The beginning of the presidential race was extremely exciting for climate change fanatics, with all the democratic contenders trying to one-up each other and McCain taking back the Republican lead despite his calls for higher fuel efficiency and climate protection.

             But my enthusiasm gave way to frustration as I looked into each candidate's platforms. Edwards was the only candidate calling for moratorium on coal and no nuclear. Barrack Obama and Hillary continue touting the 'clean coal' bandwagon while McCain claims that nuclear, and nuclear alone, will solve the climate crisis. Just in case you have been giving in to the brainwashing by the cutzie 'clean coal' commercials on CNN, or McCain's rhetoric on nuclear, let me explain why, as youth, we should be up in arms about these solutions... that are not.

             'Clean coal' is a broadly defined term for low-sulfur, lower emissions coal. When 'clean coal' is burned, it still emits large amounts of mercury, sulfur and other pollutants, and just as much CO2 as traditional coal. In other words, the term ‘clean coa’l is a lie. King Coal would like you to believe that the gasification process for coal makes it easier to capture the carbon emissions to prevent them from blanketing our planet. This is another lie. There is no low-cost, low-energy way to safely store a gas for eternity, and even if there was, it is highly unadvisable. In addition to the economic, environmental and scientific unfeasibility of carbon capture and sequestration (often referred as CCS), 'clean coal' cannot be clean for its fundamental nature. Mining coal has always been one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States, with over 9% of aging workers having Black Lung Disease, and over 104,000 accidental deaths in the past 100 years. It is also dangerous for our environment, since over 70% of our coal currently comes from strip mining operations. Strip mining is the most recent mechanized way of mining coal that left thousands of workers unemployed. It consists of blowing up entire mountain tops to allow massive machines to reach into the black heart of the earth. All of the excess dirt is then disposed of in nearby valleys, leaving behind a daunting moonscape. To this day, an area larger than the state of Delaware has been treated with this process, all in the name of a prosperous ‘clean coal’ future.

            Enough with coal, what about nuclear? There has been a resurgence in the demand for nuclear power recently, especially since people started paying attention to climate change. Nuclear proponents claim that producing energy by causing a chain reaction of highly radioactive materials, constantly keeping them at the brink of explosion is safe, cheap and carbon neutral. Unfortunately, all three of those points are false. Nuclear power is not safe during any phase of its production process. Uranium mining is a very environmentally destructive process that involves pouring toxic chemicals in previously pristine areas in order to extract small quantities of uranium and leaving behind toxic and radioactive sludge. Uranium mining is inherently dangerous, sharing all dangers of mining in addition to a solid dose of radiation. Next comes processing the mined uranium. This is a process that has taken enormous strides to become safer throughout the years, but is it really worth the inherent human error risk? The only proposed site for permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. is Yucca Mountain, an extinct volcano in Nevada. Much opposition has arisen to this site, including the possibility of earthquakes and water infiltration. It won’t be available to be used until 2021. Lacking a permanent storage place, building new nuclear power plants would be irresponsible and unsafe. In terms of economic costs, there is no private investment firm or insurance company that is willing to gamble on, hence, it will be another monstrous expense from an already strapped federal budget. Are we really willing to spend all this money on something that will haunt us for thousands of years and isn’t even carbon neutral? The energy returned on energy invested ratio for nuclear is dubiously low, according to some estimates, it is even negative. This means that throughout the whole process, mining, transporting the fuel, building the nuclear plant out of steel and concrete, and finally disposing of the fuel, more energy is used than the plant will produce in its lifetime. Since all of these processes are fossil-fuel intensive, nuclear energy is NOT a solution to climate change.

             Now back to the candidates. Senator Obama from a coal producing state, but that doesn’t excuse him for being such a staunch supporter of ‘clean coal’ and coal-to-liquid fuels. He, above all else, should know about the devastating effect of the black rock on local economies, healthcare and the environment. Senator Clinton also supports both technologies, and both politicians usually attach disclaimers about the need to capture emissions. As long as these options are left on the table, the private sector is not going to get the message that coal is a thing of the past. Disinvestment in coal has to happen now, if we are to protect what is left of Appalachia and if we have a true commitment to slowing down climate change.

Disclaimer note: people are always going to say that both ‘clean coal’ and nuclear energy could, in a distant future, be done with a limited environmental impact and health hazard. Nonetheless, the small chance of human error still exists, increasing the possibility of an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe. If these were our only options, I might even agree that the gamble is necessary, but study after study tells us that we do not need coal and nuclear to fix our energy problem, not when wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean energy sources are already so promising (despite receiving a fraction of the subsidies and research grants from the government). Investing in nuclear and coal is going to take away the short amount of time that we have left.

Take action now and tell your favorite political candidate that a world safe from climate change is a world safe from coal and nuclear!

Sources:

‘Clean coal’ opinion piece:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html

Nuclear energy inefficiency:

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/12/18/us-going-nuke-ular/

Black lung disease:

http://www.environmental-action.org/blog/archives/2007/09/black_lung_doub.html

Documentary on coal mining:

http://www.burningthefuture.org/

Candidate positions:

http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html