Skip to main content

View Diary: New AP Poll: Al Gore tied for second place (214 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm sort of having a hard time figuring out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal

    what you are talking about.

    Why he's in the polls is kinda clear, but it doesn't matter much "why". It is sort of beside the point.

    And would DC elites "allow" Gore in? What does that even mean?

    "In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder, a secret order." Carl Jung

    by Unduna on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:32:17 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It means he's written a book bashing the media (0+ / 0-)

      and it means he wants aggressive policies/laws on the environment.
      Do you think Gore would have sponsored a bill raping the land, but benefiting the coal indu$try?  Do you see the corporate media even mentioning Obama's bill?

      The Republican Party - supporting life right up until birth.

      by annefrank on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 01:21:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's not an accurate representation of (4+ / 0-)

        the coal-to-liquid bill. Liquid coal will be an improvement over current forms of its usage. If capture and sequestration is commercially implemented, then liquid coal will be some 4% worse than gasoline, but significantly better than raw coal usage. Your phrase "raping the land" is therefore inappropriate.

        The point is that it doesn't do better than gasoline, and hence it can't be a long term approach.

        I'd like to see Obama withdraw his co-sponsorship (i have in fact posted an "open letter" asking to do that), but we should keep the rherotic grounded in facts.

        •  That's a HUGE if. (0+ / 0-)

          If capture and sequestration is commercially implemented

          Aren't we still in search of an actual capture and sequestration system to work?  I have little doubt that if we commit the resources and funding necessary, our scientists can come up with an effective method.  But how long will that take?

          You simply cannot have coal-to-liquid without it; that'd be just horrendous pollution right there.  But like you said, even with it, it's still worse than gasoline.  And isn't that the point of coal-to-liquid, to replace gasoline in certain areas?

          •  BK, I am not yet well-read on the subject (0+ / 0-)

            but, my impression is that in lab settings, this has been done. And with those techniques, one can bring down the impact to 4% over gasoline Based on wvablue's extended diary and the Andrews' article excerpted there.

            wvablue diary's bar chart:

            So, theoretically, it is possible to get to 4%, but we don't know how much of that is realizable. I should go over the bill itself one more time when time permits.

            Here is dynamic: of course, we don't want to burn fossil fuels in such as way that we leave a large GHG foot print. However, the source of energy does exist, and we do have energy needs. As long as we're going to use the level of energy, can we do the same thing more efficiently and less hazardously? Clearly, the CFL bulbs, 120 mph Toyota hybrids, etc are steps in such a direction.

            I think the whole thing brings forht a new paradigm that all aspects of our society at this point. I am glad the Al Gore gave it the push needed to raise the dialog and the political will on this.

            Nice talking to you, BK. Have a good one!

        •  Wrong! It's VERY accurate. (0+ / 0-)

          Much of the coal is obtained by mountain top removal (Warning: Pictures) in West Virginia,  a major coal state.

          If that's not raping the land;  What is?

          Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.

          by kafkananda on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 04:44:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site