coal train halted by activists

[saycheezly]

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/401011.html

wow!

[Mr Flibble]

wow.....why?

[Risker]

They all got arrested yesterday

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...14760520080614

[steven1222]

Coal releases more particulate pollution and carbon dioxide per unit of energy than any other fuel and is therefore the dirtiest source of energy. All I can say when something like this happens is "They [in this case, the coal train operators] got what they deserved."

They all got arrested yesterday
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...14760520080614

Why am I not surprised? The polluters should be the ones being arrested. This is why humans will be extinct within 1000 years; the laws of the System protect Earth's enemies from people who care.

[Mr Flibble]

The polluters should be the ones being arrested.

And your computer runs on? Water?

[steven1222]

And your computer runs on? Water?

Most of the electricity in my area comes from sources other than coal and it would be easy for suppliers to abandon coal altogether. I do not really feel personally dependent on the coal industry, which is what I was criticizing here. And yes, I know that any conventional energy use can be considered "polluting," but typical coal burning is the worst and therefore deserves more immediate attention.

[Mr Flibble]

According to your govenment (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear.../statesny.html) coal makes up 15%, the main source of power in New York being nuclear - 29% (2005):

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/nuclear

Why do you not feel personally responsible? It's all very well blaming other people, but you're ultimately the consumer/voter who is using the product. Unless you actually boycott power generated this way you're analogous to a pro animal rights meat eater who thinks farmers should be arrested, which personally I find absurd.

[steven1222]

Why do you not feel personally responsible? It's all very well blaming other people, but you're ultimately the consumer/voter who is using the product. Unless you actually boycott power generated this way you're analogous to a pro animal rights meat eater who thinks farmers should be arrested, which personally I find absurd.

I do not own my residence and therefore do not have the option to boycott all power generated this way, unlike the pro animal rights meat-eater who does have the option to reject meat. That is the difference, and what a big difference it is!

I admit that I could use less, but that would be like the hypothetical meat-eater cutting back from 10 to 5 meat dishes per week. Quantitative differences like that can't save the planet in the long term.

I see you are opposed to nuclear power. There are valid reasons to be against it, but I think coal is a bigger problem.

[emzy1985]

Steven....coal a bigger problem than nuclear power? Are you crazy? What about nuclear waste and the inevitable that a power station somewhere will eventually blow up / be blown up again?

I'm not saying coal is not a problem because it is, however I would prefer our shitty government used coal rather than use nuclear power at all.

[steven1222]

Steven....coal a bigger problem than nuclear power? Are you crazy?

I think coal is a bigger problem because it produces more particulate matter and carbon dioxide. Isn't it great that both the Left and the Right think I'm crazy?

What about nuclear waste

Nuclear waste is a big problem for a small island nation, but not as much for the United States. Ironically, people who oppose having nuclear waste stored in a central location are actually making the situation more dangerous. Even current methods of storing nuclear waste are causing less short-term harm than are coal wastes.

and the inevitable that a power station somewhere will eventually blow up / be blown up again?

Under current conditions, people who live near a coal-fired power plant actually get more exposure to radiation than those who live near a nuclear power plant. Although nuclear accidents can harm humans in the affected area, the normal functioning of a twentieth-century-style coal plant would kill the planet faster than a few isolated nuclear incidents.

I'm not saying coal is not a problem because it is, however I would prefer our shitty government used coal rather than use nuclear power at all.

I'm not saying nuclear is not a problem because it is, but I would prefer the damn capitalists in my country used nuclear instead of using coal at all.

[Pob]

Not forgetting of course that burning coal produces a lot of radioactive waste, too, much of which is emitted to the environment from the chimney.

[emzy1985]

I'm not saying nuclear is not a problem because it is, but I would prefer the damn capitalists in my country used nuclear instead of using coal at all.

Hehe a man after my own heart!

So am I greatly misinformed about coal then? To be honest, I'd rather we all used wind, ocean and solar power but that is another storey hehe!

[steven1222]

So am I greatly misinformed about coal then?

Possibly.


Coal:

• Releases more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than any other energy source, including other fossil fuels. This causes global warming.
• Releases more particulate matter per unit of energy than any other energy source, including other fossil fuels. This damages human lungs and reduces visibility.
• Releases more radioactive waste into the environment per unit of energy than any other energy source, including nuclear fission. This may be harmful to animals that live near coal-fired power plants.
• Releases more heavy metals into the atmosphere than any other energy source. This includes neurotoxins (lead and mercury) and carcinogens (cadmium and chromium).
• Releases more sulfur oxides into the atmosphere than any other energy source. This causes acid rain, which harms freshwater lakes.
• Is a major source of nitrogen oxides, which react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. This damages the lungs of susceptible people.
• Is mined by mountaintop removal in some parts of the United States, destroying large amounts of land that is not within the mining site.

For these reasons, I think coal is the worst possible option.

[emzy1985]

Hmm interesting points.....but surely nuclear power (and other shit associated with it) is the most dangerous thing on the face of the planet? (generally speaking.)

[Hemlock]

I totally agree with what Steven says, we've disconnected our gas and are looking for alternatives to electricity, we're having solar put in in August and we're pleased to find out they are putting a massive windfarm in the sea where we live soon (much to the disgust of all the residents of the town). We will also be switching to eco tricity, it's not perfect yet but it's a start.
As soon as the technology is available we'll be going off the grid.

[Risker]

Hmm interesting points.....but surely nuclear power (and other shit associated with it) is the most dangerous thing on the face of the planet? (generally speaking.)

I don't think that's true, because of the fear of anything 'nuclear' going wrong reactors are made incredibly secure and well defended.