Comments on: ABC intentionally misleads viewers, claiming RFK called Obama an ‘Indentured Servant’ to coal industry

By: Dill Weed

Dill Weed — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:59:47 +0000

I’ve been an indentured servant. It ain’t no fun.

Dill Weed

By: Colm McGinn

Colm McGinn — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:48:35 +0000

Coal, burnt, is unclean no matter what it’s original (& complex) original constituents.

We need to stop burning it as soon as possible.

Saying ‘Carbon dioxide is a very clean gas’, is disingenuous

Pyrolysis may be appropriate, to use coal reserves.

By: Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co.

Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:29:28 +0000

“Clean” is a worn out word. It means very different things to the several people using it.

It is morally “unclean” to do a bad job of mining that damages lives and leaves a mess. This can be a problem but there are reasonable solutions.

It is “unclean” to pollute the atmosphere with substances that are harmful to health of people who breath the air. This can be a problem but there are reasonable solutions. In fact Powder River Basin coal is very low in sulphur and wide use of this has led to fairly well managed power plant exhausts.

Carbon dioxide is a very clean gas, except it has an effect on the environment that is cumulatively very dangerous. Burning of any fossil fuel produces it. More of it is released from burning coal than the other options. However, it is a quantitative matter, and the word “dirty” is very misleading in describing the problem.

By: P. G. Dudda

P. G. Dudda — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:28:14 +0000

Apparently, ABC has missed the clueboat wrt the racist implications of using “indentured servant” to describe Obama…

By: mike

mike — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:37:50 +0000

Maybe Kennedy would prefer power from the Cape Wind project instead of clean coal?

I know I would

By: Richard Pauli

Richard Pauli — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:51:30 +0000

I guess this makes ABC appear as the indentured servant of the reactionary right wing.

By: Harrier

Harrier — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:41:23 +0000

On a more positive note, look what’s been on the front page of MSN today: http://lifestyle.msn.com/ your-life/ living-green/ staticslideshowgreenchan.aspx?cp-documentid=18995580>1=34129

An actual presentation of how bad climate change could get in the United States by the year 2100, broken up by region. Its ‘worst case’ impacts aren’t as bad as some of the worst case impacts we talk about here, but I’ve never seen a warning this comprehensive on a ‘popular’ web homepage before. It’s probably due to Earth Day, but it is still encouraging.

By: lizardo

lizardo — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:31:15 +0000

ABC is on a downward roll apparently. Last night (during Nightline) there was a very short promo for ABC news with Charles Gibson pm Wednesday April 22
“Can we afford to [solve] global warming in a recession?”

[I checked the website for any info on this upcoming segment but couldn't find anything.]

The problem is right there in the promo because even if the segment is ok many people might only see the promo and framing the question like that (and that was the whole thing) is saying it costs us more than it benefits us. It also says that it costs more than we can possibly spend. Plus the visual was of polar bears and ice and water. Message: It’s the polar bears or you.

I’d have felt a lot better if the promo had said “Can we afford to solve global warming in a recession. We talk to people who say we must, we can, and that doing so will actually benefit our economy more than doing nothing.”