for another ENERGY story, see I Like Oil

The Washington Post ran a story headlined, "New Focus on Coal's Part in Warming"
The exchange reveals the difference between a federal government employee who never generated a penny's worth of electricity and an energy industry executive who generates millions of watts to millions of people daily.

Excerpts from Juliet Eilperin's Washington Post story from Sunday, April 6, 2008; Page A06

James E. Hansen, perhaps the best-known scientific advocate for curbing greenhouse-gas emissions, sent a letter recently to the head of one of the nation's largest power companies, calling on him to confront the role that his coal-fired plants play in global warming. Hansen proposed they meet. In his letter, Hansen took aim at two of Duke Energy's planned power plants, in Cliffside, N.C., and Edwardsport, Ind., telling executive James Rogers: "Your suggestion that new, more efficient coal-fired power plants, which do not capture CO2, can be part of a solution ignores the basic facts and urgency of terminating coal emissions."

On Wednesday, James E. Rogers of Duke Energy accepted Hansen's invitation, though he made clear he does not foresee calling off plans to build more of the power plants that Hansen considers a main culprit in climate change. The exchange, carried out in full public view, highlights both a recent shift in the climate debate and the difficulty of translating this change into concrete action....

Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that the United States and other countries could wean themselves off coal rapidly if they put a greater emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable resources. "We simply cannot burn the coal and put the CO2 in the atmosphere and avoid having serious changes in the atmosphere," he said. "The scientists are beginning to realize we have to have a much more dramatic change in direction."  

(That's a crock. Go look at CDFE's Energy Reality Chart for some inconvenient facts.)

But Rogers, who praised Hansen as "an early voice in the wilderness" on climate change, said the scientist's demand reflects a "snap-your-fingers, instant transition of the economy" mind-set.

"My requirement is to balance reliability, affordability and clean energy," Rogers said. "He's apparently focused on the clean perspective."

CDFE's Conclusion? James Hansen, on the federal payroll, talks only clean energy.
He has the political power to destroy your energy supply, but no ability to create it.
James Rogers of Duke Energy cares about reliable, affordable, clean energy.
He supplies real energy to millions of real people every day.
Our opinion: James Hansen doesn't give a hoot about your needs or your pocket book.
Should we give a hoot about about his talk-talk-talk?

And who elected "the scientists" to dictate what we do, anyway?

PUT UP WITH THE GREEN AGENDA
AND YOU RICHLY DESERVE THE POVERTY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GET

RETURN TO CENTER FOR THE DEFENSE OF FREE ENTERPRISE HOME PAGE