What's your definition of "clean"?

Posted by: erochon | 03 Jun 09 | 3 comments | Permalink

| More

Here's a funny one for ya: The picture above is just one of several billboards that greeted me on my journey to my sister's house in Pittsburgh last weekend. They all extolled the clean and green credentials of coal and some even noted that the dirtiest fuel around had received no bailout money (not true- $3.4 billion in the economic stimulus package was set aside for CCS).

But what I am wondering about here is what exactly do we mean by clean? I ask because as I drove into Pittsburgh, an area dependent on this "cleaner, greener" coal, I drove by another sign- an air quality alert board informing me that the air for that day in the city was unhealthy to breathe. That certainly doesn't jive with my definition of clean but perhaps the coal industry is using a different metric.

Main

Comments:

rational [Member] on June 04, 2009 at 13:24

I'm sure there are other contributors to Pittsburgh’s nasty air (cars, factories, bovine flatulence, etc.).

The stack scrubbers remove a huge portion of the nasties from coal smoke, don't they? I understand that the resulting residues are very beneficial for other things like fertilizer and so on…

Does Greenpeace think nuclear is better than coal for generating electricity?

Frederick Higgins [Visitor] on June 06, 2009 at 11:04

Thanks for your comment rational.

Because there is simply so much coal being burned in Pennsylvania to generate electricity, emissions from coal-fired power plants are the number one source of greenhouse has emissions in Pennsylvania.

The excavation of coal, particularly strip mining and mountaintop removal (which is exactly what it sounds like), are particularly devestating to the beautiful natural landscape of my native Pennsylvania.

Here are some of the by-products of burning coal: mercury, lead, and arsenic. These are not things I would want in my fertilizer.

Nuclear is not better than coal in generating electricity. Having performed a nuclear test on May 25th, North Korea is now displaying the dangers of nuclear power when it falls into the wrong hands. The cost in both time and money that it takes to build a nuclear power plant proves nuclear is not an option in stopping climate change.

In the time it takes to read this post, enough energy from the Sun will arrive on Earth to meet the global energy demand for an entire year. Enough wind rolls through the great plains to power America twice over. Wind and solar power give the United States high-paying jobs, energy independence, increased national security, and most importantly... start global cooling.

Let's bring wind and solar energy to Pennsylvania together.

rational [Member] on June 09, 2009 at 07:49

...and exactly WHY is nuclear power so expensive? Because unnecessary hurdles have been placed in the way as a result of ignorant activists. Our societal ignorance is phenomenal...

You must have an account and be logged in to post comments. Log in or create an account for the Greenpeace member center here.

About Me

erochon

Since July 2007, I have been working for Greenpeace International as a climate and energy campaigner. At the moment, I am leading our international Quit Coal project which has me traveling around the world learning about coal, campaigning against it and promoting sustainable solutions.

I grew up in Rhode Island and moved overseas after completing my graduate studies in Environmental Toxicology. I left behind my mother, two sisters and a cat. Since leaving the States, I have visited more than 15 countries on three different continents. Needless to say, it has been an incredible journey.

Contact Me >

Invite erochon to your Personal Activist Network