To fight misinformation that folks continue to spread, Al Gore, in partnership with several other organizations, have launched a grassroots effort to talk about “clean coal” and how it, you know, doesn’t exist.
Here’s the first commercial:
And here are some facts.
20 responses so far ↓
1 James R. // Dec 4, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Al Gore for President. He is one of the few politicians who is willing to speak the truth. The rest seem to only want campaign contributions.
2 bestmid // Dec 4, 2008 at 5:19 pm
*sniff* Maybe I wanted to believe in the clean coal unicorn! Al Gore’s mean.
3 Bimbeau // Dec 4, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Even though coal isn’t clean, we can clean the exhaust. It’s a matter of money and political will.
A little innovative science and a creative approach to the problem has produced a proceedure that is highly promising and cost effective.
We use an olf-fashioned fluidized bed combustion chamber, fluidized 200 USP lime to get the heavy particulates (clinker ash) and then pass the exhaust (fly ash) through sodiumhydride. The by-product is bicarbonate of soda for which there is nearly an unlimited demand.
Forget clean coal, unionize the mines to improve safety, forget coal to gas or liquid they use more power than they deliver in BTU’s, unionize the power plants to improve the probablity of compliance.
Bim must rest now; this required thinking – not as much as what I read over at barefoot – but then Jake is more clear with his prose than the ex-pat-ri-at from Prague.
4 E // Dec 5, 2008 at 8:49 am
I don’t care for Gore, he hypes too much, he declares scientific discussion and debate over when it suits his agenda, and much of what he has proclaimed as fact has been proven to be false.
Oh yeah…he’s a raging hypocrite too.
Biomass is the most readily available carbon neutral source of power generation, and it requires only minimal modification to the existing power generation infrastructure. However, it’s so simple and so readily available…no one group or corporate entity is positioned to control the supply chain.
Since the opportunity for huge political power-grabs or huge windfall profits isn’t as great, the political and profit motives aren’t sufficient to generate the will to implement it on a larger scale.
5 Shack // Dec 5, 2008 at 9:26 am
Bimbeau is right on the money, some what
6 E // Dec 5, 2008 at 9:44 am
With lopsided PR infomercials like this, Gore is doing little more than laying the groundwork for making billions through the ‘carbon offset’ company he founded, Generation Investment Management (how convenient). All he needs is for government to do the kneecap busting, and AG gets filthy rich.
Make no mistake…it looks like a tax, sounds like a tax, and gets passed on like a tax…it’s a tax, and people at the forefront of the hype will all be the beneficiaries of the tax, as will any developing country that doesn’t decide to play along.
7 Joel // Dec 5, 2008 at 9:53 am
“The by-product is bicarbonate of soda for which there is nearly an unlimited demand.”
No way.
8 Taylor // Dec 5, 2008 at 12:26 pm
“A little innovative science and a creative approach to the problem has produced a procedure that is highly promising and cost effective.”
How is this approach highly promising? Coal industry folks have been talking about this for years and it still hasn’t been deployed in any meaningful way. The first power plant to ever have carbon sequestration built into it was just build in Germany in the past few months – and there is no telling at this point whether or not it is effective. Regardless, just because something works with Germany’s geography doesn’t mean it will work anywhere around here – esp. in Kentucky where our karst landscapes would become highly volatile if pumped full of carbon.
Likewise, how is this cost effective? The only way clean coal (like coal-to-liquid) will ever be viable is if the industry continues to get billions of dollars a year to finance their research and development – renewable energy works NOW. but as long as coal and oil have price supports, they will remain artificially cheaper.
also, E, what exactly has Gore said that turned out to be false? and don’t play the hypocrite game because he uses a shit-ton of energy: he does, but he also puts his money where his mouth is – something 99.9% of can’t or won’t do.
9 E // Dec 5, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Most of Gore’s outlandish predictions and the presentation of ‘facts’ (the hockey stick graph) have been almost unilaterally rejected by such groups as the National Academy of Sciences as being statistically inaccurate and grossly exaggerated…(bear with me as I’m working from memory, I may have the name of the NAS organization just a little off)
Gore makes more money off of his fear mongering than he’ll ever spend being green, and should carbon credits be mandated…he WILL make billions reaping what the government sows.
He is a hypocrite with regard to science. HE declares the debate and discussion over, and that there is no need to hear or consider opposing or dissenting ideas…which in science is the height of hypocrisy…since his whole agenda is supposedly driven by scientific study.
I have to ask; how many books have you read that offer a dissenting point of view ? Granted, they are boring, full of statistical analysis, and do not have nearly as much entertaining or fantastic ‘imagery’ as the alarmist publications…but they’re still a god read.
I’ve always wanted to ask Mr Gore…since he seems to have all the answers; Just what is the historical ideal, average, or equilibrium temperature for the planet ?
But since I’m sure the question is going to be asked…I’m actually very ‘green’ myself…efficiency and frugality are my prime motivators…not an irrational fear of rising oceans.
10 Taylor // Dec 5, 2008 at 4:21 pm
E – I (sort of) agree with you that it is hard to take someone 100% seriously if they stand to profit from something they’re pitching. but if you’re going to criticize Al Gore for being in a position to make profit from renewable energy investment, make sure you also criticize T. Boone Pickens (for his pimping of natural gas and wind) and the entire Bush Administration, which has stood to gain from their (or their friends’) private investments in oil, coal and nuclear power.
but as to working from your memory, it IS the National Academy of Sciences, along with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Joint Science Academies of industrialized and developing nations, along with the American Meteorological Society (along with similar organizations in the UK, Australia and Canada), Geological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Society and virtually every similar organization across the world along with those in related hard science disciplines of biology, chemistry, physics, etc etc – which support the CONSENSUS (many of their official statements use the word itself) of anthropogenic global warming. Since 2007, no single reputable scientific organization has claimed that global warming research has been inaccurate or wholly flawed. that is a consensus. when Jim Gooch and the Kentucky Coal Association wanted someone to deny global warming in front of the state legislature last year, they had to get Lord Monckton (not a scientist) to come. guy isn’t exactly credible.
so while I’m glad that you’re interested in being ‘green’ (couldn’t you come up with a better word for this?), you may want to do a little internet research before claiming that you don’t think global warming is real.
11 E // Dec 5, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I never said I don’t believe global warming/climate change is real.
It’s happened many times, as have catastrophic global coolings, as have complete die offs of planetary ecosystems, as have massive volcanic eruptions and meteor strikes…and all without mankind’s help.
I simply make the point that the Gore’s theatrics and conclusions have been rejected, yet inexplicably, the press still gives the man a free pass.
His famed ‘hockey stick’ is a blatant manipulation statistical evidence, and has been defamed. His prediction of 20ft rises in ocean levels, although entertaining, is purely alarmist…so much so that one can only conclude that Gore must be trying to scare people out of their common senses and to hand the controls over to him.
Even the IPCC which supports global warming theories only predicts a rise of 7.1 to 23.2 INCHES (not 20ft)…which by the way is not too terribly inconsistent with historical increases in ocean levels. Therefore, I will not allow an irrational fear of rising ocean levels dictate my behavior. (you must have construed my slap at Gore and his inexplicable 2oft prediction as not believing in the potential for climate change).
Consensus does not necessarily mean conclusive.
I have no problem trashing GW or TBP, but this thread is all about Gore. Put one of those TBP ‘windfarm/natural gas’ infomercials up for discussion, and I’m all over it.
There are many who stand to reap huge profits from coal, and they spread their BS just as thick as Gore. When you think about it, Gore and those who are positioned similarly also stand to profit nicely from coal and any other non carbon neutral fuel being used…they just first have to demonize it enough to justify some sort of punitive action or regulation, after that, making the money is easy. Carbon neutral activity would yield no profit for Gore.
You are right about the word ‘green’…I like efficient better.
Efficiency is the real solution.
I’m efficient !
12 Taylor // Dec 5, 2008 at 7:34 pm
you did say “He is a hypocrite with regard to science. HE declares the debate and discussion over, and that there is no need to hear or consider opposing or dissenting ideas…which in science is the height of hypocrisy…since his whole agenda is supposedly driven by scientific study.”
my point was that every reputable scientific body in the world has said that there is a consensus. so just because Al Gore says it doesn’t make it true, but it is nonetheless. You’re right that it isn’t ‘conclusive’ but the only things in the world that are ‘conclusive’ are things that have already happened. 95% certainty may not be ‘conclusive’, but it’s pretty damn close.
Here is a good explanation of the debate over the hockey-stick graph, and why it’s flaws don’t really screw up the bigger picture of global warming. while the original study’s methods have been under heavy scrutiny, I couldn’t find anything that said the take-away point was any different. feel free to enlighten me if you have such information.
also, can you clarify if you believe in anthropogenic global warming, or just the fact that our planet is hotter? if you really don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming (a comment like, “all without mankind’s help”, insinuates such a sentiment), are you really willing to align yourself with Bush administration pseudo-science? regardless, a shift to renewable energy in order to combat global warming isn’t just about ocean levels – global warming has an extremely negative effect on the earth’s ecological balance as a whole, not just on any single part. reducing any sort of anti-fossil fuel or global warming argument to a single aspect (no matter which one) or a single individual is intellectually dishonest.
13 James R. // Dec 6, 2008 at 4:38 pm
For all of you who think Coal is clean, or would like to see the effects of coal on a coal community, please move to Whitesburg Ky, in Letcher County, where all the residents of Whitesburg have to boil their water.
Or you can move to Jenkins Ky, where they had to boil the water over the summer. I am sure you would not mind doing this here in Louisville.
It is very comfortable I know to live in Louisville and never have these problems and never know anyone who does, but if you had to boil your water here in Louisville, it would make national news and people would be outraged. I get tired of the selfish people who never see how other people in our state live and then pop off the Rush Limbaugh lines.
There is nothing clean about coal. Coal must though be mined, but it should be mined responsibly and should be done without harming the communities it comes from. Billions of dollars comes from the grounds in Eastern Kentucky. If the out of state coal companies cared about the people and the environment there, EKY would not be in the shape it is in.
14 E // Dec 7, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Regarding the chart (hockey stick);
Going back a whole one thousand years works great…if you happen to believe in the creation theory.
My own humility forces me to examine a much more extended timeline;
http://www.stuffintheair.com/ancient-climates.html
(This may not be the best site for such information…but it popped up when I googled it, had some nice charts, so I ran with it.) (also, not being real computer savvy, I can only hope the link works, if it doesn’t ,I apologize).
To answer your leading question as to my ‘alignment’;
I am open to the possibility of human influenced warming. I am open to the possibility that the planet will do what it will do, whether we’re here or not. I’m even open the the recent theories that variations in solar activity (far removed from human influence) may also play a part in climate change.
I’m open to the possibility that the planet may in fact still actually be in a cooler than average period, which it seems may be the case when looking at climatic activity over the epocs and eons. Which leads to my question; What is the ideal, average,or equilibrium temperature for the planet…speaking of course in epochs and eons…not centuries. Until that can be answered , isn’t the whole discussion on what has, or will happen is kind of a blind leading the blind thing ?
Hell, I’m even open to the possibility that in spite of everything, we could be hit by a large world killing ateroid.
You used the words “ecological balance”…Ok, I’ll bite. When examining the earth’s climate in larger time-frames (eons and epochs), please define and quantify “ecological balance”. It would seem to me that the old adage “the only constant is change” would apply nicely to our beloved little planet, but I’m open to your idea of what is ideal, average, or even optimum temperature.
Please, don’t try to classify or categorize me as having to be squarely aligned with Bush just because I’m not prepared to issue a guilty verdict on mankind for climate change, especially since I have not done the same to you.
Further, although environmental science is NOT my forte, to insinuate intellectual dishonesty because I merely offered an sarcastic comment about rising oceans with regard to AG’s gross exageration , is uncalled for. It’s worth noting that even as you insinuate intellectual dishonesty on my part…you did not defend the very AG prediction I was referencing (the 20 ft rise in ocean levels).
Am I to assume that you also recognize AG’s prediction to be grossly exagerrated? (if so) Why then did you not accuse AG of intellectual dishonesty? I mean c’mon…the 20ft thing is an outright fabrication…yet you give AG a free pass. After all, this whole discussion originated with AG’s commercial…is he intellectually dishonest or not ?
When discussing planetary climate change, to limit data to 1000 years, when the real parameters should be at least 500million years, begs explanation/justification. Please do.
I have to admit, I’m enjoying this discussion with you. Perhaps Jake will pass my e-mail on to you…and we can continue discussions in the future. As I’ve said, I’m open to new ideas and hope to never stop learning.
15 Taylor // Dec 7, 2008 at 10:45 pm
E – I apologize for likening you to the Bush administration, but any refusal to fully acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic global warming puts you in that boat. Even the authors of the black carbon study, that is frequently cited by global warming deniers these days, said that their study doesn’t mean that humans should give up on reversing the effects of global warming. Any denial of anthropogenic global warming, even if it is honest and inquisitive, is wrong.
As far as the science of how far back the climate samples go, I can’t say – I would presume that the data that has thusfar been collected, analyzed and published is all that is available, based on my guess that any ice cores, etc. dating back further don’t necessarily exist anymore because of the natural shifts in the earth’s climate – ice that is more than x # of years old may have already melted during a previous warming period. but that is my presumption – I believe in the integrity of independent scientists and academics. if it were possible to gather more data at this time, I would trust that it would already be done, or is in the process as such. but I’m not a climatologist, so I don’t know.
as for Gore’s 20ft prediction – you’re right that the prevailing scientific data says something more like like 2-10ft (I think) is probable. but Gore’s 20ft is not a complete fabrication. that number comes from the worst case scenario presented by an academic paper prior to the release of the 2007 IPCC report that has become the bible of climate change (don’t know which paper). if Gore has continued to say 20ft, then yes, that is a bit dishonest (unless, in the interest of full disclosure, he says something like “up to 2oft”). but even half of that number could be potentially disastrous for parts of the world – so while Gore may screw that up, we shouldn’t let it distract us.
but to quickly answer your question about ‘ecological balance’ – I don’t know what the earth’s average temperature over its entire history has been, but I don’t think it’s even particularly important for my understanding of the term. Ecological balance is alot more than climate change – the fact that humans have indiscriminately destroyed much of our natural world (blowing the tops off mountains, rampant deforestation, overhunting of endangered or near-endangered species, widespread use of toxic chemicals for fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) and turned it into something significantly less than it should be means we’re out of ecological balance. but ecological balance does also mean reducing our carbon emissions to something along the lines of 350ppm, which according to experts, will bring us back to something that approximates a stable climate, rather than (regardless of whether you believe in humans preeminent role in global warming or not) the extremely volatile climate that we currently deal with.
I apologize if I haven’t responded to all of your concerns – the small text field for comments makes it hard to organize my thoughts. if you want to keep the conversation going, feel free to hit up my blog (shameless plug) – the environment is all I talk about. I feel like I’m hijacking Jake’s page by lacking humor. but what can I do?! I’m not a funny guy – but I guess it’s because I get so depressed about global warming (get it? it’s a joke!)
16 E // Dec 8, 2008 at 1:21 am
The IPCC and EPA most recent revisions have potential ocean level rises for the next 100 years maxing out at about 2ft…a far cry from 20ft (gore’s hype)or even 10ft (your suggested hype)…and completely in line with historical rising…but hey…enough about the numbers on the oceans.
So let me get this striaght, “any denial, even inquisitive….is wrong” (an absolute statement on your part).
Yet when asked questions that would afford you the opportunity to bolster your case you respond with no shortage of : “I don’t know…” , “I can’t say…”, “based on my guess…”, “I think…”, “my presumption”.
I trust you see the incongruency here?
You proclaim and condemn using absolute statements and verbage , yet you obfuscate, using purely subjective and nebulous answers when asked for clarification or quantification.
You seem to cling to ice cores (it would seem) as the only available source of data regarding the climate of the past millenia. Really ? Aren’t you a geology major ? Rocks tell the stories do they not ? From the strontium isotope theory of global cooling, to the debris fields from specific meteor strikes. Hell, coal itself contains a wealth of geological/climatic history does it not ? Yet you fixate on ice cores, and even at that make a thinly veiled attempt to diminish and brush aside the theories and evidence of past climate changes that have been assembled and presented with regard to longer time-frame climatic changes…with nothing remotely resembling a fact, I might add…just your ‘thoughts’.
I guess it doesn’t suit the agenda.
It would then seem, that unable to provide quantifiable answers…you attempt to bounce the discussion off onto another subjective subject matter. You have spun this a long ways from AG and clean coal.
I did, however, find it ironic that a portion of your obfuscation actually included the suggestion that ice cores containing evidence of past climate changes may have actually MELTED long ago…because of NATURAL changes in the earth’s climate…
DAMN IT! I hate it when that happens.
I’ll just let that speak for itself.
17 Taylor // Dec 8, 2008 at 2:06 am
E – I never proclaimed to be a scientist (btw – I’m not a geologist, I’m a geographer. and a human geographer, at that. so I guess I’m a social scientist?) nor have I read every single piece of scholarly work on climate change. you are caught up in arguing the science of all of this, which is nonsensical to us both. if you’d like to question a scientist, you should have tried to argue with Michael Oppenheimer a couple months ago.
I’m not ‘conveniently ignoring’ anything. I was making a generalization about the collection of historic data on atmospheric carbon – I’m sure there are a ton of ways for this to be done, and I’m sure they’re all happening. you obviously don’t know everything about the science, either, so I’m not sure why we’re arguing this?
I also don’t see how recognizing that earth’s climate has natural variations (who is going to say that it doesn’t?) ruins my argument that global warming can be attributed to man – if you wanted to read the entire IPCC report, feel free to. It’s going to say that while the earth’s climate has natural variations, the current climatic volatility is unprecedented in both it’s size and rapidity. I’m not the person to debate science with, thus my generalizations.
besides, what’s wrong with having a conversation digress?
18 E // Dec 8, 2008 at 8:41 am
Now science is ‘nonsensical’…?
“ANY denial…even if honest is wrong”
“you obviously don’t know everything about science, either, so I’m not sure why we’re arguing this”
Well…that about sums up your position and how you intend to defend it.
Again, I see the irony…”neither of us knows everything about science”, hell, you now make the point that science is “nonsensical”…when convenient you reference science to advance your agenda…when science doesn’t suit your agenda you become dismissive. All the while making absolute and unequivocal statements that support your agenda while obfuscating and being dismissive when something does suit your agenda. It would seem that no one has ever explained to you, the difficulties inherent in having it both ways.
Nothing personal, but you seem a bit too closed minded and dogmatic for me. However, I will refrain from calling you ‘wrong’…even as you do not afford me the same courtesy.
You casually cast aside any divergent viewpoints as heretical. I try to be open minded, you adhere to a singular belief/agenda. I try to bring into the discussion as much diversity of viewpoints as possible, you push an agenda.
I make an effort to NOT ‘classify’ people who might have a divergent view on issues, you are quick to decide their affiliation, and then to announce that if they don’t ascribe to the same dogmatic belief as you…they are wrong.
Therein, real intellectual discussion and growth with you is not possible.
When I was young…I had all the answers too.
In closing, I’ll revisit the origin of this thread; Al Gore is an alarmist who makes it his M.O. to push worst case (albeit highly unlikely)scenarios. The ‘science’ he presents is limited to what will advance his agenda, and potential financial windfall. That doesn’t necessarily make him wrong on all counts…just suspect in his motives, which brings into question the integrity of the ‘science’ he pushes.
19 Taylor // Dec 8, 2008 at 11:06 am
E – my point is that we’ve both established that we aren’t scientists, so talking specifics is nonsensical. I don’t have an agenda, I don’t make money off of this like you’re accusing Al Gore of. I’m a student.
The reason that denying anthropogenic global warming is wrong, regardless of who you are or what you do (esp. when you aren’t a scientist), is that there IS a scientific consensus which says it is real. Are you really going to assert that you know more than every major scientific organization in the world? Al Gore may stretch the truth at times, but does that then ruin the credibility of every scientist in the world who has actually spent their life working on the models that we’re using now? I’m not concerned about the science, it’s already there. Likewise for what got us here – ‘clean coal’. But again, I don’t see how you can cast stones from your glass house about me not debating the particulars of science, when you are the one asking all of the questions. Go get the answers for yourself, they exist. but let me know if you ever find anything (credible) that says anything I’m saying is wrong, I’ll be waiting.
20 E // Dec 8, 2008 at 12:00 pm
It was never my intent, nor have I ever said you were “wrong”. You are the one who uses that language.
I simply make the point that there are in fact divergent viewpoints and dissent. You have made it clear that you are not open to ideas that are not completely in sync with your dogma.
Now, because I exhibit an honest inquisitive disposition…I’m casting stones from my glass house. The reality is quite the opposite…my house is not glass (since I consider as many cause and effect scenarios as possible), and I’m not casting stones.
I’m inquisitive, I ask questions. Casting stones is calling people ‘wrong’ for not aligning themselves 100% with your beliefs.
Just because you don’t make money off of this, doesn’t mean you don’t have an agenda.
Regarding clean coal…if you had bothered to read my original post, you would have noticed that I don’t really buy into it…that I happen to be a fan of carbon neutral biomass power generation. Guess you missed that.
Just a parting thought…Lets just say that by some chance the earth defies the ‘consensus’ and begins to moderate or cool…what will you do then ?
Leave a Comment