap on carbon emissions, and if that leads to a totally clean coal that doesn't screw up the land, no one will be happier than me. But Fallows' article just gives cover to more of the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment