6 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"Mayor Rahm Emanuel has put Chicago's two coal power plants on warning:
Either present a plan to clean up their pollution or risk being shut down by the city within the
next two years.
The coal-fired power plants are the largest generators of the greenhouse gases associated with respiratory problems.
Emanuel has urged Midwest Generation to "clean up the two plants, either by installing the
necessary infrastructure to dramatically reduce the pollution they emit or by
converting to a clean fuel."
If an agreement is not reached, the mayor will reportedly join the call for the plants' shutdown,
according to the Tribune.

Both plants were built more than 100 years ago and generate emissions that would violate
the federal Clean Air Act of 1977 -- except that both were grandfathered in under that law.

Late last month, the plants were identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the city's biggest industrial sources of pollution, the Tribune reports.
In 2010, the two plants reportedly pumped 4.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to the EPA."


http://www.huffingto...kusaolp00000008

[still learning]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 23 February 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

"Mayor Rahm Emanuel has put Chicago's two coal power plants on warning:
Either present a plan to clean up their pollution or risk being shut down by the city within the
next two years.
The coal-fired power plants are the largest generators of the greenhouse gases associated with respiratory problems....

Shutting down coal fired powerplants sounds good ro me.

I'm confused by the linked huffpost article and some of the others I googled about the same subject.

Present a plan within two years?
Risk being shut down within two years?

"greenhouse gasses associated with respiratory problems"
Which ones are those?  Can't be carbon dioxide.  
Journalist and/or politician confused?  Or thinking that readers and constituents need dumbed down content?

A Chicago Tribune article on the subject that does distinguish between greenhouse gas emisions and those with direct health effects: http://articles.chic...lants-polluters

Looks like it's not just Chicago working on the problem  http://www.lungchica...y-power-plants/

[mariaandrea]

100 year old plants? They should have been shut down long ago.

Quote

Or thinking that readers and constituents need dumbed down content?

Yes, most people do need things dumbed down. And a lot of journalists are lazy or just not well-educated. Real science journalists are scarce these days. It's not "that big a deal" when people who are not well informed are on your side (actually it is, we should all educate ourselves), but it also explains how easy it is to brainwash people on the "other side" into believing climate change isn't real.

[jasserEnv]

That is astonishing that these plants continue to be run given even Bush's clean skies initiatives. I hate to use a cruel analogy but most grandfathers die and so should such energy producing facilities whose technologies are so grossly out of date. To me the ability of these plants to stay open indicates that our politicians keep themselves open to far too much lobbying by industry. They are elected by the public and should be answering to the public. Ah, but I am being an idealist again.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

jasserEnv, on 23 February 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

They are elected by the public and should be answering to the public. Ah, but I am being an idealist again.

But, they are quickly learning that the court of public opinion holds great sway these days.

It's not just OWS, but the marches in Michigan and Wisconsin in protest against labor busting,
the recent outcry about komen cutting funding to planned parenthood, and more recently, the birth
control debacle. Our collective voices got things changed, and in a matter of days to boot.

When we speak up, they listen. Problem being-not enough folks are upset over the use of these old
technologies yet.
That's where "we" (the green community) can help; by expressing our anger over their slow dragging
feet on these issues.
Social media is a powerful tool, along with e-mails and letters.

[E3 wise]

All I can say is I respect him for taking the stance even though it could cause him to be the target of big lobbiest and the coal companies.  That takes guts and it should be applauded and supported.

[jasserEnv]

E3 wise, on 25 February 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

All I can say is I respect him for taking the stance even though it could cause him to be the target of big lobbiest and the coal companies.  That takes guts and it should be applauded and supported.

I couldn't agree more. Politicians fighting lobbyists tend to have very short careers because it ends up being rather difficult to support one's next campaign if it is known that you aren't in the pocket of big business. I think that far too few people understand just how hard it is to do the right thing sometimes when you are a politician. The public is often too focused on your last success or failure rather than the points when you stood up for them.