The political left-with Obama at the center of the fight-attempts to justify their vicious attacks on all carbon based fuels, because they believe that man-made global warming exists, is dangerous to the earth and can be controlled by government intervention and regulation. They claim the science surrounding man-made global warming is indisputable and believe there is no room for debate. They are more than willing to invest our tax dollars in unproven and expensive energy technologies that can not, currently, provide for the energy needs of our nation. They also don’t seem to care if their strategies work. They are willing to bankrupt our nation in the process of investing in so-called “green energy” that will really have no significant impact on global CO2 levels anyway.
Is the science in? Far from it. The list of scientists who are dissenting from the “green religion” of the left is growing in number rapidly. The left does not want to acknowledge the existence of those who disagree with Al Gore, but the inconvenient truth for the left is that the American people are waking up and coming to realize that man-made global warming is a hoax. They are coming to understand that the man-made global warming theory is driven more by political correctness and power hunger than by science. For a good site to visit that addresses these issues and more visit http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php.
But global warming is not really what I wanted to talk about today. I wanted to talk about the risks and benefits of coal and coal powered energy. Does the burning of coal produce toxins? Yes. Can those toxins cause health risks? Yes. How great are those risks compared to the benefits of coal powered electrical generation? Let’s talk about it.
Quoting again from Coal-The Rock that Burns:
Coal-fired power plants emit various noxious products, from fly ash (ash too small for filters both in the smoke stack and in our bodies), sulfur and nitrogen oxides, mercury, and many others. There is little doubt that these emissions can have a deleterious affect on the human body. The EIA (Energy Information Agency) predicts that for every terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity production in the United States, there are 15 early deaths of those subjected to the plant emissions. Most of these deaths are elderly individuals who have chronic lung problems and would have life expectancies in the range of five to 10 years longer were it not for the pollutants they inhale.
There you have it. Coal is too dangerous. We must stop burning coal. It kills people!
Wait a minute. Let’s take a look at the big picture before we jerk that knee. The article goes on to point out:
But the lost lives aren’t reason enough to prematurely shut down the power plants, because that action would cause a greater death toll. The effect of depriving a population of reliable sources of electricity is catastrophic. This can be quantified by examining the average national use of electricity in watts per person, compared to life expectancy in those nations. (see chart at top of the page. W/Person stands for watts per person by the way.)
What do you notice from the chart? Could access to energy increase life span and quality of life? It most certainly can and does. Again, quoting from Coal-the rock that burns:
Working through the math, we find while 15 people lose an estimated 10 years of life from a TWh of pollution, the benefits of electricity cause 78 people to gain 24 years of life due to a healthier environment and freedom from a lifestyle of drudgery. So we trade each 150 years of life lost for 1,800 of extended years.
But the libs will say, “Why don’t we eliminate the risk of coal completely and still provide the energy we need with a safer energy source”. My question to the libs is, how? With what? Show us how to do that in a way that is technologically doable, safe, reliable and affordable before you pull the plug on existing proven sources of energy. Listen one more time:
Maurice Strong, who was a mentor of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, as well as the primary instigator of the global-warming hoax, conceived while he was Secretary General of the 1992 Rio De Janeiro UN Conference on Environment and Development-the so-called Earth Summit. Strong summed up his philosophy in an interview with Nation Review in September 1997:
“Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
So there you have it. These man-made global warming geniuses are willing to put our civilization back into the horse and buggy era because they think coal, oil, gas and any other carbon based fuels are destroying the planet. Oh, and remember, Libs hate nuclear power plants too. And they want to get rid of hydro-electric power because it messes up the river environment and interferes with normal migration of fish and birds. And they don’t want the wind turbines in their back yards.
Does the liberal perspective seem reasonable or logical to you? That perspective is about as smart as starting a back-fire in your kitchen because your bedroom is on fire. Go get em libs. I think you are really on to something here. Let’s shut down the world right now so we can save it. Good idea!
Vote for Obama! He is fixing our world (If by fix you mean the same kind of fix that veterinarians do to fix male dogs, horses and cattle.)
{ 0 comments }
