Reader comments
My view: Sierra Club isn't lone opponent of coal plants

liberal larry | 6:52 a.m. April 27, 2008

It is sad, but the last thing we need in Utah is local control of issues pertaining to the environment, education, gun control etc. Thank heaven for groups like the Sierra Club, the ACLU and even the federal government. The ultimate end of total local control are the towns of Hildale and Colorado City. Sometimes provincial cultures need the "outside" world to update their thinking.

Roosevelt | 8:12 a.m. April 27, 2008

I am not a Sierra-clubber either, but I thank God for their efforts. On many fronts (such as the creation of national parks such as Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Canyonlands) they have been in the forefront of protecting what is increasingly precious to all of us. On the coal front, it was always apparent that we will run out eventually, and need to find alternatives. The anthropogenic global warming issue only puts this need in high relief.
Someone told me once that you can tell who the pioneers are by the arrows in their backs. The Sierra club must be pretty well bristling with arrows by now, but it will never erase the good they have done.

gp | 8:12 a.m. April 27, 2008

The pendulum has swung way too far on the side of extreme environmentalism. I am a denier. I deny completely and unequivocally that CO2 causes global warming. This terrible error is going to prove the destruction of our health and economy. Extreme environmentalism has caused far more damage to our people and our economy than all the terrorism we have ever fought. Progress cannot continue with its tenacles in every facet of progress. It's the real reason gas prices are so high, but nobody seems to care. It is the real cause of outsourcing, but nobody cares. It is the real cause of poverty, but nobody cares. It is high time we put a stop to the terrible enfluence caused by environmentalism

Comments continue below

Professor | 8:24 a.m. April 27, 2008

I disagree. There is no scientific evidence that would prove beyond any doubt or even suggest CO2 is a health danger or a cause of global warming. There is no consensus. There never will be a consensus in the true scientific community.

The major sources of C02 on the planet are not coal plants in Utah (I suggest taking a trip to Delta and see for yourself how clean a modern coal plant is A) but are decaying plant life. CO2 is a natural part of life on this planet. Without it, life would cease to exist.

If the socialist environmentalists have their way and our sources of energy are shut down, we will have a problem because the poor will start burning everything in sight to keep warm in the winter to keep from freezing to death.

DW | 8:40 a.m. April 27, 2008

"Polls show that over 80 percent of Utahns support clean, renewable energy options in lieu of more coal."

Who wouldn't "support clean, renewable energy... over coal"? The problem is that there is not a viable source of "clean, renewable energy" to meet the needs of our state or country.

Let's build "clean" coal-fired plants that use a portion of their energy output to scrub emissions and deploy nuclear power plants where feasible. In other words let's use a realistic solution to resolve our energy problems.

Dave | 9:14 a.m. April 27, 2008

Yea, we arre all to dumb to know what is best for us.

Patrick | 10:18 a.m. April 27, 2008

I recall a great bluster in the late 70's about the danger of a new Ice Age, what ever became of that? I suppose scientists don't "know" nearly as much as they think they know, but the Sierra Club and the ACLU still use the wrong information to prey upon the fearful and frienzed minds of liberals everywhere.

liberal larry | 1:00 p.m. April 27, 2008

I think that people blame the "radical environmentalists" for pointing out the realities of living on a planet with six and a half billion other people. Back in the 70's we had no insulation in our house because we burned wood to heat our home, we used gas with a lead additive in our '57 chevy, and used to throw our garbage out the window on isolated country roads. We've come a long way since those days, and as time passes we will have to continue to clean up our acts as more and more people inhabit the earth.

Henry | 2:12 p.m. April 27, 2008

Patrick;
Your memories are revisionist. I lived through the 70's as well, and there was no widespread concern about the Ice Age. I have been an environmentalist all my life, and all I recall was that the idea was a novel, fringe idea that was interesting but never garnered widespread support (as anthropogenic global warming has). People who claim this "Ice Age" proposal are posing a false analogy.
I predict that a search of peer-reviewed literature that the two ideas generated would reveal 100 times the support (as measured in this way) for the reality of global warming, as opposed to the reality of a renewed ice age. Nobody worried much about it then, including scientists. Lots of us are worried about AGW, though - includint the majority of earth scientists.

Paul | 9:08 p.m. April 27, 2008

It makes you wonder if people are remembering the 'nuclear winter' concerns, which involved a nuclear exchange with the Soviets. Basically, a nuclear war would ruin everyone's weekend, no matter how it turned out in the end.

Tom | 12:05 p.m. April 28, 2008

Rather than focusing on building coal-fired power plant, Utah should develop coal-gasification units where the harmful pollutants are removed during processing. This produces a gas that is simular to natural gas, and can be piped to natural-gas trubine and IC power plant sites out of state for it use, rather than burning it here, and shipping them the electricity. Recently, many of the coal-fired power units in the state have embraced a new boiler technology called 'over-fired air' which result in reductions in nitrogen dioxide(an EPA regulated pollutant) but greatly increase their carbon emissions as a result of more efficent burning. Utah's larger coal power plant now produce considerably more CO and CO2 than they did 5 years ago. I am all for renewable energy, but have my doubts on the possibility of doing it for 7 billion people. The real sad solution is an 85% population reduction, not a pretty one, but the only one substanible. If we do not do it, Mother Nature will.

JG | 4:23 a.m. April 29, 2008

You are all about to get a rude wake up call when the sunspot data just released comes home to roost in the scientific community. It will prove that the polar regions (which are the primary worry about global warming) are being influeced by sunspot activity more than anything else and that we are about to see a major reversal in those temperatures with the recent drop in sunspot activity. Sunspot activity preceeds temperature rises ... carbon dioxide levels follow temperature rises, so they can not be the CAUSE ,,, they are the RESULT of temperature rises.

I don't think I am going to fast, but we can do nothing about sunspot activity other than to pray.

Joel

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.