Greenpeace targets incoming coal shipment at Pagbilao
gpsea asked:
Activists from Greenpeace flagship, Rainbow Warrior, paint “Quit Coal” on the hull of 223-meter ship MV Sam John Spirit standing by to unload its cargo at the Pagbilao coal power plant in Quezon province, around 300 kms south of Manila 24 May 2008. Greenpeace calls on the Philippine government to halt all coal plant projects and coal expansion. Burning coal heavily emits carbon dioxide, one of the major causes of climate change
PaulNautilus.
The C02 hypotheses is just that - an hypotheses. It has no basis in emperical science what so ever.
To date it has failed all emperical testing.
How about some numbers…
Atmospheric C02 = .038%
IPCC say 4% is man made = .00152
Of the .00152% around 40 - 60% can be atributed to the building industry.
This leaves around .00076% for
Petrol, diesel, gas, coal etc…
So lets say we cut that .00076% not just coal.
Do you really think .00076% will change anything?
Yes - I must agree with you on that point.
Black lung in coal miners was a major issue, just a asbestos etc… Theres a host of issues like these - but we have lerned from these mistakes.
Today coal is mind resposibly and burnt much more cleanly.
If you know anything about coal you would know that it’s not the C02 or the soot etc.. it’s the radioactivity that can be released. Although this is now a non issue as coal is burnt very cleanly these days.
C02 released is negligable.
c02lies, I am thinking for myself and I very much believe that coal is a source of carbon dioxide when burned up. And that excessive carbon dioxide emissions contribute to the dark blanket that covers our atmosphere preventing the bouncing back into outer space most of the solar radiation that the sun’s rays provide. Worldwide, a big percentage of the carbon emissions come from diesel that runs the world’s vehicles and carbon emissions that are continuously provided by coal plants.
You could note that the temperature rise spiked immediately after the age of the Industrial Revolution.
You say that coal is a source of cheap source of energy, then please enlighten me on how, worldwide, countries spend billions (that’s with 9 zeroes) of taxpayers money for coal, whereas solar energy and wave energy can be harvested indefinitely with a reducing cost on any country’s budget?
Indeed coal has raised standards of living worldwide when it started, but as time progressed, deaths could only be associated with it: from coal’s mining, to the immediate area of a coal plant’s vicinity. Tell me why would anyone build their homes next to coal plant.
I firmly believe, that coal will eventually bring any country’s economics down and a sure ticket back to the stone age.
P.S. send me the research material you believe ‘FAILS all tests for coal causes climate change’ and as how you put it ‘ABSOLUTLY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE’. And I’ll send you material how coal does cause climate change.
PaulNautilus.
“Coal causes climate change”
This is an hypotheses, science has tested it and it FAILS all tests.
“Science supports it as a matter of fact” - NO IT DOESNT!
There is ABSOLUTLY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for this claim - it’s a HYPOTHESES.
Hypotheses are not fact.
“Coal actually brings us back to the stone age”
WRONG - coal provides cheap energy and has rasied standards of living world wide.
DO YOUR RESEARCH, THINK FOR YOURSELF
DONT LISTEN TO MEDIA AND IPCC HYPE
WAKE UP!
Coal causes climate change! Yes! Science supports it as a matter of fact. Coal actually brings us back to the stone age. It is an outdated form of energy production. The more current ones are wave energy from the oceans and solar energy. Greenpeace aims for this.
Running water generally does not need electricity to get to your home. Please read some more next time.
go greenpeace goooooooooooohhhhh!!!!
this video is cool!
coal is not cool, its makes me hot!!!
hehehe
go greenpeace!!! goooooohhhh!!!
chuckbaclagon, thanks for the info. I agree with you 100%!
While it is true that many countries (including the Philippines) rely on fossil fuels for energy. However, the burning of fossil fuels, particularly coal, for energy, is a major cause of climate change. Fossil fuels are also not the only source of energy. It is possible to have clean, safe energy that does not cause climate change, from renewable sources such as solar, wind or biomass power.
Further more coal also has immediate effects on it surrounding environment such as: interference with groundwater and water table levels; impact of water use on flows of rivers and consequential impact on other land-uses; subsidence above tunnels, sometimes damaging infrastructure; rendering land unfit for other uses; coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture are one of the largest sources of human-caused background radiation exposure.
Burning coal also releases massive amounts of toxic substances such as mercury and arsenic that have deadly impacts on human health and create acutely detrimental effects on developing economies and hosting communities.
Imagine how the release of carbon dioxide and methane, both of which are greenhouse gases, which are causing climate change and global warming that is according and to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because coal emit is 29% more carbon per unit of energy than oil and 80% more than gas.
As for coal - Coal is the dirtiest, most carbon intensive of all fossil fuels. Coal use, primarily for the generation of electricity, now accounts for roughly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
a waste based heating system; bilge water purifiers, 15 times more effective than current legislation demands; TBT-free hull paint; ammonia based refrigeration and air-conditioning rather than climate changing and ozone depleting Freon gas - the first Dutch registered vessel to be so fitted; and an environmentally and economically efficient propulsion system to reduce CO2 emissions.
Is refitted in a an environmentally friendly way as possible and these improvements include: the removal or safe containment of all asbestos; fitting a special fuel system to avoid spillage; newly fitted, more efficient, diesel electric propulsion; on board recycling of waste water, leaving only clean water pumped overboard;
Among its ships there’s a trend for them to lean towards a more ecologically sound propulsion system especially among its newer ships like the Esperanza
For your question perhaps given a choice Greenpeace would prefer to use energy from renewable sources. Unfortunately, this choice is not yet available on a grander scale but Greenpeace as an organization that’s aimed at championing solutions has made positives steps towards using mechanisms that are environmentally sound like that of its constant promotion of renewable energy sources and its series Energy [R]evolution scenarios.
I understand that you are from Australia I live in the Philippines and perhaps it would help if I could give you some information about the Philippines as a developing country and an archipelagic nation, the Philippines is among the countries most vulnerable to climate change, as a Filipino I believe that we all need to be part of the climate solution, instead of contributing to the problem.
Coal causes climate change?
Science does not support that.
Green peace would have us go back to living in the stone age.
While they run around in diesel powered ships and petrol powered boats using all the things that coal power provided them with.
They take all this for granted but don’t want anyone else to use it.
And what about the people who rely on the energy that the coal generates?
Things like running water, lights, heating, cooling, hospitals etc…
Green peace **** ***!