Inhofe Watch: 'We know how to use coal in a clean manner.'

Published January 08, 2009 @ 05:49PM PT

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) took advantage of this morning's Senate Environment Committee hearing on the Tennessee coal ash disaster to take a swipe at activists opening remarks, as well as touting unproven technologies to capture and bury coal-fired plant emissions as a sure thing:

"I am pleased the results of air, water and soil testing meet EPA standards...
In light of this, I also hope that certain extremist groups refrain from exploiting this incident to further a political objective, namely to eradicate the use of coal in this country. We all know that would be a disaster for energy security, for jobs, and for the health of our economy. We know how to use coal in a clean manner. And as new technologies continue to advance, we can use coal to power the American economy while maintaining a clean, healthy environment."

Share this Post

Comments (2)

I suppose being an economics student, I subscribe a little to what he is saying. The optimum level of pollution and/or greenhouse gases is not zero. (This is not to say it can't ever be zero, but with the current level of technological innovation, my point stands.)
Well, how could this be? Simply that, in order to get enough power to run everything that we "need" we're going to require a lot of energy. This cannot just come from green sources. Not only are they (Remember my first point - at the current level of innovation) costly, but for the most part, they are also largely inefficient. I believe that we should take every necessary step to cut down on our emissions (installing private wind-turbines and solar panels), but we also require extra sources of power.
Since Congress refuses to drill for oil in Alaska and to research new drilling techniques in Colorado, (Because of the amount of water it would require...? What?) there aren't many options left. Nuclear power is simply the best option at the moment. Admittedly the up-front costs are extravagant, but in the long run, the costs rapidly decrease. (And with new ways of recycling nuclear waste, it is becoming even more attractive!)
Sorry for the rant, I just believe that he does have a point here. It passed EPA standards. He wasn't talking about activists, rather, extremist groups. There's a huge difference.
Let's take an example...Activists... Muslims! They enjoy pressing certain agendas on Congress, everyone does. There are certain laws that we have that aren't the most appealing to them, and some that could even harm their freedom of religion. (Read: First Amendment rights)
Extremists... 9/11 bombers, Al Queda, etc. They enjoy blowing things up and calling it religion.
I don't think he was taking a stab at "activists." He was merely pointing out that coal has improved a pretty drastic amount, and I'll be the first to admit that the change was well-needed. (And that the change was brought about by activists. =) )
- John

Posted by John Sommers on 01/08/2009 @ 10:08PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by John
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
John, if you look back at Inhofe's history, you'll see that he equates "environmental activist" with "extremist" pretty indiscriminately.

Even bringing up real terrorists (never mind equating "Muslims" as a group with terrorists) like the 9/11 bombers and Al Qaeda, as if such criminals are relevant to discussing the vast majority of environmental activists, just proves the point of how ridiculous Sen. Jim is on this subject.

The oil drilling arguments are kind of red herrings. Aside from the incalculable environmental losses for ultimately small energy gain, here's no guarantee that any oil pumped out of those American lands would stay in America. There are of course a lot of economic reasons it might, since it costs money to ship oil around the world, but ultimately, oil's a global commodity.

And as for "passing EPA standards," it all depends on which standards. Are the standards in this instance really protecting the public? (I'd have to look into it to answer.) Are there even standards? (Coal ash ponds are not federally regulated and EPA's been working on that for *28 years*.)

There are a lot of smart people at EPA who are dedicated to the public's health. Still, as an agency, it's got a long history of letting the very industries it's regulating have too much influence over the standards it sets.

Posted by Emily Gertz on 01/10/2009 @ 09:20AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Emily
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.