Posted on 07/06/2014 4:14:44 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
To environmentalists across Australia, it is a baffling anachronism in an era of climate change: the construction of a 4,000-acre mine in New South Wales that will churn out carbon-laden coal for the next 30 years.
The mine’s groundbreaking, in a state forest this year, inspired a veteran to stand in front of a bulldozer and a music teacher to chain himself to a piece of excavation equipment.
But the project had an unlikely financial backer in the United States, whose infusion of cash helped set it in motion: Tom Steyer, the most influential environmentalist in American politics, who has vowed to spend $100 million this year to defeat candidates who oppose policies to combat climate change.
Mr. Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager, emerged this election season as the green-minded answer to Charles G. and David H. Koch, the patrons of conservative Republican politics, after vowing that he would sell off his investments in companies that generate fossil fuels like coal.
But an examination of those investments shows that even after his highly public divestment, the coal-related projects his firm bankrolled will generate tens of millions of tons of carbon pollution for years, if not decades, to come. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Manhattan elitist scumbag!
——carbon-laden coal——
That’s the very worst kind
Obama gives Bill Gates and Warren Buffett 2 billion tons of Wyoming public coal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/all-the-presidents-coal-m_b_841400.html
“——carbon-laden coal——
That’s the very worst kind”
You’re so right! Can’t they make it out of something else?
Wow.
Tom (two face)Steyer.
Very few seem to understand that all that carbon was once in the atmosphere.
I sort of agree. This is the 21st century.
But did they call for a nuclear power plant instead?
So what? CO2 pollution is a RAT-hoax.
You can do other things with coal to extract its energy other than just burning it, belching out black soot.
I agree. It seems to me the scientific investment in sanitizing coal would be a lot cheaper than trying to bring on line “alternative energy.” We have 300 years of coal reserves in the U.S. More than any other country.
Its filled with double secret carbon.
There's no scientific investment, you just gasify it, make natural gas and liquid fuels from it.
The only "investment" would be some private infrastructure.
(See: "coal gasification")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.