Coal Phase Out

Since coal pollutes the air and gives off a lot of carbon dioxide, many European nations switched to natural gas or nuclear power to produce electricity.

A documentary called "From the Ashes" speaks about the employees, and communities that are supported by coal mines. In the documentary the director of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, Mary Anne Hitt, goes on to describe a "life and death struggle" when mine layoffs occur. This means that the employees will lose their pensions, healthcare, and basically their livelihood. It was believed that the increase of miner layoffs was due to environmental regulations, but that was proven incorrect by the US Energy and Information Administration. One of the leading causes is the increased use of natural gases, and a statistical analysis over a 6 year time period proves that when natural gas usage increases, then coal usage

The Canadian Energy Strategy was posed in 2012 by the then current premier Alison Redford. The goal of the initiative was collaboration with the rest of the provinces to help increase transportation capacity of oil-sands bitumen and crude for exportation. There was much objection from environmentalists and Frist Nations communities. This strategy was propagated as a fundamental phase of growth not only for Alberta, but all

It produces a great deal of our electricity; however, we don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the implications. As Goodell notes on the first page, “We love our hamburgers, but we’ve never seen the inside of a slaughterhouse.” Isn’t that the truth? When we fuel up our cars, we don’t think (much) about the ramifications of our oil dependence. When we flip a light switch, we do not associate that with the coal-driven mountaintop removals in West Virginia. In this book, “BIG COAL” Jeff describes Goodell thrusts those associations right in your face. He covers the history of the industry, tells the stories of the people in and around the business, and while most of the book is based on U.S.-happenings, he does spend a chapter in China. We would imagine the coal industry was none too pleased with Big Coal because it paints a really ugly picture of the industry. Goodell contrasts the coal industry with the individuals whose lives have been negatively impacted by coal in one way or another. He details corruption and politics that allowed the industry to delay implementation of pollution control equipment. And on a big picture level, he argues that continued usage of coal poses a serious threat to the earth’s

When I go to my home where I grew up it is all electrical produced and the main producer of that electricity is from coal a fossil fuel. In that area coal is one of the primary exports of that area. (Administration,

“President Obama is responsible entirely for the closure of that mine and the loses of these jobs”, Robert Murray CEO of Murray Energy Corporation told CNN after 239 men were laid off because an Ohio mine had closed. The current war on coal is not one of just and fair reasons. Coal has several positive benefits that greatly outweigh the negative environmental effects that some say it causes. The main benefit of coal is the hundreds of thousands it employs annually. However, with the strict regulations being put on coal mines these days the tradition of coal mining may be one our children will never know. It is our responsibility as Americans to beat the Obama Administration and win the war on coal.

The narrative of clean coal has been propped up by the industries primary lobbyist group, the National Mining Association, with a budget of nearly twenty million dollars a year (Coniff). Lobbying is a natural part of the political process, but the issue becomes when the lobbying is disingenuous and the coal industry has zero intentions of implementing clean coal, based on the fact that no coal plants currently in the United States make use of any of the technology. Although the technology is still being developed, there are no future plans to implement it as well. On the other side, those who speak out against coal and clean coal are naturally groups concerned about the environment, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and green advocacy groups. They recognize that coal power plants are the primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and thus their emissions must be controlled (Eilperin and Mufson). They also believe even though limiting coal power plants will cost a great deal of money, the American people will have a net benefit due to lower public health costs as a result of air pollution while also benefitting globally by reducing greenhouse gas fueled climate change. Essentially, clean coal is pursued by those who have a vested commercial interest in its being as a mainstay of electricity generation, while those who oppose it are against the negative health and climate effects it

Ontario has its own creative and effective strategies to combat climate change. One of Ontario’s goal is a low-carbon future. To accomplish this the province started making carbon reductions in 1990 and are on track to reduce carbon emissions by 15% in 2020, 37 per cent in 2030 and 80 per cent in 2050 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). Ontario’s target of reducing emissions by 6% was met on schedule in 2014 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). One of the reasons this has been made possible is because of Ontario’s investment in carbon reduction. For example, in 2015 Ontario committed $325-million payment to Ontario’s Green Investment Fund to support programs that help households and businesses implement

The neo-liberal idea that oil and gas are primary sources of revenues for the country are very out dated. This is something that needs to be addressed if we want to sustain our economy and our environment. Without a stable environment, how could we possibly have a good economy, don’t they go hand in hand? Since the industrial revolution, our economy has increased significantly, however, it has a tremendous impact on our environment. Today, we can easily see the destruction of our environment take place all over the world, thus moving towards sustainable and renewable energies isn’t as far-fetched as it once was. The political ideologies of revenues through natural resource is strong, but the people are not realizing that this is not the only way to generate revenues within a province. Some provinces have said no we do not want pipelines or no we do not want fracking, but this is at a cost of getting the blame of not following the “Canadian Dream”. By that I mean, following the greedy corporate world in destroying the planet at the cost of becoming a wealthy province to satisfy the Canadian government, and be less reliant on government subsidies. Starr fails to mention the initiatives that the Nova Scotia provincial government has been leaning toward sustainable energies, such

Coal cleanup is very hard work and not a lot of people would want to do it. Their clean up plains are very weak right now and they should have someone to improve and successfully make it better every year. A lot of coal companies have filled bankrupt and have been in the courts because they will have to close down and have very expensive cleanup bills.

Environmental concerns have been of great concern, when deciding the sources of energy. Environmental and health impacts have led to countries developing energy plans that concentrate on clean sources of energy. I tend to go along with the statement that the only choice for electricity in Ontario is clean generation. In determining the future of Ontario’s electricity, different stakeholders have considered the environmental impact of using other sources of energy other than the clean sources. The environmental impact of using energy sources such as coal has been indicated to be great compared to that of using clean sources such as wind and solar. This has made Ontario province to consider using clean sources. Ontario can be

The current administration wishes to bring coal mining jobs “back” but it is found that these jobs do not exist any longer with recent advancements (Ingraham 2017) . President Trump has rolled back on environmental protections put in place by the Obama administration but they fail to see a future in cheaper and safer sources of energy that can provide numerous jobs to the market with no danger of running out of a product to sell.

This is entirely true, but where there is a demand, there is a supplier which means if all of the known coal runs out, that people will try to find the rest of it while the rest replenishes itself. Coal is a thing that drives the turbines to gives at least millions of Americans jobs and electricity every single day, why would we hurt

I do not oppose your view of the production of coal by mining, but the issue is the overuse of coal is driving this country into a future country depleted of coal. I believe we can still use coal energy, but at the same time use other types of renewable energy for example, wind, solar, and hydro energy. I even support the use of nuclear waste. I believe nuclear energy is clean if the nuclear waste is properly dispose underground. People do not like to see the smoke coming out of a nuclear plant, not understanding that the smoke is vapor from cooling the nuclear reactors. I believe that if we want our country to continue to be as powerful as we are today, we have to continue using every energy resources available in this country. We just

The coal industry has a gloomy economic forecast moving forward. Perhaps the greatest immediate uncertainty the industry faces is the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan (CPP). Proposed in June 2014 under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, the plan includes ambitious CO2 reduction targets for each state, designed to achieve by 2030 a 30 percent nationwide decrease in CO2 emissions over 2005 levels. The