Candidate Obama vs. President Obama on Clean Coal

In 2008, then-Senator Obama championed clean coal technologies. As President, however, Obama gave coal the silent treatment while his EPA waged a war against our most affordable and abundant energy resource. As the 2012 campaign heats up, the president suddenly remembers the 1.5 million Americans employed in coal and coal-related industries.

• Category

  News & Politics

[Jason Wood]

Regarding historical temperature/CO2 changes, you are comparing apples and oranges. Orbital changes that occur over the course of tens or hundreds of thousands of years are the cause of the glacial and interglacial climate changes, not CO2, which is why CO2 doesn't correlate. But when we talk about global warming or climate change today, we're talking about short-term changes (over hundreds of years or even less) - those are caused by CO2.

[Jason Wood]

Climategate and similar "scandals" pushed by the right wing media always turn out to be much ado about nothing when you get to the facts. The many independent investigations surrounding climategate found no evidence of data manipulation. Only the degree of transparency of some of the scientists was criticized. The science was found to be strong and continues to stand up to scrutiny.

[ironhead37]

At the current rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere, it would take about 195 years to achieve this doubling. The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects. Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, more extreme climate, tropical diseases, and so on are greatly exaggerated.

[ironhead37]

Regardless, the current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2ppm/year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000ppm would take about 300yrs, and 1000ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and significantly less than either the NASA or Navy limit for human beings. Utilizing your "home test", doubling the CO2 concentration to 780 ppm will cause about 1deg C increase in warming.

[ironhead37]

Better informed by what? Political agenda? Media bias? Corrupt scientists looking for funding? There have been too many scandals with scientific research and data manipulation. You might be sold on it, but I'm not buying. So CO2 levels increased from about 280ppm to 390ppm over the past 150 yrs, and the earth has warmed slightly during that time. It can be argued that it's correlation and not causation, as earth’s history has shown there were times where temperatures rose before CO2 levels.

[Jason Wood]

I explained how you can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas AT HOME. What more proof do you need? Nobody with any sense denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And of course CO2 is good for plants! Everyone knows that! That doesn't mean it's good for the climate (or more precisely - whether its good for sustaining a climate in which the human race can survive comfortably). Your arguments show extremely poor logic and incredibly poor understanding of the subject. Come back when you're informed.

[ironhead37]

What's laughable is you're apparently claiming your opinion as fact, because you've still failed to provide proof. An Australian researcher planted trees and other plants in different concentrations of CO2. The plants that were subjected to an above average CO2 concentration grew faster and stronger than the control shrubs. Check out the time lapse video on youtube, search "seeing is believing co2". Exposed to 1270ppm, plants absorbed it beautifully. Don't buy into the political hype of CO2!

[Jason Wood]

We're just talking about being honest about "clean coal"... that it doesn't exist. We need to begin a RESPONSIBLE transition to renewable energy. Solar cost continues to drop at an unbelievable pace. Grid parity has been reached in some places. The price of fossil fuel is going in the opposite direction and that will never change. We all know this! We're going to look pretty stupid in 10 years when we're still stuck using the most expensive, dirtiest energy in the world.

[Jason Wood]

Are you seriously claiming that science is not 100% certain that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That is laughable. Put two identical jars under heat lamps, one with more CO2 than the other. The one with more CO2 heats up faster. You can do this experiment at home! This is not controversial in the slightest. By the way, I got some time scales wrong above, and I apologize for that. I should have said, "The CO2 that took nature a MILLION years or more to put in the ground, we have put back up in decades"

[ironhead37]

There is no scientific proven fact, none! You can say what's opinion, probable, theorized, or "scientifically assumed"... but in the end, you're not going to find 100% scientific facts proving it. If you're so sure, show me! And good luck finding it.