It's vital for our climate that coal stays in the ground!
By John Welford
@indexer (4852)
Leicester, England
October 14, 2015 5:04am CST
Coal is quite a pure form of carbon. When it burns it creates carbon dioxide gas that then hangs around in the atmosphere for centuries and adds to the greenhouse effect that is creating global warming and climate change.
The Industrial Revolution was founded on coal. Vast quantities were dug up and burned, firstly in the United Kingdom and then in other Western countries as new industries were created, not to mention the railway revolution powered by coal-burning steam locomotives.
As new reserves of coal were found in other parts of the world, industrialisation followed. Some forms of coal are particularly "dirty", and these have tended to be used in places like China, where smog conditions are caused huge health problems as well as adding to global warming.
It is time to put a stop to all this. We do not need to burn coal any more, and we shouldn't do so. The remaining reserves of coal around the world should stay exactly where they are, in the ground, and we need to tell our politicians that this is the choice they must make.
8 people like this
6 responses
@OneOfMany (12150)
• United States
14 Oct 15
Yet if you were to stop all coal burning at once right now, not only would my power grid go down, but many others around the world, for years probably, until they switched over to something else. As someone on the radio said well, "when they switched to the car they didn't yank all horse and carriages off the road and say 'tough luck!' to those people. No, transition from one to the other happened, and in some cases happened faster than for others."
I'm all for a sustainable future, but currently the system isn't set up for that switch. Solar technology is getting more abundant and more people will be able to afford it into the future. Wind technologies aren't the best, but are getting better as well. It doesn't help that most structures that were built before a certain time period aren't insulated enough to make the energy we have now efficient. If you want a change, starting with the way things are built or modified, would be a big first step.
Don't forget that many livelihoods are built on the foundation of coal related jobs as well. Already whole towns have been wiped out by the single stroke of a politician's pen, and then they go on assisted living without skills for other lines of work or a place to go.
It's good to light fires to get things done, but if those fires are burning down entire cities, you're no more than a terrorist. Let's approach the sustainable future in a productive, positive, and transitional manner.
1 person likes this
@Bluedoll (16770)
• Canada
14 Oct 15
That makes complete sense to me. Though I know it is not coal it still sits with what you are saying here. Look at the Telsa story.
I'm for progressive change. Make more enviro-friendly jobs/small business. It is about new ways to meet the challenges ahead not about shutting things off. But everyone needs to get on the train now? Maybe we don't need the grid as much as we think we do?
1 person likes this
@OneOfMany (12150)
• United States
14 Oct 15
@Bluedoll Or they could offer a tax reduction for a few years, and say 'use the money to improve your home and/or energy system', or go even farther, saying 'not only is your income tax going to be reduced for a few years to help transition, but all these materials and products (insulation, solar panels, wind turbines, back up batteries, etc) are tax-free and a government program is willing to reimburse you for x% of the purchase. So do your best to help make this world a better place starting with your home and/or business.'
Even if people didn't jump on board with that time period, there would be enough that did that would have started things rolling that way better. I know the government has offers now, but there isn't enough economic leeway to take advantage of those programs.
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
14 Oct 15
I agree - change has to be phased, but the example of Sweden shows that it is possible to switch to sustainable energy resources.
The "whole towns will be wiped out" argument should not be allowed to dominate the debate. This has happened many times in the past, and communioties have either adapted to major change of their inhabitrants have moved away - just look at the former Gold Rush towns in California.
Energy efficiency is certainly a large part of the equation. The less energy needs to be generated, the easier it will be to produce, whatever method is involved.
@celticeagle (189944)
• Boise, Idaho
14 Oct 15
This was very well written and makes some sense. How do we get politicians to understand and believe this when some don't even believe in global warming?
1 person likes this
@OneOfMany (12150)
• United States
14 Oct 15
In the end it's all about money, influence, and personal power. Giving people their individual energy systems is taking the power out of the people that control the grid. Switching people to new energy systems isn't going to be easy or affordable for the government, and politicians would rather get bloated on funds generated from projects with bigger financial resources involved.
Also, remember Plato when it comes to politicians: 'those that choose not to enter politics choose to be governed by thier inferiors.' Politicians are stupid, that's just the way it is.
@indexer (4852)
• Leicester, England
14 Oct 15
Politicians need to be educated, and who better to do this than the people who elect them?
It is interesting to note that some of the big energy companies - who have bankrolled a lot of American politicians in the past - are starting to change their tune. ExxonMobil, for example, now recognises that global warming is a reality and that humanity plays a significant role in it.
Incidentally, this ignorance on the part of politicians is largely an American phenomenon (although not exclusively so). You will find much more acceptance of the science of climate change in the legisaltures of other countries, especially those in which "big energy" has not bought the votes of the politicians.
@Bluedoll (16770)
• Canada
14 Oct 15
If countries control coal use certainly it will help but if some counties at the same time ignore and use a lot of dirty coal will it make a global difference?
New and exciting technologies are improving everyday to create a cleaner coal system but they do cost.
1 person likes this
It just isn't enough. When the giant is stinking up the forest what the little mice do really doesn't count for much?
@TiarasOceanView (70020)
• United States
14 Oct 15
I remember making the coal fires when in England when I was young. It is a very dirty substance. I agree, there is no need to be using it now.
1 person likes this
@pcunix (210)
• Middleboro, Massachusetts
14 Oct 15
It's time to stop all the fossil fuel use we can. Some is unavoidable, but anywhere we can we should be doing something else.
