Sometimes when I latch on to a topic I just can’t let it go until I have thoroughly chewed it to pieces. I wanted to go back and talk about carbon neutral coal just a little more because frankly it’s leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I’m going to talk about a long forgotten chemistry lesson which has to do with the word neutral and saying that something is carbon neutral. Mind you this is all from a memory that is quite old and I’m not claiming to be correct but this is my interpretation.
To say that a lump of coal is carbon neutral would mean the carbon content of the lump of coal is approximately equal to the amount of carbon in it’s environment. For example - if you fill a balloon full of oxygen and then hold it in the air the balloon could be considered oxygen neutral. I started thinking about this after being told about a picture of a pile of coal accompanying the phrase clean, carbon neutral coal on the billboard.
Being as that is the case and with my understanding of the phrase carbon neutral coal then the sign has a kind of perverse truth to it. It would be left to ones own interpretation. To say that a lump of coal in a pile of coal is carbon neutral does have truth to it. If that is what Walker Machinery is referring to, then they are bending words and meanings to fit their own agenda.
If that is not what they are referring to then I think it is just bad practice to string four words together in any manner that serves your purpose and then putting them on a billboard for all to interpret the best way they see fit. But then again we are talking about Walker Machinery and I have yet to hear something from them even remotely resembling the truth.
Since I’m on the topic of Walker Machinery - did you know that Beth Walker who is married to the owner of Walker Machinery is running unopposed on the Republican ticket for the State Supreme Court? As was said in comments the other day - Danger! Danger! Will Robinson. Haven’t we had enough of King Coal being supported in the Supreme Court? If anybody thinks that anybody connected with Walker can remain bias when it comes to the coal industry - how naive you are. Do we so easily forget Walker’s ridiculous campaign supporting King Coal? Refresher - cartoon talking bugs
This is unreal.
Here is her website.
walkerforsupremecourt
—
This comment edited by admin - the identical comment was deleted, this comment remains the same but the linking has been removed. If you would like to view Mrs. Walkers website - you can Google the phrase above. Adding links to her website uses this site as a campaign slug for Walker whether on purpose or not. That is considered spam. You are welcome to comment here, please do not spam this website.
Denny,
shoulda just changed the anchor text of the link to read “—— runs unopposed for Supreme Court seat”
Just my biased 2 cents
Brian I went to her site and it had a pagerank of two with only one backlink. This is how they accomplish that feat. The name of the commenter as well as the inserted link pointed at her site. Basically she had four links with two comments - on my best day I wouldn’t link to her site. That tells you what kind of people work for her if they will so blatantly spam a website. They can’t gain support the good old fashioned way, by earning it.
The Walker clan will find no support here.
These people will do anything to control our lives. The coal industry wants to control the Legislature, the Governor, and now the high Court. We have to mobilize people and let them know what they are doing. They are raping West Virginia!
You folks are incredible. Calling people scumbags and other names simply because they have different views than you is classless. But then again, I have known environmental extremists such as yourselves to be largely classless and closed minded. I would probably be agitated and grouchy too if the everyday West Virginian and American thought my views were woefully out of touch and on the fringe of relevant political thought. Its not because these people arent as smart as you, or because they need you to fight their battles. Its because their political priorities and issues of important are far different than yours. Its just easier for you to write them off as undereducated or misinformed and thus needing your help even though they disagree with your views. Kind of “if they only knew what we know” mentality. Fidel Castro had a similary mentaility/philosophy. Get over yourselves.
At some point you are going to realize that we must work with industry of all shapes and sizes to balance economic and environmental concerns. If you truly “cared” about the welfare of Appalachians you would work harder to make sure that the school system works, that in the 21st century area residents have water and sewer, that decent jobs were available and not driven run away to more balanced states, and hold the 80+ year ruling political system you continually support accountable for the 2nd world living conditions found all over this state.
Smalls - the name calling has been taken care of. What makes you better calling us environmental extremists? You are amazing.
http://endmtr.com/2008/04/21/that-was-sure-short-lived-umwa-back-pedals/#comment-137
btw - thanks to your comment and your friends, I intend to work doubly hard at letting people know of the danger associated with the Walker campaign. If you don’t like it then I would say I am accomplishing my mission.
I just don’t understand this antipathy toward coal and the coal business. It is essential for our energy needs and many, many people across the state make honest livings in this business.
Delores - I appreciate your candor. My problem is not with coal mining in general. My problem is entirely related to mountaintop removal - which by it’s very existence takes jobs away from coal miners. And that is leaving the community impacts unmentioned. The numbers are everywhere and undeniable.
I agree that people make an honest living at coal mining. It is the coal industry that is the dishonest party here.
i’ll stand by the argument that fossil fuel resource extraction and use is trouble. it is clear to anyone doing the math that it is bad news, and only ignorant contrarians or status quo wonks with blind eyes could possibly claim otherwise.
we don’t need coal. Big Industry does. when you define your own personal ontology to be synonymous with Big Industry, then you have effectively dehumanized yourself and you have stopped the critical thinking process.
carping about the frame of the argument (know it all uppity activists, or whatever you heard from National or Massey) is a clear sign that you cannot grasp the topic on its merits alone. the claim that we need coal is manifestly false. the claim that we need to compromise and work with the suits that have refused to acknowledge basic human rights (such as the Marsh Fork debacle) is wrong in more complex ways, but it is simple enough to just expose the middle ground fallacy as the capitulation to entrenched business interest that it is.
that said, if people were doing the mining themselves then we would have already solved the problem of scale.
the issue as i see it is that resource extraction industries have applied the scientific method to maximize or optimize their profits. i have no quarrel with that use of science, after all that is what it is for. but this method cannot provide the justification for those technologies outside of the brute force economic equation. this does not stop the mouthpieces, lackies and fellow travellers of the Coal Empire from making those claims, however.
Witness Delores: [coal] is essential for our energy needs.
Only if you grant that the way things are at this moment are they way they are supposed to be. That is notoriously and historically shoddy philosophy, and anti-humanitarian to boot. Social progressives and prometheans would rather eat the poor, now.
I appreciate Denny’s kind answer to me, because I really want to learn more. Unfortunately, I went to Folk Face’s website and I’m sorry I did. His language is very offensive to me, so I certainly won’t return there.
That’s OK delores. I won’t use that language here, but I’ll do as I please in my own house. I note that you don’t attempt to address the argument, you would rather attack my choice of language. I think that is unfortunate.
Delores I apologize if I have given the impression that I am attacking you personally. I’m not.
But you did state an argument that I strongly disagree with. It’s this one: coal is essential for our energy needs.
There are two ways to parse this. One is to hold ‘energy needs’ as a given and look for other sources of energy that can meet those perceived needs. If you make that statement this way, then it may be true that coal is essential to meeting energy demand.
The other way is to recognize energy needs themselves probably need to be changed. humans have not always used coal to make electricity, heck humans have for millions of years been completely ignorant of electricity. ITS NOT A GIVEN.
Recognizing that there are other ways for things to be eliminates part of the confusion.
If you think things are fine they way they are, then we will probably disagree.
Cheers.
Thank you, Folk Face. I appreciate it. I’m reading and thinking about the arguments.