MORE ABOUT THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH with Remarks that Constitute
MORE ABOUT "CLEAN COAL" and MORE ABOUT BAD SCIENCE
by Christopher Fulkerson
It is unethical to use wealth to block the redistribution of wealth that will result from the economic changes caused by the ordinary business activites associated with an extenuating project necessary for a society. War is the commonest extenuating project, but war is often of dubious necessity. One such extenuating project that should be supported and not fought is the general agenda of the Green Movement.
In Reaganomics, the redistribution of wealth is thought to be, by definition, unethical. The Republicans' penchant for war allows them to ignore its byproduct of wealth redistribution as something appropriate. However, the ethics of redistribution are impeccable when the redistribution benefits public health, whether private or ecological. It is interesting that the chief theorist to speak against redistribution specifically was the pro-Fascist and pro-Hitler writer Bertrand de Jouvenel. The endorcement of his writings that is being given by the Republicans of, for example, the Liberty Fund, is the clear example of a high-level syzygy between Fascism and Republicanism that many liberals have been decrying for some time, usual without such philosophical proof evidence to which to point.
A clear necessity for the redistribution of wealth is the maintainence of the circumstances of public health. The Green Movement seeks to prevent further disintegration of the environment, in the interest of world health: both the health of the people of the world, and the health of the planet itself.
Much bad science is being done now, to convince the public that such things as "clean coal" can ever exist; and, beyond that, be made practical; and still less likely, be made ecologically sound: the technology does not exist, yet Big Coal is presenting advertising that suggests it does; there is no evidence that plants producing "clean coal" can be built; and if they can be, there is no answer to the question "where will the processed pollutants go?" In the ground? But that is pollution! But the most bizarre aspect of this scenario is the nature of the "pollutiants" that might, just might be possible to process out of coal. The only two chemicals that might be removable are the only ones you would want if you were going to cause pollution through the burning of coal - the chemicals that darken the sky, thus, at least, mitigating, in part, the Sun's participation in aggravating the effects of Greenhouse warming.
So, hello, "clean coal" would be more dangerous than the dirty kind we are currently burning. Removal of coal's only benign components is all the energy industry plans to attempt. "Clean coal" is a PR effort on the part of Big Coal, like the tobacco industry selling cigarrette holders that don't even filter poisons out. The energy industry's techniques of mostly outright lying, and occasional disinformation, are quite similar to those used by the tobacco industry during the Twentieth Century. As Albert Gore observed, "clean coal" makes about as much sense as "healthy cigarettes."
It is evident that persons who commission bad science and promote lies to preserve their own wealth are evil. To the extent of their wealth and power they are the tyrants of our age. All persons of conscience are called upon to speak out against them. They deserve to lose what they have.
The tobacco industry has had to pay out huge sums of money to compensate for the lives lost through smoking that was caused by its bad science. But who will there even be to bring suit against the pollutors when the planet is devoid of human life? The spiders?
First posted 2/12/2010. Updated 2/13/2010.