BREAKING NEWS: RFK, Jr. and Don Blankenship to Debate Energy
Posted November 19, 2009 in Solving Global Warming
This just in: Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy, has accepted the challenge to debate environmental champion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., senior counsel for NRDC, on energy issues.
I was with Bobby last weekend in Nashville at NRDC's Music Saves Mountains campaign event, but at that time Blankenship had not yet committed to the debate. Now, it appears the two will square off at the University of Charleston in West Virginia on Jan. 21.
This should be a lively event, as Bobby is a life-long environmental activist and eloquent speaker and Blankenship is a controversial coal baron and fiery critic of environmental regulation. Bobby advocates for legislation to address global warming while Blankenship claims that the climate is actually cooling.
To get a flavor of the upcoming debate, watch an interview of Blankenship from earlier this week. Wow.
Without a doubt, the two are polar opposites when it comes to coal. Blankenship, of course, is the CEO of the nation's fourth-largest coal campany, which is notorious for its use of mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia. Bobby, meanwhile, is a forceful proponent of clean energy alternatives who calls the industry's notion of "clean coal" a dirty lie.
A new report issued by Physicians for Social Responsibility provides a helpful primer on the environmental and health impacts of coal -- from the cradle to the grave.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Steven Kalka — Nov 20 2009 11:03 AM
First of all, I'd like to comment on the related topic of renewable energy.
A recent study done by an economist at King Juan Carlos University in Spain found that for every green job created, it caused the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere, and cost an average of $774,000 from 2000 to the present. A notable casualty is Spain’s largest stainless steel producer, Acerinox S. As a result of the higher utility costs from both wind and solar power, it expanded its operations into South Africa and the United States rather than Spain.
We should be asking ourselves if the environmental improvement from renewables justifies the much higher utility rates. As the late economist Milton Friedman famously said, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Among professional scientists, there is serious disagreement over the extent of global warming, if any, and how much of it is from carbon emissions. The mathematical models used in climate predictions have proven to be inaccurate. Can anyone estimate how many trillions of dollars it would cost to lower earth's average surface temperature by 1 degree celsius? I'd like to see that question raised.
As for coal, I'd like to see Don Blankenship discuss the impact of strip mining on water supplies, as the sediments from mountain blasting toxify surrounding rivers.
Peter Altman — Nov 20 2009 11:42 AM
Steven,
Thanks for weighing in. The Spanish renewable jobs study you mention has been shown to be wrong in so many ways by credible sources (US Government, Spanish Government, other academics) that there's too much to fit into a short comment. Several of them are gathered here, though: http://www.fightcleanenergysmears.org/clean_energy_facts.cfm#45. The bottom line? As the National Renewable Energy Lab put it "The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts ...The primary conclusion made by the authors - policy support of renewable energy results in net jobs losses - is not supported by their work."
Regarding global warming, there are plenty of oil and coal funded groups out there that want people to believe that there is still a scientific debate, but it simply isn't the case. We've seen one document after another purportedly signed by 'climate scientists' and what consistently comes out is that most of the signers are not really scientists, or experts in the field, or never put their names on the document. Our friends at DeSmog Blog have documented this campaing very well in a new book "Climate Cover Up" which you can find out more about at http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up. For the most accurate and widely respected information about the scientific consensus see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm.
As for Don Blankenship, there's a lot of things I'd like to see him do, and one of them is discussing the environmental and public health consequences of his company's mining operations. But I'm not holding my breath, as you might guess from my recent blog post on Blankenship: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/climate_denier_numero_uno_to_t.html.