<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>coal gasification Archives - Community Energy Systems</title>
	<atom:link href="/category/blog/coal-gasification/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/category/blog/coal-gasification/</link>
	<description>Censys.org</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2022 19:39:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Trump Dumps Oil Down The Pipelines &#8211; It is bad, very bad</title>
		<link>/blog/burning-behavior/trump-dumps-oil-down-the-pipelines-it-is-bad-very-bad/</link>
					<comments>/blog/burning-behavior/trump-dumps-oil-down-the-pipelines-it-is-bad-very-bad/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 20:52:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[2016 presidential elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[air pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad health effects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burning behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dumb ideas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electricity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evil polluters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuels and the United States' Future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry apologists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lies told by energy companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[old tired advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self inflicted wounds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smoke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water pollution]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=5899</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I warned anybody who would listen, that Pres. Trump would finish off this planet and 5 days into he is guaranteeing that some of the dirtiest energy on the planet will be burnt (haha burned). Tar sands for God&#8217;s &#8230; <a href="/blog/burning-behavior/trump-dumps-oil-down-the-pipelines-it-is-bad-very-bad/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/trump-dumps-oil-down-the-pipelines-it-is-bad-very-bad/">Trump Dumps Oil Down The Pipelines &#8211; It is bad, very bad</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I warned anybody who would listen, that Pres. Trump would finish off this planet and 5 days into he is guaranteeing that some of the dirtiest energy on the planet will be burnt (haha burned). Tar sands for God&#8217;s sake. What about leave it in the ground. Nah he wants to toss it up in the air. I am not saying I like McKibben, I do not. I mean on tactics. I think his analysis is right on.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/opinion/on-pipelines-donald-trump-looks-backward.html?_r=0">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/opinion/on-pipelines-donald-trump-looks-backward.html?_r=0</a></p>
<h3 class="kicker"><span class="kicker-label"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html">The Opinion Pages</a></span> <span class="pipe">|</span> Op-Ed Contributor</h3>
<h1 id="headline" class="headline">On Pipelines, Donald Trump Looks Backward</h1>
<div id="story-meta-footer" class="story-meta-footer">
<p class="byline-dateline"><span class="byline">By <span class="byline-author" data-byline-name="BILL McKIBBEN">BILL McKIBBEN</span></span><time class="dateline" datetime="2017-01-25T14:29:03-05:00">JAN. 25, 2017</time></p>
</div>
<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="372" data-total-count="372">IF you’re searching for a lens to understand just how President Trump sees the world, his executive orders on Tuesday <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/us/politics/keystone-dakota-pipeline-trump.html">reviving the Keystone XL and expediting the Dakota Access pipelines</a> provide a sharply focused glimpse. In a word, he looks backward at all times. We’re beginning to get a better sense of what he means by “again” in “Make America Great Again.”</p>
<p class="story-body-text story-content" data-para-count="338" data-total-count="710">On questions of jobs and industry, he looks back at least to the 1950s. If something is big and made of steel, then it’s great. Like some Soviet Realist painter, Mr. Trump seems to have an image stuck in his head of brawny men building a nation. Those are real jobs, and all the other innovation in the economy doesn’t amount to much.</p>
<p>In fact (a phrase that suddenly seems politically charged) that’s not how economies work any more: If something is big and steel, it’s probably going to be run by robots. If the Keystone XL Pipeline is ever completed, for instance, it will employ <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us/obama-expected-to-reject-construction-of-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html">about 35 full-time workers</a>, relying for its operation on a vast network of sensors, drones and the like. The number of workers in our labor-intensive solar industry alone <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-solar-power-employs-more-people-more-oil-coal-gas-combined-donald-trump-green-energy-fossil-fuels-a7541971.html">now surpasses</a> those employed extracting coal, gas and oil combined</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>Just imagine what he can do in 1,400 days. Go there and read.  More next week.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/trump-dumps-oil-down-the-pipelines-it-is-bad-very-bad/">Trump Dumps Oil Down The Pipelines &#8211; It is bad, very bad</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/burning-behavior/trump-dumps-oil-down-the-pipelines-it-is-bad-very-bad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Energy Deathprint &#8211; One of those pesky externalities you never hear about</title>
		<link>/blog/burning-behavior/energy-death-print-one-of-those-pesky-externalities-you-never-hear-about/</link>
					<comments>/blog/burning-behavior/energy-death-print-one-of-those-pesky-externalities-you-never-hear-about/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biofuel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burning behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children and the environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geothermal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry apologists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[masters of the universe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methane production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no nukes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stewardship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water power generation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wind power]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4350</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This article is both disturbing and self explanatory. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources &#160; James Conca, Contributor Everyone’s heard of the carbon footprint of different energy sources, the largest footprint belonging to coal &#8230; <a href="/blog/burning-behavior/energy-death-print-one-of-those-pesky-externalities-you-never-hear-about/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/energy-death-print-one-of-those-pesky-externalities-you-never-hear-about/">Energy Deathprint &#8211; One of those pesky externalities you never hear about</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article is both disturbing and self explanatory.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/</a></p>
<h1>How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources</h1>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/jamesconca/">James Conca</a>, Contributor</p>
<p>Everyone’s heard of the carbon footprint of different energy sources, the largest footprint belonging to coal because every kWhr of energy produced emits about 900 grams of CO2. Wind and nuclear have the smallest carbon footprint with only 15 g emitted per kWhr, and that mainly from concrete production, construction, and mining of steel and uranium. Biomass is supposedly carbon neutral as it sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere before it liberates it again later, although production losses are significant depending upon the biomass.  Carbon emissions and physical footprints are known as <em>externalities</em> and are those vague someone-has-to-pay-eventually kind of thing it’s hard to put a value on. Proposed carbon footprint taxes are in the range of $15 to $40/ton of  CO2 emitted, but assigning a physical footprint cost depends on the region, ecosystem sensitivities and importance. A hundred-acre wetlands to be flooded by a new dam is worth more to the planet than a barren hundred-acre strip under a solar array in the Mojave (P. Bickel and R. Friedrich, 2005).</p>
<p>But an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best. According to the World <a href="http://www.forbes.com/health/">Health </a>Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Science and many health studies over the last decade (NAS 2010), the adverse impacts on health become a significant effect for fossil fuel and biofuel/biomass sources (see especially <a href="http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html">Brian Wang</a> for an excellent synopsis). In fact, the WHO has called biomass burning in developing countries a major global health issue (<a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/">WHO int</a>). The table below lists the mortality rate of each energy source as deaths per trillion kWhrs produced. The numbers are a combination of actual direct deaths and epidemiological estimates, and are rounded to two significant figures.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>Go there and read. The numbers are disgusting. More tomorrow.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/energy-death-print-one-of-those-pesky-externalities-you-never-hear-about/">Energy Deathprint &#8211; One of those pesky externalities you never hear about</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/burning-behavior/energy-death-print-one-of-those-pesky-externalities-you-never-hear-about/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ComEd Pays For Its Years Of Flogging Its Customers &#8211; ooowch</title>
		<link>/blog/burning-behavior/com-ed-pays-for-its-years-of-flogging-its-customers-ooowch/</link>
					<comments>/blog/burning-behavior/com-ed-pays-for-its-years-of-flogging-its-customers-ooowch/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burning behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electricity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evil polluters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuels and the United States' Future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry apologists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lies told by energy companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self inflicted wounds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smoke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[why the U.S. is behind]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4332</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I hate to say it but it couldn&#8217;t happen to a nicer company. For years they have been one of the least tolerant of companies. They resisted any thought of innovation. Stuck to burning coal and nuclear power plants long &#8230; <a href="/blog/burning-behavior/com-ed-pays-for-its-years-of-flogging-its-customers-ooowch/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/com-ed-pays-for-its-years-of-flogging-its-customers-ooowch/">ComEd Pays For Its Years Of Flogging Its Customers &#8211; ooowch</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hate to say it but it couldn&#8217;t happen to a nicer company. For years they have been one of the least tolerant of companies. They resisted any thought of innovation. Stuck to burning coal and nuclear power plants long after it was fashionable. And snickered all the time like an evil teenager. They fought regulation until they were overwhelmed. Bad karma always comes to a bad end.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.suntimes.com/business/15247115-420/comed-rate-hike-issue-delayed-customers-keep-switching.html">http://www.suntimes.com/business/15247115-420/comed-rate-hike-issue-delayed-customers-keep-switching.html</a></p>
<h1>ComEd rate-hike issue delayed; customers keep switching</h1>
<p>BY SANDRA GUY Business Reporter sguy@suntimes.com                      						                         							September 19, 2012 6:06PM</p>
<p>The Illinois Commerce Commission on Wednesday delayed until Oct. 3  reconsidering a Commonwealth Edison rate-hike request centered on how  ComEd accounts for its pension assets.</p>
<p>he ICC previously approved a rate that ComEd  claimed was inadequate, ruling that ComEd can’t earn a rate of return on  a pension asset that isn’t fully funded.</p>
<p>The commission took up other issues at its meeting Wednesday in Springfield, and didn’t give a reason for the delay.</p>
<p>ComEd had proposed a decrease in its electricity  rates totaling $40 million to $50 million, but because of the pension  issue, the ICC decided May 29 to cut customers’ rates by four times that  for a total of $168.6 million.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>Go there and read. More tomorrow.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/com-ed-pays-for-its-years-of-flogging-its-customers-ooowch/">ComEd Pays For Its Years Of Flogging Its Customers &#8211; ooowch</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/burning-behavior/com-ed-pays-for-its-years-of-flogging-its-customers-ooowch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Carbon Sequestration The Way It Should Be Done &#8211; I am not a huge fan of this but</title>
		<link>/blog/burning-reduction-methods/carbon-sequestration-the-way-it-should-be-done-i-am-not-a-huge-fan-of-this-but/</link>
					<comments>/blog/burning-reduction-methods/carbon-sequestration-the-way-it-should-be-done-i-am-not-a-huge-fan-of-this-but/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:42:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burning reduction methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon sequestration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electricity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuels and the United States' Future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry apologists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lies told by energy companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waste]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=4087</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The method they are using here is preferable to simply drilling a well anywhere and trying to bury it in the ground. The oil in spent fields never will get out and there was plenty of pressure, so this at &#8230; <a href="/blog/burning-reduction-methods/carbon-sequestration-the-way-it-should-be-done-i-am-not-a-huge-fan-of-this-but/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-reduction-methods/carbon-sequestration-the-way-it-should-be-done-i-am-not-a-huge-fan-of-this-but/">Carbon Sequestration The Way It Should Be Done &#8211; I am not a huge fan of this but</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The method they are using here is preferable to simply drilling a well anywhere and trying to bury it in the ground. The oil in spent fields never will get out and there was plenty of pressure, so this at least seems safe.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cbs19.tv/story/18856255/doe-notice-advances-development-of-indiana-gasifications-co2-pipeline">http://www.cbs19.tv/story/18856255/doe-notice-advances-development-of-indiana-gasifications-co2-pipeline</a></p>
<h3>DOE Notice Advances Development of Indiana Gasification&#8217;s CO2 Pipeline</h3>
<p><em>Information contained on this page is provided by companies via press release distributed through PR Newswire, an independent third-party content provider. PR Newswire, WorldNow and this Station make no warranties or representations in connection therewith.</em></p>
<p>SOURCE Indiana Gasification</p>
<p><em>Transporting CO2 to Gulf States Could Boost U.S. Oil Production by 20 Million Barrels a Year </em></p>
<p>ROCKPORT, Ind., June 22, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ &#8212; Indiana Gasification welcomed today&#8217;s Federal Register publication by the U.S. Department of Energy of an amended notice of intent (NOI) to include an approximately 440 mile CO2 pipeline in the environmental impact statement (EIS) required for DOE financial backing of IG&#8217;s state-of-the-art clean fuels facility.</p>
<p>The DOE publication marks the most recent regulatory development in support of the plant, which will be the cleanest coal-fired facility ever built in the United States. In the last two months, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management has filed a proposed clean air permit with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and issued a draft Clean Water Act permit.</p>
<p>In the Notice of Intent, the Department of Energy acknowledges that the proposed project with the CO2 pipeline qualifies for financing under the 2008 appropriations act providing authority for industrial gasification activities. Further, the DOE has determined that the project meets two goals of the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program, encouraging the commercial use of new or significantly improved technology and achieving substantial environmental benefits.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>Go there and read. More tomorrow.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-reduction-methods/carbon-sequestration-the-way-it-should-be-done-i-am-not-a-huge-fan-of-this-but/">Carbon Sequestration The Way It Should Be Done &#8211; I am not a huge fan of this but</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/burning-reduction-methods/carbon-sequestration-the-way-it-should-be-done-i-am-not-a-huge-fan-of-this-but/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>So That Is Why They Call It Downunder &#8211; Australia loves to deface nature</title>
		<link>/blog/burning-behavior/so-that-is-why-they-call-it-downunder-australia-loves-to-deface-nature/</link>
					<comments>/blog/burning-behavior/so-that-is-why-they-call-it-downunder-australia-loves-to-deface-nature/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burning behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international environmental groups]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methane production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outdoors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wild animals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3511</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I had never heard of coal seam gas before so this is a real education for me. Thanks to The Wilderness Society for that. http://www.wilderness.org.au/regions/new-south-wales/pillaga-coal-seam-gas-project-an-environmental-disaster Pilliga coal seam gas project an environmental disaster The Pilliga Scrub is one of Australia’s &#8230; <a href="/blog/burning-behavior/so-that-is-why-they-call-it-downunder-australia-loves-to-deface-nature/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/so-that-is-why-they-call-it-downunder-australia-loves-to-deface-nature/">So That Is Why They Call It Downunder &#8211; Australia loves to deface nature</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had never heard of coal seam gas before so this is a real education for me. Thanks to The Wilderness Society for that.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wilderness.org.au/regions/new-south-wales/pillaga-coal-seam-gas-project-an-environmental-disaster">http://www.wilderness.org.au/regions/new-south-wales/pillaga-coal-seam-gas-project-an-environmental-disaster</a></p>
<h1>Pilliga coal seam gas project an environmental disaster</h1>
<p><strong>The Pilliga Scrub is one of Australia’s bush icons. At over  500,000 hectares – two thirds the size of Belgium &#8211; it is the largest  temperate woodland in eastern Australia.</strong></p>
<p>It is one of 15 national biodiversity hotspots identified by the  Federal Government, and is home to threatened species such as the Regent  Honeyeater and the endemic Pilliga Mouse.</p>
<p>Now mining company Eastern Star Gas wants to turn the Pilliga into a massive industrial development zone.</p>
<p>Eastern Star has plans for a huge 1100 well coal seam gas development  in the Pilliga. The destruction of the Pilliga is the first big step to  seeing our natural forests and rural land covered with gas wells.</p>
<p>This gas field will fragment 85,000 hectares of forest, including a protected area, and this is just the beginning.</p>
<p>The Pilliga project also involves gas pipelines sited along  environmentally-sensitive travelling stock routes and across prime  agricultural land, against the wishes of local farmers. The associated  export terminal at Newcastle will threaten the Kooragang RAMSAR wetland.</p>
<p>Allowing coal seam gas developments in the Pilliga threatens the Great Artesian Basin with the   existing dozen-well project already discharging waste water into   the Murray-Darling Basin.</p>
<p>Communities across Australia are worried about coal seam gas projects  polluting their local water supplies with toxins and salt. If the  Pilliga project is built, there&#8217;s no telling what the impacts on water  in north west NSW will be. The Pilliga coal seam gas project is an  environmental disaster waiting to happen.</p>
<h2>Take Action</h2>
<p><strong><a href="https://secure.wilderness.org.au/subscribe/index.php?campaign=aus">Sign up to our cyberactivist list</a> and receive regular updates on the Coal Seam Gas and other Wilderness Society campaigns.</strong></p>
<div>
<p>For more information, please contact:</p>
<p><a href="mailto:newcastle@wilderness.org.au?subject=Regarding%20Pilliga%20coal%20seam%20gas%20project%20an%20environmental%20disaster&amp;body=Related%20to%20http%3A//www.wilderness.org.au/regions/new-south-wales/pillaga-coal-seam-gas-project-an-environmental-disaster">Campaign Coordinator</a></p>
<p>The Wilderness Society Newcastle Inc</p>
<div>
<p>Hunter Heritage Centre,<br />
90 Hunter Street,<br />
Newcastle, NSW, 2300<br />
Phone: 02 4929 4395</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>:}</p>
<p>Go there and read. More tomorrow.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/so-that-is-why-they-call-it-downunder-australia-loves-to-deface-nature/">So That Is Why They Call It Downunder &#8211; Australia loves to deface nature</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/burning-behavior/so-that-is-why-they-call-it-downunder-australia-loves-to-deface-nature/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Transition Communities Up North &#8211; Get going Canada</title>
		<link>/blog/burn-free-generation/transition-communities-up-north-get-going-canada/</link>
					<comments>/blog/burn-free-generation/transition-communities-up-north-get-going-canada/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:49:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[advanced energy structures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biofuel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burn free generation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon sequestration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethanol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[farm waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuels and the United States' Future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gaia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[local food production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[masters of the universe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methane production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[over population]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peak oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schemes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar water heat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[useless energy use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vampires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water conservation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wild animals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3271</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I love Brit speak. Some groups are not undecided they are mulling things over. Anyway there is a great list at the end of this article so go check it out. http://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/canadas-transition-communities/ Canada’s Transition Communities 23 Sep No 67 Posted September &#8230; <a href="/blog/burn-free-generation/transition-communities-up-north-get-going-canada/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burn-free-generation/transition-communities-up-north-get-going-canada/">Transition Communities Up North &#8211; Get going Canada</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love Brit speak. Some groups are not undecided they are mulling things over. Anyway there is a great list at the end of this article so go check it out.</p>
<p><a href="http://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/canadas-transition-communities/">http://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/canadas-transition-communities/</a></p>
<h1>Canada’s Transition Communities</h1>
<div>
<div>23 								Sep</div>
</div>
<p>No 67 Posted September 23, 2010</p>
<p><strong>IMPORTANT UPDATE</strong>, Jan. 7, 2011: Ten *NEW* communities added to the List of Canadian Transition Communities (below).</p>
<h4>What is a Transition Community?</h4>
<p>The following text is excerpted and adapted from Ball’s research paper, <em><a href="http://transitionculture.org/wp-content/uploads/Transition-Town-Dissertation-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Transition Towns: Local Networking for Global Sustainability?</a> </em></p>
<p><em></em>The Transition Movement, promoting an action-based approach  to (local) sustainability, has in the past four years grown to  incorporate a large network of individual Transition Initiatives.  Informed by ideas and values within environmental organizations, yet, in  its practical organisation it is distinct from past models of  sustainability by incorporating broad grassroots support in a diverse  range of places within the framework of a coherent networking model.</p>
<p>Sustainability challenges the dominant, market-based capitalism of  industrial society, on economic, social, environmental and ecological  grounds, citing devastating ecological and environmental exploitation. <strong>Sustainability, in contrast, calls for production and consumption within long-term ecological limits.</strong></p>
<p>While local sustainability has become a politically important goal,  in practice neither top-down government nor grassroots community models  have gained widespread uptake or success: the former have failed to  connect with or involve a grassroots public; the latter generally have  few resources and limited capacity.</p>
<p>The Transition Model, a non-governmental community-led model,  advances an action-based approach. With its fast-growing network of  Initiatives, <strong>the Transition Movement is akin to a non-profit  franchise operation, combining the advantage of a centralized support  base with the capacity and resources of a decentralized networking  organization.</strong></p>
<p><strong>The Transition concept, co-founded by Rob Hopkins, who has a  background in permaculture, builds upon a core thesis: that the modern  industrial capitalist economic and social system, based upon cheap oil  and resources, is unsustainable, making a major restructuring of economy  and society imperative, and inevitable</strong>. Transition contends  that citizens and communities need to act proactively and positively at  the local scale, in a process of ‘Transition’ and ‘<em><a href="http://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/powerdown" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Powerdown</a></em>’ to build localized and resilient communities in terms of food, energy, work and waste. <strong>The  vision holds that decarbonized local communities will be resilient in  their capacity to “hold together and maintain their ability to function  in the face of change and shock from the outside.” Transition is  modelled to be a self-organizing community-led model, for people to “act  now and act collectively.”</strong></p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>More tomorrow.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burn-free-generation/transition-communities-up-north-get-going-canada/">Transition Communities Up North &#8211; Get going Canada</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/burn-free-generation/transition-communities-up-north-get-going-canada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>SB 1821 Is Dangerous &#8211; Carbon dioxiode sequestration is wrong</title>
		<link>/blog/burning-behavior/sb-1821-is-dangerous-carbon-dioxiode-sequestration-is-wrong/</link>
					<comments>/blog/burning-behavior/sb-1821-is-dangerous-carbon-dioxiode-sequestration-is-wrong/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:54:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burning behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon sequestration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green wash. corporate cover ups]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lies told by energy companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methane production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pollution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smoke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stewardship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water pollution]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2759</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>I know. Barack Obama, Dick Durbin and every other person on this planet is in favor of this Clean Coal technology. But how advanced is it to use a process created in the late 1800s in 2011. The easy answer &#8230; <a href="/blog/burning-behavior/sb-1821-is-dangerous-carbon-dioxiode-sequestration-is-wrong/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/sb-1821-is-dangerous-carbon-dioxiode-sequestration-is-wrong/">SB 1821 Is Dangerous &#8211; Carbon dioxiode sequestration is wrong</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know. Barack Obama, Dick Durbin and every other person on this planet is in favor of this Clean Coal technology. But how advanced is it to use a process created in the late 1800s in 2011. The easy answer is it ain&#8217;t. Please call your representative to protest.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.riverbender.com/news/wbgz/rfullstory.cfm?newsfile=2011-03-20-20_FutureGen%20Pipeline%20Issues" target="_self" rel="noopener">http://www.riverbender.com/news/wbgz/rfullstory.cfm?newsfile=2011-03-20-20_FutureGen%20Pipeline%20Issues</a></p>
<h1>FutureGen Pipeline Issues</h1>
<div>WBGZ Radio | Mar 18, 2011</div>
<p><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" src="http://www.riverbender.com/news/source/2011-03-20-20_FutureGen%20Pipeline%20Issues_files/image002.jpg" alt="" hspace="12" width="98" height="145" align="left" />The pipeline that’s going to carry carbon dioxide from one place to another as part of the FutureGen clean-coal project is the subject of a bill which has passed a Senate committee.  The bill writes a process for Illinois to oversee the construction and operation of such a pipeline.</p>
<p>“This bill is patterned after what the Illinois Commerce Commission currently does with regard to petroleum pipelines, crude oil, water utility lines, and electric transmission lines,” said sponsoring State Sen. John Sullivan (D-Rushville). Opponents include farmers in Morgan County, where the pipeline would be built.  They say the property owners who do want it are the ones who don’t live there.  FutureGen would use a former Ameren plant in Meredosia to convert coal into carbon dioxide, which would be stored near Alexander.  SB 1821 has passed the Senate Executive Committee.</p>
<p>(Illinois Radio Network)</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>More tomorrow.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/sb-1821-is-dangerous-carbon-dioxiode-sequestration-is-wrong/">SB 1821 Is Dangerous &#8211; Carbon dioxiode sequestration is wrong</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/burning-behavior/sb-1821-is-dangerous-carbon-dioxiode-sequestration-is-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Howard Fineman And Energy Policy &#8211; The right wing loves coal</title>
		<link>/blog/burning-behavior/howard-fineman-and-energy-policy-the-right-wing-loves-coal/</link>
					<comments>/blog/burning-behavior/howard-fineman-and-energy-policy-the-right-wing-loves-coal/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burning behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dying planet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evil polluters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuels and the United States' Future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mountain top destruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[outdoors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smoke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stewardship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water pollution]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2533</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Left wing hates coal. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36132029/ns/politics-howard_fineman/ Obama&#8217;s energy challenge is coal, not oil 45 percent of the nation&#8217;s electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants By Howard Fineman msnbc.com msnbc.com updated 4/14/2010 10:09:22 AM ET 2010-04-14T14:09:22 ANALYSIS WASHINGTON — President Barack &#8230; <a href="/blog/burning-behavior/howard-fineman-and-energy-policy-the-right-wing-loves-coal/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/howard-fineman-and-energy-policy-the-right-wing-loves-coal/">Howard Fineman And Energy Policy &#8211; The right wing loves coal</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Left wing hates coal.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36132029/ns/politics-howard_fineman/" target="_self" rel="noopener">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36132029/ns/politics-howard_fineman/</a></p>
<h1 id="headline">Obama&#8217;s energy challenge is coal, not oil</h1>
<h2 id="deck">45 percent of the nation&#8217;s electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants</h2>
<p>By Howard Fineman</p>
<div id="source">msnbc.com                   msnbc.com</div>
<div>updated      <abbr title="2010-04-14T14:09:22">4/14/2010 10:09:22 AM ET</abbr> 2010-04-14T14:09:22</div>
<div id="tag">ANALYSIS</div>
<p>WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama  touched off a new environmental skirmish with his decision to open vast  new areas of the American coastline to offshore oil drilling. But as  loud as that battle is going to get, it is nothing compared with the  real energy war to come.</p>
<p>I speak, of course, of the Coal War.</p>
<p>Forget whatever else you hear about energy policy, the real fight —  and the real political problem — this year in Congress will be how to  deal with our nagging reliance on the most abundant component of our  carbon-based patrimony.</p>
<p>We can talk until we&#8217;re blue in the face about offshore drilling,  wind power, natural gas, and energy conservation &#8230; but the short-term  drift of history still dictates a heavy reliance on the dirtiest and  deadliest of all fuels: coal.</p>
<p>The big question in the energy bill — if there is one — is how and  whether Congress will ask the American people to pay for the cost of  controlling the environmental consequences of that reliance.</p>
<p>At its core, the president’s energy vision calls for switching our  transportation system from oil to plug-in electricity. But 45 percent of  all electricity in the country is still generated by coal-fired power  plants. In other words, we run the real risk of merely replacing one  polluting and increasingly scarce fuel, petroleum, with an abundant but  even more environmentally troublesome one, coal.</p>
<p>An energy bill that, among other things, would tax pollution caused  by burning fossil fuels was passed by the House last year. It’s gotten  nowhere in the Senate. Obama’s drilling announcement was designed to get  the Senate’s attention — and garner some Republican support.</p>
<div>
<div></div>
</div>
<p>But opening up offshore drilling prospects is politically, the easy  part. I think the president can get that piece of the puzzle.</p>
<p>The hard part is going to be convincing senators from coal-producing  and/or electricity-exporting states to go along with any sort of carbon  tax.</p>
<p>States with power plants that generate electricity from coal read  like a roster of presidential swing states. Among them: Ohio, Indiana,  Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri and North Carolina. And other states  with major coal commitments include: Georgia, Arizona, Kentucky and  Wyoming.</p>
<p>Getting 60 votes for some kind of carbon-pollution tax, even if it’s  in the most attenuated “cap-and-trade” form, will be next to impossible.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>Go read the rest. It is pretty good. Everyone have a great weekend. More next week.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/howard-fineman-and-energy-policy-the-right-wing-loves-coal/">Howard Fineman And Energy Policy &#8211; The right wing loves coal</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/burning-behavior/howard-fineman-and-energy-policy-the-right-wing-loves-coal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>While We Are In The Midst Of A Meditation On Conservative Talking Heads</title>
		<link>/blog/burning-behavior/while-we-are-in-the-midst-of-a-meditation-on-conservative-talking-heads/</link>
					<comments>/blog/burning-behavior/while-we-are-in-the-midst-of-a-meditation-on-conservative-talking-heads/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:57:39 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[burning behavior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon sequestration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[methane production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waste]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2384</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Illinois Statehouse is in full swing. So I am going to take a break here and post this relatively import piece of information. PLEASE call your representatives. https://www.ilenviro.org/news/ Taylorville and Leucadia Proposals Heard by the Illinois Senate January 5, &#8230; <a href="/blog/burning-behavior/while-we-are-in-the-midst-of-a-meditation-on-conservative-talking-heads/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/while-we-are-in-the-midst-of-a-meditation-on-conservative-talking-heads/">While We Are In The Midst Of A Meditation On Conservative Talking Heads</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Illinois Statehouse is in full swing. So I am going to take a break here and post this relatively import piece of information. PLEASE call your representatives.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ilenviro.org/news/" target="_self" rel="noopener">https://www.ilenviro.org/news/</a></p>
<div>Taylorville and Leucadia Proposals Heard by the Illinois Senate</div>
<div>January 5, 2011</div>
<div>
<p>Tonight,  two energy bills were voted on in the Illinois Senate.  There are no  additional bills related to the environment expected to be heard this  week.  Each of these bills previously passed the Illinois House.</p>
<p>Taylorville Energy Center (SB2485)</p>
<p>Tenaska’s  Taylorville Energy Center (SB2485) has so far failed to pass the Senate  following the Senate&#8217;s adjournment tonight.  Outgoing State Senator  Deanna Demuzio presented the bill to the Senate.  Several senators  expressed concerns about the increased rates to businesses.  Senator  Kirk Dillard explained his concerns, “When you do the mathematical  analysis of this project, it doesn’t make sense.”  He also expressed  concern over what he called the “legal pledge that binds the state of  Illinois to Tenaska for three decades” contained within the bill.</p>
<p>A  few senators expressed concerns about the appearance of a subsidy to a  particular business.  Senator Don Harmon expressed concerns over the way  the bill “allocates the costs and risks over what is supposed to be a  competitive market.”  Harmon, who stated that he would be voting for the  bill, described it as a “prudent experiment on how to deal with coal in  an environmentally responsible way.”  Many speaking for the bill  referred to the facility as a very clean way to process coal.</p>
<p>When  the question was called, the vote was 25 voting NO, 29 voting YES and 3  voting PRESENT.  The bill’s sponsor, Senator Demuzio, postponed  consideration of the bill, which means that the bill can be called for a  vote again.  This bill failed in the House at first, but the same  mechanism was used to call the vote for a question again, when it  passed.  The Illinois Sierra Club and several business groups opposed  this legislation.</p>
<p>Leucadia Energy Facility</p>
<p>The  Leucadia Energy Facility (SB3388) passed the Senate tonight and will  move to the Governor’s desk for his signature.  Senator Trotter  introduced the bill in the Senate.  Only one senator spoke about the  bill in addition to the sponsor; Senator Risinger rose in support.  This  bill passed the Senate with 36 voting YES, 13 voting NO, and 4 voting  present.  View the votes <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=3388&amp;GAID=10&amp;GA=96&amp;DocTypeID=SB&amp;LegID=51247&amp;SessionID=76">here.<br />
</a></p>
</div>
<p>:}</p>
<p>More tomorrow.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/burning-behavior/while-we-are-in-the-midst-of-a-meditation-on-conservative-talking-heads/">While We Are In The Midst Of A Meditation On Conservative Talking Heads</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/burning-behavior/while-we-are-in-the-midst-of-a-meditation-on-conservative-talking-heads/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Atlantic Energy Article &#8211; Why are both of these articles so bad</title>
		<link>/blog/fossil-fuels-united-states-future/the-atlantic-energy-article-why-are-both-of-these-article-so-bad/</link>
					<comments>/blog/fossil-fuels-united-states-future/the-atlantic-energy-article-why-are-both-of-these-article-so-bad/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Nicodemus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:26:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[big coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dying planet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Tough Love Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evil polluters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuels and the United States' Future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry apologists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international energy groups]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2252</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>What is up with these major news sources. Both the Christian Science Monitor and the Atlantic ditch alternative energies and go for coal or something more esoteric. They make it sound like alternative energies will be a failure. :} Dirty &#8230; <a href="/blog/fossil-fuels-united-states-future/the-atlantic-energy-article-why-are-both-of-these-article-so-bad/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/fossil-fuels-united-states-future/the-atlantic-energy-article-why-are-both-of-these-article-so-bad/">The Atlantic Energy Article &#8211; Why are both of these articles so bad</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is up with these major news sources. Both the Christian Science Monitor and the Atlantic ditch alternative energies and go for coal or something more esoteric. They make it sound like alternative energies will be a failure.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<h1>Dirty Coal, Clean Future</h1>
<div>
<p>To environmentalists, “clean coal” is an insulting  oxymoron. But for now, the only way to meet the world’s energy needs,  and to arrest climate change before it produces irreversible cataclysm,  is to use coal—dirty, sooty, toxic coal—in more-sustainable ways. The  good news is that new technologies are making this possible. China is  now the leader in this area, the Google and Intel of the energy world.  If we are serious about global warming, America needs to work with China  to build a greener future on a foundation of coal. Otherwise, the  clean-energy revolution will leave us behind, with grave costs for the  world’s climate and our economy.</p>
<h5>By <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/james-fallows/">James Fallows</a></h5>
</div>
<div><img decoding="async" src="http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/coma/images/issues/201012/coal-wide.jpg" alt="" /></div>
<p><span>Image credit: Bryan Christie </span></p>
<p>Through the past four  years I’ve often suggested that China’s vaunted achievements are less  impressive, or at least more complicated, seen up close. Yes, Chinese  factories make nearly all of the world’s consumer electronic equipment.  But the brand names, designs, and most of the profits usually belong to  companies and people outside China. Yes, China’s accumulated trade  surpluses have made it the creditor for America and much of the world.  But the huge share of its own wealth that China has sunk into foreign  economies ties its fate to theirs. Yes, more and more Chinese people are  very rich. But hundreds of millions of Chinese people are still very  poor. Yes, Chinese factories lead the world in output of windmills and  solar-power panels. But China’s environmental situation is still so dire  as to pose the main threat not just to the country’s public health and  political stability but also to its own economic expansion.</p>
<p>This report will have a different tone. I have been learning about  an area of Chinese achievement that is objectively good for the world as  a whole, including the United States. Surprising enough! And China’s  achievement dramatically highlights a structural advantage of its  approach and a weakness of America’s. It involves the shared global  effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, of which China and the United  States are respectively the No. 1 and No. 2 producers, together  creating more than 40 percent of the world’s total output. That shared  effort is real, and important. The significant Chinese developments  involve more than the “clean tech” boom that Americans have already  heard so much about. Instead a different, less publicized, and much less  appealing-sounding effort may matter even more in determining whether  the United States and China can cooperate to reduce emissions. This  involves not clean tech but the dirtiest of today’s main energy  sources—coal.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>I know. Kinda leaves you hanging doesn&#8217;t it. Go there and read more.</p>
<p>More tomorrow.</p>
<p>:}</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="/blog/fossil-fuels-united-states-future/the-atlantic-energy-article-why-are-both-of-these-article-so-bad/">The Atlantic Energy Article &#8211; Why are both of these articles so bad</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="/">Community Energy Systems</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>/blog/fossil-fuels-united-states-future/the-atlantic-energy-article-why-are-both-of-these-article-so-bad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
