A Siegel has a great diary up on a new television advertising campaign launched by the "Reality Coalition" today to convey this message: "In reality, there's no such thing as clean coal." I love the use of humor in the ad:

After the jump, I've posted the whole press release issued by the Reality Coalition. You can sign up to join their effort by clicking here.

My only concern about this message is that it suggests greenhouse-gas emissions are the only thing that makes coal "dirty." Coal-fired power plants are not only a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming, they are also one of the leading sources of fine particulate matter linked to asthma and other respiratory problems. This fine particulate matter, also known as particulate matter 2.5, "is much smaller in size and a more serious health hazard" than larger soot particles known as particulate matter 10.

Even if greenhouse gases and all other pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants could be controlled, coal mining itself would still create adverse environmental impacts. Making coal "clean" would require a lot more than capturing the carbon emissions.

Quibbles aside, I think this commercial is outstanding and look forward to more from the Reality Coalition.

I hope that future advertising will directly combat the coal industry's claim that we need new coal plants to meet future demand for electricity. In April, Iowa regulators approved Alliant's application to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown, and later explained that they did so because they think renewable energy sources will not be sufficient to meet Iowa's base-load electricity needs in the future.

The environmental movement needs to convince not only the public but also policy-makers from Barack Obama down to state-level regulators that Al Gore's vision of ending our reliance on carbon-based fuels is realistic.

UPDATE: Thanks to MyDD commenter mrlloy, who posted the link to a recent report from Greenpeace called The True Cost of Coal. It contains much more information about health and environmental hazards associated with mining and burning coal.

There's more...

(Proudly cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

I live in Orange County, CA. I'm used to seeing scary Republicans that care nothing about environmental justice. But of all the crazy Republicans here, none can be crazier than "Crazy Dana"Rohrabacher. He's consistently voted against the best interests of our people and our planet, and it's time we do something about this. That's why I'm so glad to see some good friends of ours take real action for real change.

Follow me after the flip for the details...

There's more...

the league of conservation voters has put up a website comparing the presidential candidates called on the record, including their recent scores from lcv's environmental scorecard and their full responses to lcv's questionaire.  lcv tracks and advocates in the areas of global warming, clean energy, wildlife (or natural heritage) and public health and asked questions relating to these areas.

the table provides links to the individual candidate's response, their most recent environmental score from lcv (2006, except where noted) and their lifetime scores follow:

joe biden	100	84
hillary clinton	71	90
chris dodd	100	77
john edwards	17 (04)	59
barack obama	100	96
bill richardson	85 (96)	82

There's more...

So, there's been a lot said on here in the past about who was the best candidate on the environment.  A lot of people have said Edwards, in fact, there was a diary on the rec list yesterday about how Gore should endorse him.

Well, the League of Conservation Voters thinks he'd choose Obama.  Here's their rankings, based on their votes in congress and their profiles they personally submitted to the group:

> Obama - 96
> Kucinich - 92
> Clinton - 90
> Biden - 84
> Richardson -82
> Dodd - 77
> Edwards - 59
> Paul - 30
> McCain - 26
> Brownback - 14
> Thompson - 12
> Tancredo -11
> Hunter - 9

You can go here: http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/ to see the numbers and read their profiles.  I don't know about you, but I choose substance over rhetoric, and I trust the league of conservation voters quite a bit.

So, it would seem that based on actual votes in congress, Obama is your choice.  If Obama is your choice, and you can spare some change, consider donating.  Your donation can be as small as $5.  Thanks.

There's more...

On April 14th, Step It Up 2007 organized events all over the country to call attention to the problem of global warming and demand an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The variety of events was great and with the rallies across the country combined, it was the largest global warming demonstration in the history of this country. Even presidential candidate John Edwards, who has a strong plan for energy and stopping global warming spoke at one of the rallies in Florida.

In Washington, DC, participants made a giant human postcard in front of the Capitol Building. We spelled out "80% by 2050," the goal for carbon reduction, in people. Photographers took aerial photos with the help of a crane. People cheered. People sang. People got silly. It was a great day.

There's more...