Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WHAM! Coal DA
Coal DA Index
Coal DA Index..........................................................1
1NC Shell (1/2)..........................................................3
1NC Shell (2/2)..........................................................4
Uniqueness- Strong Now (1/2).................................5
Uniqueness- Strong Now (2/2).................................6
AT: Down Now..........................................................7
AT: High Costs in Squo Weak Industry............8
AT: SQ Emissions Caps Kill Coal...........................9
Brink- Now Key Time for Coal Industry.............10
Link- General (1/2).................................................11
Link- General (2/2).................................................12
Link- Emissions Trading (1/2)...............................13
Link- Emissions Trading (2/2)...............................14
Link- Wind Power..................................................15
Link- Lieberman-Warner (1/2).............................16
Link- Lieberman-Warner (2/2).............................17
Links- Nuclear........................................................18
Link-RPS.................................................................19
Ext. Econ ! Internal Link (1/2)..............................20
Ext. Econ ! Internal Link (2/2)..............................21
Heg ! Module (1/2)..................................................22
Heg ! Module (2/2)..................................................23
Readiness Key to Heg............................................24
Oil Dependence ! Module (1/2).............................25
Oil Dependence ! Module (2/2).............................26
Ext. Oil Dependence ! Internal Link....................27
AT: Renewables Solve Oil Dependence................28
US-India Relations ! Module (1/2)........................29
US-India Relations ! Module (2/2)........................30
Ext. US-India Relations ! Internal Link...............31
Death !.....................................................................32
T/ Ethanol Bad Affs................................................33
Clean Coal Solves Global Warming.....................34
Clean Coal Better Than Renewables....................35
Clean Coal Better Than Wind...............................36
US Clean Coal Solves China.................................37
SDI 2008 2
WHAM! Coal DA
2. Nuclear war.
Walter Russel Mead, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, 1992 New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28
But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a
new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India -
these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger
to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
SDI 2008 5
WHAM! Coal DA
Our evidence subsumes your warrants – new costs and high prices will not effect the
industry – they will take the necessary steps
Business Wire, June 4, 2008, “Fitch: Muted Supply Response to Strong International Coal Demand for U.S.
Coal Industry”, jlk, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_June_4/ai_n25476070?tag=content;col1
NEW YORK -- U.S. coal producers are benefiting from tight global markets for both steam and
metallurgical coal which is diverting imports from the United States and providing export
opportunities for domestic producers, according to a Fitch Ratings report. The supply response to
improving price conditions should be measured, given high operating and materials costs. Fitch expects
only modest growth in U.S. coal production following a 1% contraction in 2007. Constraints to building
new mines include high capital costs, the need for sales contracts covering a high portion of the new
tonnage for a period of time, and a lengthy permitting process. While some producers are announcing
new projects, these have more than two years lead-time and may only replace declining production at
existing mines. 'High consumables prices and labor costs will constrain earnings growth over the next few
months,' said Monica Bonar, Director, Fitch Ratings. 'Mining in new or challenging regions can amplify
already high maintenance and capital costs.' Capital raising for the industry has been fairly active of
late both for expansion capital and to improve weak capital structures. Fitch expects major coal
producers will continue to balance capital spending with free cash flows. Fitch notes that companies
with weaker capital structures are selling common stock or converting debt to common stock and
taking other steps to shore up liquidity.
SDI 2008 9
WHAM! Coal DA
The coal industry is a major part of the economy; cutting emissions hurts local coal
businesses and workers.
Jonathan Rivoli, Bismarck Tribune, 1-20-2008, “The Growing Concern Over CO2”, SS. L/N
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the state gets 93 percent of its electricity from coal - a
ratio that, despite much-hyped alternative energy projects over the last few years, remains unchanged from
1990. In addition to producing most of its own power, North Dakota uses its coal to send power to
neighboring states like Minnesota. The production of all this coal-generated electricity energizes the
region's economy. In Oliver and Mercer counties, the heart of coal country, the industry accounts for
nearly 41 percent of all employment and 66 percent of wages earned, according to data compiled from
Job Service North Dakota and local economic development officials. It pumps more than $43 million in
wages alone into those counties' economies. Indeed, coal is the lifeblood of places like Washburn and
Underwood, where the nearby Coal Creek Station Power Plant and Falkirk mine are at the center of life. For
people like Hank Rasmusson, an Underwood resident who has owned a small gas station near the center
of town since the 1960s, decisions made half a continent or half a world away could have a big effect on
life. "It could have a tremendous impact," Rasmusson said. "I could lock up, that's what could
happen." Rasmusson, 66, said many of his customers at R and S Oil Co. work at the nearby mines and
power plants. A contraction in the coal industry means many of them might not stick around
Underwood to shop at his store, he said.
SDI 2008 14
WHAM! Coal DA
The coal industry is reacting to the possible effects of legislation that aims to reduce emissions 66%
below 2005 levels by 2050. Under the bill, polluters would have to buy allowances to cover emissions
released into the atmosphere, up to the limit permitted under the law. Coal producers would suffer in
particular because coal-fired power plants release about twice as much carbon dioxide as is emitted by
comparable natural-gas-fired plants. Total coal consumption would be between 62% and 89% lower
than what would otherwise be the case, government forecasts show, because the fuel wouldn't be as
economical once the costs of pollution allowances are factored in.
SDI 2008 15
WHAM! Coal DA
Empirically, expansion of wind energy will trade off with coal investment
UPI Energy, July 25, 2007, “Wind offsets carbon dioxide”, jlk, Lexis
According to a new release by Washington-based Worldwatch, global wind power is offsetting tons of
carbon dioxide. In 2006 the 15,200 megawatts of newly installed wind turbine capacity is expected to
generate enough clean energy to offset nearly 43 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. According to
the Worldwatch Institute, that is the equivalent of 23 U.S. coal plants, 7,200 megawatts of coal-fired
energy or 8 million cars. "Wind power is on track to soon play a major role in reducing fossil fuel
dependence and slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," said Janet Sawin,
Worldwatch senior researcher. "Already the 43 million tons of carbon dioxide displaced by the new wind
plants installed last year equaled more than 5 percent of the year's growth in global emissions. If the wind
market quadruples over the next nine years -- a highly plausible scenario -- wind power could be reducing
global emissions growth by 20 percent in 2015," Sawin said. Investment in wind power has jumped to
$22 billion in 2006, and though it still only accounts for around 1 percent of U.S. electricity generation,
more capacity was added in wind in 2006 than in the coal and nuclear industries combined. Growth
hasn't only been in the United States; efforts are being undertaken all over the world. "China and the Unites
States will compete for leadership of the global wind industry in the years ahead," Sawin said.
"Although the U.S. industry got a 2-year head start, the Chinese are gaining ground rapidly. Whichever
nation wins, it is encouraging to see the world's top two coal burners fighting for the top spot in wind
energy." LOAD-DATE: July 26, 2007
SDI 2008 16
WHAM! Coal DA
The coal mining industry is on the brink of being cut back by alternative energy incentives.
Geof Koss, CongressSnow Staff, 1-28-2008, “Interests; An Industry Under Assault;
Democratic Congress Spells Bad News for Mining Companies,” SS. lexis
The second session of the 110th Congress is barely two weeks old, but the mining industry is already
battening down the hatches as it seeks to weather what could be a perfect storm of legislation affecting a
wide swath of its membership. Despite the abbreviated election-year session, mining companies are
suddenly facing the very real possibility of new mine safety mandates, costly changes to the federal law
that governs minerals extraction on public lands, and greenhouse gases controls that would discourage
the use of fossil fuels such as coal to produce energy. But the industry isn't taking the threats sitting down.
Buoyed by a strong forecast for domestic coal and metals production in 2008, mining firms are pouring
money into lobbying and advertising to boost their image, especially in key states and Congressional districts
ahead of the November elections.
SDI 2008 17
WHAM! Coal DA
Links- Nuclear
Nuclear power kills the coal industry.
Watthead 6/2/07 “Carbon Backlash: Coal Companies Pitted Against Major U.S.
Corporations Pushing for Climate Regulations” lexis
Murray, whose private company produces about 30 million tons of coal per year, has formed the Coal-based
Stakeholders Chief Executive Officers Group, comprising CEOs of railroads, some coal companies and
utilities. It opposes so-called "cap and trade" regulations, arguing that caps on emissions will devastate the
U.S. coal industry which fuels about 50 percent of the country's electricity generation. Murray said he sent
Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens a letter a few months ago telling him he would no longer do business with him -
a decision he said will result in the loss of millions of dollars in business to Caterpillar. He also pointed out
power company Exelon Corp's (EXC) John Rowe, as "one of the biggest enemies of coal for decades
because he's got nuclear." Chicago-based Exelon, which is not a member of USCAP, said in a statement
that Rowe is "a leading proponent of moderate and thoughtful climate change legislation that preserves all
technological alternatives." He co-chairs the National Commission on Energy Policy, which has advocated
for a variety of technologies to address climate change, including clean coal and carbon sequestration. "And
certainly John is an advocate for nuclear power."
**Murray is chairman and chief executive of Murray Energy Corp
SDI 2008 19
WHAM! Coal DA
Link-RPS
RPS would cause a dramatic shift away from coal
Foster Electric Report, 9-19-2007, “EIA FINDS THAT FEDERAL 25% RPS WOULD CAUSE DRAMATIC
SHIFT AWAY FROM COAL GENERATION,” SS, Lexis.
Meeting twin 25% national renewable portfolio standards for electricity and transportation fuels by
2025 would require nearly a 13-fold increase from 2005 levels in non-hydropower renewable generation, and
cause a "dramatic shift" away from coal and natural gas generation, the U.S. Energy Information
Administration said in a report released Sept. 11. "This analysis suggests that, to comply with the twin 25-
by-25 mandates, it will be necessary for electricity and motor fuel producers to dramatically increase
their use of technologies that play a relatively small role in today's energy markets," the report said. For
instance, EIA said the 13-fold increase in renewable electricity generation from 2005 levels would be
accompanied by more than a 12-fold increase in the amount of ethanol and biodiesel needed.
More evidence
EIA Special Report, 10-11-2001, eia.doe.gov, “Fuel Market and Macroeconomic Impacts,”SS.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/epp/chapter_4.html
The imposition of new, more stringent emission caps on electricity power plants would affect coal
consumption, national and regional production, and prices. (Figure 22) In general, the revised caps and the
consequent need for introducing control technologies and other measures necessary to achieve
compliance with the caps would raise the cost of electricity from coal-fired power plants relative to those
using other fuels, encourage fuel switching, and cause the level of coal-fired generation to be reduced.
The impacts on national coal industry production levels are projected to be negative relative to the
reference case. The overall impacts on coal production depend on both the extent of the projected decline in
coal demand and the types of coal expected to be used in the future mix of coal-burning capacity. In the RPS
cases, all the nonhydroelectric renewable generation technologies are projected to increase their market share
of total generation, and the electricity generation shares of both coal and natural gas are projected to be
lower than in the reference case. The effective price premium associated with using renewable fuels declines
over time relative to nonrenewable sources, because the cost of the RPS credits that nonrenewable electricity
generators must hold increases as the renewable share target becomes more stringent. In the RPS 10% case,
the projected impacts on coal markets fall roughly midway between the results in the reference and RPS 20%
cases.
SDI 2008 20
WHAM! Coal DA
The current world coal market has led to the US being the key coal producer allowing the
US to expand its energy markets globally – this is key to the US economy
Katy Marquardt, June 5, 2008, 6/5/08 “Skip Alternative Energy—Dig for Coal Stocks”, jlk,
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/06/05/skip-alternative-energy--dig-for-coal-stocks.html
Rather than focus on a specific region of the world, global fund managers roam the Earth in search of
the best investments. The United States represents less than 40 percent of the world's equity markets,
so going global helps U.S. investors avoid home-country bias, says Keith Walter, co-portfolio manager of
the Julius Baer Global Equity fund, which has gained an annualized 14 percent over the past three years.
Recently, Walter talked with U.S. News about his favorite energy stocks, the changing dynamics of coal, and
why he's excited about eastern Europe and Taiwan. What companies in this industry look best? We're
heading toward a world of higher energy prices, so we're trying to invest in the ultimate beneficiaries
of this trend. Since more than 80 percent of the world's proven reserves of oil are controlled by
governments, it's difficult to invest in stocks that own a lot of the oil in the ground. Our process looks at the
world's publicly traded oil companies and compares the valuation of their exploration and production assets
as a percentage of those proven reserves, to see which companies own the most oil in the ground at the most
attractive price. We also want to make sure that they can get the oil out of the ground at a good profit.
Although this process has led us to some investments in the U.S., the more compelling opportunities in oil
companies are in Russia, France, Canada, Norway, and Brazil, among others. One of the best-positioned
energy companies today is OAO Lukoil in Russia, which accounts for 19 percent of Russia's oil production
and has almost twice the proven reserves of Exxon Mobil but trades at a significant discount in the equity
markets. Another global oil company that looks attractive is Total SA, which is based in France. Total has
abundant oil reserves and trades at a 30 percent discount to the MSCI World Energy Index. A third name we
like is Petrobras, which is based in Brazil. While it's already reserve-rich at 15 billion barrels of oil
equivalent, Petrobras has recently made one of the largest new discoveries of oil in more than 20 years.
What about U.S. energy stocks? Hess Corp. is a U.S. name that is working alongside Petrobras in Brazil on
this major new oil find. Hess will likely be able to double their proven reserves of oil from a small $36
million investment they made seven years ago. That said, we think the most exciting part of the U.S.
energy sector today is our nation's coal companies. According to the Energy Information Administration,
the U.S. has the largest reserves of coal in the world, with a 27 percent share. Compared to other fossil
fuels, coal is by far the cheapest fossil fuel in the world today. Also, the dynamics are changing in the
coal industry. Three situations have developed: First, China, which was once a big exporter of coal, has
become an importer to feed its growing demand for electricity. Second, there have been major
disruptions to the operations of the traditional coal exporters, with flooding in Australia and power
outages in South Africa. Third, U.S. coal is more attractively priced than coal from other regions of the
world. These dynamics have made for dramatic increases in the exports of U.S. coal, although
traditionally, our coal was used primarily for domestic consumption. This export demand shows no signs of
letting up in the future, as both India and China each plan to build more than 1,000 new coal-fired
electricity plants over the next five years. How are you investing in coal? First, we want companies with a
lot of coal reserves, and that leads us to Peabody Energy, the largest publicly traded coal company in the
world. Peabody has mining operations in the U.S. and Australia, so they'll be able to meet the rising demand
from both Asia and eastern Europe for coal. Second, we like companies that are well positioned to take
advantage of this new demand for U.S. coal exports, and that brings us to Alpha Natural Resources, which is
based in the Appalachian Mountains and is the largest coal exporter via their partial ownership of one of the
nation's busiest coal ports in Virginia.
SDI 2008 21
WHAM! Coal DA
C. Extinction
Sid-Ahmed ’04 (Mohamed,- political analyst for Al-Ahram weekly “Extinction!” http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the
negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves,
police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise
and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different
type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds.
This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends
when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the
whole planet, we will all be losers.
SDI 2008 27
WHAM! Coal DA
Death !
Hundreds of thousands would die with the loss of coal.
Center for Energy and Economic Development, April 2007, “A Climate Policy Guide,”
coalcandothat.com/pdf/6%20Energy%20Economy%20and%20the%20Environment%20-
%20Inextricable%20Linkage.pdf MH
The cost of electricity not only promotes economic development, it also profoundly affects the lives of
millions of Americans. For those living on low- or fixed-incomes, energy costs consume 20% to 46% of
total household income. Given the demonstrated linkage between household income and health, surges in
energy costs can be expected to damage the quality of life of the one-in-three American households with an
annual income of $30,000 or less. The cost of energy is profoundly important to both economic growth
and human health. According to a 2006 Annapolis Center report, “Strong and convincing evidence exists
in the public health literature that economic growth-development and inexpensive energy drive
worldwide improvement in health and longevity.” Additionally, a 2005 study by Dr. M. Harvey
Brenner of Johns Hopkins University found that, if coal were removed from the energy mix,
approximately 170,000 to 368,000 premature deaths would occur in the U.S. in 2010.
SDI 2008 33
WHAM! Coal DA
More evidence.
Butler, manager of an environmental news service, 2006, “Clean coal could fight climate change”,
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0313-coal.html
Cleaner, more efficient use of coal could play a key role in addressing climate change, especially with
the growing importance of coal as an energy source as world crude oil supplies are diminished in the
future. Coal presently supplies about two-thirds of China's energy and one-third of the energy demand
in the United States but, due to its abundance, is forecast to become an increasingly important relative to
petroleum around mid-century. Currently, coal is used mostly for electricity generation, but is less thermally
efficient than natural gas-fired power stations. Scientists say that identifying and deploying effective ways
of harnessing coal at acceptable environmental and economic cost is an urgent priority for the global
energy industry.
More evidence
Wampler 7/11 (J. Allen Wampler, 7/11/08, JD,
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/07/11/cleaned.html)
Policymakers like to talk about the need for alternative energy sources —- solar and wind power, geothermal
energy, natural gas, nuclear power and conservation. But those alternatives, though helpful, aren't enough
to meet growing demand for electricity in increasingly digitalized economies. The growth of nuclear
power is severely constrained by equipment and manpower shortages. Even with state mandates, it's
unlikely that renewable energy sources will ever account for more than a fraction of U.S. electricity
generation. Solar and wind have serious limitations due to cost and practicality. Neither one is of much
help on days when the weather isn't cooperating. For the United States and globally, a combination of
more efficient coal combustion and carbon capture-and-storage offers a potentially workable solution
to the greenhouse-gas problem —- and an opportunity to reach a comprehensive strategy for
international cooperation on carbon mitigation. Energy supply would be more secure, and the citizens of
coal-producing countries would gain more from the natural wealth their countries control. Both producing
and consuming countries would win —- regardless of where the carbon is sequestered. > J. Allen Wampler, a
former assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, is a consultant to government and industry on
energy issues.
SDI 2008 36
WHAM! Coal DA
More evidence
The Age News, byline Orietta Guerrera, 7/6/08, “Carbon Dioxide burial reaches a milestone,”
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/carbon-dioxide-burial-reaches-a-milestone-20080706-32no.html MH
IT IS technology vital to the Government's hopes of cutting greenhouse emissions from Australia's huge coal-
fired power stations: capturing carbon dioxide from the polluting stations and burying it deep underground.
Australia's first trial of geosequestration in the Otways reached its first milestone last week — 10,000 tonnes
of carbon dioxide was successfully stored two kilometres underground in a depleted natural gas field.
Scientists from the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies hope to increase that
to 100,000 tonnes next year, while continuing to monitor the local geology. The centre's chief executive,
Dr Peter Cook, who is overseeing the $40 million project, is confident that the day will come when much
of the carbon dioxide produced from large industrial sources can be buried.
More evidence
Richard R. Hall, J.D. University of Chicago Law School, and John S. Kirkham, J.D.,
University of Utah College of Law, 6/4/07
http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484
Despite environmental concerns and the development of alternative energy sources, the coal industry (and
coal consumption) is on the rise, with no signs of slowing in the next few decades. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA) indicates that U.S. coal production in 2005 increased 1.9% to 1133.3
million short tons. This is the second straight year of increased production after significant declines from
2001-2003. This trend is expected to continue. The EIA predicts that U.S. coal production will continue to
increase by an average of 1.1% each year until 2015, when total production will equal 1272 million short
tons. Coal production growth should be even stronger between 2015 and 2030, averaging 2% per year,
as electricity demand continues to increase. This demand will likely be met with new or expanded coal-
fired power plants.
More evidence
Business Wire 6/19/06. Fitch: U.S. Coal Industry Well Positioned, Strong Market Fundamentals PC
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_June_19/ai_n16486474
Fundamentals for the U.S. coal industry will continue to be positive through the second half of 2006 as
market conditions will bolster a strong pricing environment, according to a Fitch Ratings report. Demand
for coal, particularly from power generators, will continue to be robust in 2H 2006. Transportation
bottlenecks and outages, the availability of labor and equipment, a challenging regulatory
environment, and geology will all constrain supply growth, improving the price environment for coal.
Mild weather and maintenance shutdowns at power generators have allowed inventories to build
which resulted in a decline in steam coal spot prices in the first half of the year. Natural gas prices have also
drifted lower from post-hurricane spikes and are approaching the point where some older, less efficient coal-
fueled plants will become uncompetitive. Fitch expects steam coal realization growth to continue, but to
moderate, as more contract prices reflect the strength that emerged in 2004 and 2005.
SDI 2008 42
WHAM! Coal DA
Clean Coal is a myth and will still cause pollution – Real “clean” technology is still decades
away.
GPACE (Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy), 7/10/08 “Our Energy Economy,”
http://www.gpace.org/?q=our-energy-economy MH
Coal is not a clean energy source, whether considering pollutants such as mercury, nitrous oxide, sulphur
dioxide, or ozone (which cause illness and premature death, especially among children) or the greenhouse
gas, carbon dioxide. Advances have been made in the industry to develop and implement scrubbers
that remove some of the mercury and other pollutants from coal-fired emissions, but these processes
simply remove those pollutants from airborne emissions and capture them in sludges or slurries that
are then stored at the plants and/or dumped into rivers or groundwater. As for the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide, there is currently no existing technology that can remove carbon dioxide from coal-
fired emissions and effectively “sequester” it. Most credible experts agree that so-called “clean coal”
technologies are at least ten to twenty years off, if in fact ever feasible at all. Additionally, carbon
capture and sequestration technology for pulverized coal plants uses three times as much water as the coal
plant alone – which already uses vast amounts of water.
Large Investments in clean coal are already being rejected – empirically proven.
The Daily Green, byline David Bello, 2/3/08, “U.S. Government Cancels Clean Coal Power Plant,”
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/futuregen-canceled-99020302 MH
The U.S. government decided to cancel funding for a proposed "clean coal" power plant that would
have captured the carbon dioxide spewed when burning the black rock, according to the New York Times.
The so-called FutureGen power plant had recently selected a site--Mattoon, Ill.--but also seen its cost rise to
as much as $1.8 billion, a price the government was not prepared to pay for what had been hailed by
President Bush as a bold step toward a pollution-free future. The cancellation is also a setback on the
road to the so-called "hydrogen economy" as the 275 megawatt power plant also aimed to produce that
energy carrier along with cleaner electricity from coal. The Department of Energy plans to fund several
smaller power plants instead, after sinking $50 million into the FutureGen project. But without a
demonstration of such carbon capture and storage technology soon, the future of preventing the
greenhouse gases emitted when coal is burned appears bleak, according to experts. Given that hundreds
of coal power plants continue to be built around the world, such technology is needed to forestall catastrophic
climate change, argues M.I.T. physicist Ernest Moniz.
SDI 2008 47
WHAM! Coal DA
Clean coal will continue to pollute and isn’t as viable as alternative energy.
Ben Block, writer for Worldwatch Institute, 3-22-2008, ENN Press Services, “U.S. Environmental Groups divided
on “Clean Coal”, http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/33367
"We need to make sure that the technology to capture and store carbon is feasible and in place," said
Bruce Nilles, The Sierra Club's national coal campaign director. "While we are evaluating the role coal
should play in our energy future, we should continue to move forward with the clean, affordable energy
solutions that are available today, like wind and solar power." Greenpeace has taken a hard-line approach
against CCS. "We are opposed to CCS technology," said Kate Smolski, Greenpeace USA global warming
campaigner. "The No. 1 reason is it's a way the dirty polluting coal industry can prop itself up. It's an
unproven technology. And it takes resources away from solutions that we can use right now."
SDI 2008 48
WHAM! Coal DA