Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - The growing concern over CO2

The growing concern over CO2

Jan 20, 2008 - 08:13:10 CST

By JONATHAN RIVOLI
Bismarck Tribune

You can't see it or smell it as it rises from smokestacks into the clear blue sky above the prairie. But to an increasing number of policymakers around the world, carbon dioxide emissions have become a very tangible concern.

CO2 emissions from cars and coal power plants like the ones in North Dakota are considered by many scientists to be a chief cause of global warming. The science is complicated, and will be covered in much greater depth later in this series, but the basics are this: as more CO2 is emitted it causes a thickening of the atmosphere that traps the sun's heat.

Now that the problem is becoming more widely understood, the question becomes how to stop it. The most obvious solution - regulating CO2 emissions - is gaining traction from Brussels, Belgium, to St. Paul, Minn. But both environmental groups and the coal industry agree that such regulation will hurt the coal business and its customers.

For western North Dakota - where coal mining and power plant jobs are a way of life for some and an indirect economic boon for all - the decisions made over the next few years could have a major impact.

The CO2 issue is addressed by a disorganized and sometimes contradictory patchwork of state regulations and voluntary regional partnerships. In Minnesota, for example, the state Public Utilities Commission will soon require utilities to include the environmental cost per ton of carbon used in production when calculaitng the expected cost of operations during the plant approval process. Here in North Dakota, a law forbids the Public Service Commission from considering such issues in utility regulation.

Evidence is mounting, however, that this patchwork system could soon give way to a stricter system of national or international regulation.

In November, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that "urgent, global action" is necessary to head off a future temperature change that could lead to famines and natural disasters. The report, a product of 2,500 government-appointed scientists from around the world, found that an 85 percent reduction in CO2 emissions is needed to head off such a future.

In the U.S., a Senate subcommittee voted in November to approve a cap-and-trade system designed to start in 2012 and gradually cover 73 percent of carbon emissions by 2036.

Such a system would have the government issue permits for CO2 emissions up to a certain level and then let companies trade those permits to create a financial incentive for CO2 reduction. The alternative idea of a carbon tax would assign a direct government-administered cost to CO2 emissions. The destination of those possible tax revenues is in dispute. A few of the options are to place them in the federal treasury, rebate them to taxpayers and financing environmental programs.

"The coal industry will continue to operate; it will just have to operate differently than it does today," said Steve Van Dyke, communications director of the Lignite Energy Council.

Van Dyke said new regulations will lead to higher energy costs, especially if done hastily and without consideration for the technological abilities of utility companies.

Environmental advocates agree that there will be economic consequences of regulating CO2, but view the regulation as a necessary step.

Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club, said the short-term pain of higher electricity rates and coal industry job losses doesn't approach the level of long-term pain from long term global climate change.

"I think it's now become quite inevitable that something will be done," he said.

Dorner, whose organization is leading a "Stop the Coal Rush" campaign, said some simple changes in state energy use regulations can mitigate the need for new coal plants.

Robert White, an Emerado resident and member of the Dakota Resource Council, said he sees no other way to reduce CO2 emissions on a large scale than to wean North Dakota and the nation off coal-fired power. The state should be seriously looking into alternatives like wind and hydrogen power to preserve the future that we hand to our children.

"They are going to be the recipients of what we leave them, and I certainly believe this climate change threat is very, very serious," White said. "The world we live in comfortably now may not be as comfortable."

If this path is followed, states like North Dakota will feel the biggest immediate impact.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the state gets 93 percent of its electricity from coal - a ratio that, despite much-hyped alternative energy projects over the last few years, remains unchanged from 1990. In addition to producing most of its own power, North Dakota uses its coal to send power to neighboring states like Minnesota.

The production of all this coal-generated electricity energizes the region's economy. In Oliver and Mercer counties, the heart of coal country, the industry accounts for nearly 41 percent of all employment and 66 percent of wages earned, according to data compiled from Job Service North Dakota and local economic development officials. It pumps more than $43 million in wages alone into those counties' economies.

Indeed, coal is the lifeblood of places like Washburn and Underwood, where the nearby Coal Creek Station Power Plant and Falkirk mine are at the center of life.

For people like Hank Rasmusson, an Underwood resident who has owned a small gas station near the center of town since the 1960s, decisions made half a continent or half a world away could have a big effect on life.

"It could have a tremendous impact," Rasmusson said. "I could lock up, that's what could happen."

Rasmusson, 66, said many of his customers at R and S Oil Co. work at the nearby mines and power plants. A contraction in the coal industry means many of them might not stick around Underwood to shop at his store, he said.

The exact regional impact will depend on the specifics of the regulation and how utilities choose to respond.

Van Dyke of the Lignite Energy Council said the industry can adapt well to any of the potential regulatory schemes if it's given the adequate time and technology to do so. He suggested that the government should be spending money on research and development of CO2 reduction and capture technology to help utilities cope with the regulations it could impose.

At least one major utility is already considering increased CO2 regulation as a given. Great River Energy, owner of North Dakota's largest power plant - Coal Creek Station in Beulah - is working carbon regulation into its business plans for the future as it decides what energy sources to pursue and what kinds of plants to build.

Gary Connett, the utility's director of environmental stewardship and member services, said it's a logical step even though the timeline and details of regulation remain unknown.

"We can't blindly consider our future without the cost of carbon," he said.

(Reach reporter Jonathan Rivoli at 223-8482 or jonathan.rivoli@bismarcktribune.com.)

News > Local

Printer friendly version The growing concern over CO2

Comments

Omg wrote on Nov 9, 2008 5:04 PM:

" " please reconsider." "

Yasha wrote on Feb 4, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Captain Crunch,

That's a great red herring argument. Cars are like hand driers! Use paper! For what, fuel?

Anyone familiar with power generation knows that it's usually more efficient to do it on a larger scale. There's less pollution per killowatt-hour. Plus, you can put the powerplant farther away from where people live (doesn't help with overall pollution, but does improve quality of life). Plug-in hybrids benefit from that economy of scale. There's some efficiency loss, but nowhere near as much from a comparatively small gasoline engine. "

Captain Crunch wrote on Jan 27, 2008 7:13 PM:

" Hybrid vehicles are like electric hand driers in public restrooms. Any idea how much of our natural resources are used to make electricity, transmission equipment and such? Let's not forget the power line poles too. We can recycle paper towels. Paper of that low quality is made from punk trees no good for any thing else but fueling forrest fires. "

Energy Efficiency! wrote on Jan 27, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Say you buy a car that coughs out a lot of greenhouse gases. Should you pay more for the privilege of polluting? And say your neighbor buys a car that spews out far less. Should he be rewarded for helping to save the planet? In 2009 our North Dakota Legislature should pass a "feebate" law, imposing charges and granting rebates based on a vehicle's emission of carbon dioxide and other gases. One-time registration fees of up to $2,500 would be levied on new gas guzzlers, such as Hummers, Dodge Vipers and Chevy Tahoes. Some cleaner sport utility vehicles, pickups and minivans would be exempt from any charge, while the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra and other fuel-efficient cars would get hefty rebates. We have to find ways to get more clean cars on the road and more dirty cars off. There's no time to waste if we're to avoid the catastrophes ahead from global warming. “Feebate” laws have been enacted in Canada, Finland and France, and in the European Union overall, countries are moving to tax cars based on carbon emissions. In the United States, “feebates” have also been considered in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont. A modest break for consumers to buy cleaner cars is a good deal. Fees and rebates would be applied on a sliding scale. About a quarter of vehicles would be unaffected, and about 35% would be charged a fee collected by auto dealers. The fees would pay for rebates to about 40% of purchasers.

"

John wrote on Jan 26, 2008 9:08 PM:

" So where does the electricity come from smarty pants, must come from the lightning bolts, wind and water. Instead of high gas prices, we'll just get it from the high price of electricty, which thank god makes itself. I love only being able to go 300 miles on a full charge. Cant wait.
I also ned to get into the lithium ion battery recycling business, looks promising. My cell phone battery cant even make it 2 years, ooh baby. "

Dumb Montanan wrote on Jan 26, 2008 6:26 PM:

" To No Common Sense:

You said:

"To: Dumb Montanan wrote on Jan 24, 2008 7:52 PM: Florida is a waste anyway."

Did you bother to read the rest of my post? I don't think we should've rebuilt NO in the first place. The town keeps sinking and "supposedly" the ocean is going to rise. Can I have my billions back please? "

Voice of Reason wrote on Jan 26, 2008 2:18 PM:

" To John, You apparently are unaware of what is just around the corner as far as hybrid development. I’m referring to plug-in hybrids and 100 percent electric vehicles. These cars will be capable of meeting the transportation needs of about 85 percent of American drivers, while drastically reducing tail pipe emissions and simultaneously creating total energy independence. These “little” hybrids are already past the concept stage and are being developed for a hungry marketplace. Check out teslamotors.com or GM’s Chevy Volt just to name a couple. The internal combustion engine is 20th century technology. It served us well in it’s day, but it’s time to move on. As far as the lithium ion batteries they require. These highly recyclable products are only a temporary step. Much more efficient power storage systems, like ultra capacitors are also in development. It IS important “where” new technology comes from. Let’s not surrender our leadership position to the many other nations eager to replace us.
"

John wrote on Jan 26, 2008 8:58 AM:

" to oh yea..
The only reason you think there is worse weather now is it is in the media now, unlike years ago, no one cared back then, but now there is 32 different 24 hour news stations, they have to have something to put on the air, cant talk about who Obama is friends with all day long, oh wait, they still do that. So they talk about this or that happening in a foreign country, or even across country. We'll just blame the weather in Indochina on global warming, that gets ratings. "

John wrote on Jan 26, 2008 8:53 AM:

" To Bismarck...
Have you ever investigated how your precious batteries are made in your little hybrid, they are toxic, and I am willing to bet where they make them, you would not like living by, and what will you do with said batteries when they take a crap, Oh you are so on the high horse, but you have no clue. At least you feel good about your little hybrid.

"

REX wrote on Jan 26, 2008 8:26 AM:

" CO 2? You bet. Fivehundred and sixteen years ago everybody was sure that the earth was flat and perched on the back of a giant turtle and if you sailed too far you would fall off and be consumed by a monster. Dragons, witches and gnomes were real and the moon was made of green cheese. Bill Clinton didn't inhale and Al Gore won't exhale. Has anyone on this site read "The Emporer's New Clothes"? "

Oh yeh wrote on Jan 25, 2008 11:46 PM:

" Lets put the CO2 in the ground, sure it will stay there forever, just like the methane gas is staying underground or toxic waste that was buried. ND maybe has never had a major earthquake but put all that gas in the ground like a champagne bottle and all it would take it a hiccup of nature and it will all come pouring out. No one know what is really going on under the bedrock. Just like no one knows for sure why we have had horrible weather all over the world. I do know one thing. Read Revelation, remember God promise Noah he would never flood the earth so Fire and Brimstone here we come. "

Hiram wrote on Jan 25, 2008 3:26 PM:

" Bismarck, I know you've said that you don't believe CO2 is a pollutant, however, how do you feel about the fact that the Sierra Club and the Supreme Court both consider it (CO2) a pollutant? If you don't still consider CO2 a pollutant, why then should we be concerned about it? Isn't it merely plant food? "

No Common Sense wrote on Jan 25, 2008 2:28 PM:

" To: Dumb Montanan wrote on Jan 24, 2008 7:52 PM: Florida is a waste anyway.

Just something to ponder: Do you have any idea on what it would cost to relocate the southern/coastal areas of Florida? Just look at the funds and manpower it'll take to rebuild N.O. So let's just ignore the signs around us on "Climate Change" (Global Warming is a nisnomer) and see what happens. Sounds like a great plan for the future generations.....

"

Dumb Montanan wrote on Jan 25, 2008 1:49 PM:

" To Bismarck and Rebecca,

I don't think anyone said that NOTHING should be done, but Bismarck you hit the nail on the head when you said:

"The change has to happen but in a sound economic way."

All I see are knee jerk reactions thanks to some politicians. I do believe I read another article on here about knee jerk reactions and that didn't turn out so well. We can't destroy today's economy and today's people hoping to help the future. We need to TEST things before we just start throwing money at different projects. There's nothing worse then doing something you HOPE helps the environment, and then find out it made things worse. "

Billings wrote on Jan 25, 2008 1:40 PM:

" Bismarck: Perhaps you are right-I am just an old man with a feeble mind. If I remind you of being a creationist then you remind me of being a member of the new religion of global warming. And "Father" Al Gore has put his followers on a collective American guilt trip. Oh, and I have a childhood story for you! I remember growing up in N.D. in the '60s and '70s under the "scientific" and media driven threat of being under 100 ft. of ice. Now,that was scary! As I sit and look out the icy window at the coldest winter I've seen since '83 I find it difficult to wrap this feeble old mind around the idea that global warming is acute and immediate--especially since warming has not increased since '98. I guess we will find out in a few years which of us is the fool just as we did after the '70s "ice age". I am getting old and tired now,and this will be my last post on this subject. "

Bismarck wrote on Jan 25, 2008 12:20 PM:

" Rebecca, I apologize. I am pleased to understand you support alternative fuels. All of us have to be careful that we support none carbon dioxide producing alternative fuels. The change has to happen but in a sound economic way. Our coal fired thermal electric power plants have to be replaced or converted entirely into none carbon dioxide producing plants. The carbon dioxide they produce goes into our North Dakota atmosphere, which means it goes everywhere. None of this is or can happen overnight. Yet our nation has to regain the lead; the new technologies can be very profitable for us. Rebecca, thank you for your concerns about an ever-increasing dangerous problem.

"

Rebecca wrote on Jan 25, 2008 11:32 AM:

" To Bismarck: I understand how greenhouse gases work; I did get past third grade. Ans I mis-spoke when I said "Coal mines" I meant coal burning plants. Like I said, (had you read my post) that I agree in alternate fuels and bettering the environment through healthier forms of energy, I was just making an observation that other states have much more work to do in the arena than ND. That doesn't mean ND shouldn't do anything about it. Once again, just an observation. "

Bismarck wrote on Jan 25, 2008 10:44 AM:

" John your science specifically your historical geology is inaccurate. You have an excellent community college near your home. I took two courses while I was an undergraduate from what we then called Bismarck Junior College. Physical and historical geology, historical geology answered many of my questions. Yes, you are correct, continental glaciers have played a role in the rising and falling of sea levels, as have plate tectonics. An interesting problem for you to work on is what has caused the several glacial epochs the Earth has experienced? Are warm ocean currents that are turning off and then on again to blame, and what natural phenomenon can cause that, if that is the answer? John blaming poor gas mileage on airbags and the amount of wiring in automobiles is an exaggeration. I have a new auto and it has an airbag in the steering wheel, dash, sides of the bucket seats and side curtain airbags but not 37 airbags. The auto is far from being a tank and is among the most aerodynamically manufactured automobiles currently being made. It was designed to be a hybrid from the ground up. Last month I used 10.3 gallons of gasoline. The auto is driven around Bismarck everyday, getting groceries, going to work, doing the routine chores that I have always done. The batteries loose some efficiency during cold weather but nothing serious. The batteries are warranted for 100,000 miles but testing by the manufacturer indicates they should last the life of the car. The auto is peppy and can maintain Interstate cruising speeds all day. When I pull up to a stoplight and have to sit a bit, the four-cylinder internal combustion assist engine shuts off to conserve fuel. When the light turns green, I push the accelerator pedal and off we instantly go. John, if I let you drive it, without telling you it was a hybrid; you would think it was just a regular auto. "

John wrote on Jan 24, 2008 11:20 PM:

" Florida has been under wtaer before, I wonder what caused that, and I wonder what caused it to be above sea level again, oh I know I know, it was and ice age, and then it melted, because of non man made gloabl warming, then the non man made ice age came again, froze some water, made some snow, it packed in real good, and our earth rotated on a bit different axis for a while. Them the sea levels went down. Now florida is above sea level, and man didnt have anything to do with it. Now some ego scare you to death and I'll make money off of it people are telling you we are causing the earth to warm again. Thing is, it might have warmed up with out us, but we werent around when it froze over, so it is all speculation. How can you argue with facts
I have no problem with getting cars that get good mpg, but it isnt possible, we have to have 37 airbags and 4 thousand feet of wire in cars now, that makes them tanks, Say goodbye to MPG. Cars now adays are throw away after a few years of use, who cares the impact we have on the environment building all these cars that we will just throw away in three years, or when the loan payment is done, thats actually how long they last, however the lentgh of the loan is. Smoke and mirrors, you guys are so blind.
"

Bismarck wrote on Jan 24, 2008 8:44 PM:

" Billings your “innate sense of how …” does fall within the scientific method. The scientific method is a technique for investigating phenomena that acquires new knowledge or corrects the previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles or reasoning. The information is collected through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. You can always find people with impressive credentials who will disagree or state views as they interpret the information. You remind me of a Creationist who picks scientific data and alleged authorities to suit their conceived ideas of how things are or how they want them to be. William Gray of Colorado State University is a fine man and excellent authority on hurricanes. But he appears to have his own agenda and viciously attacks those who disagree with him and the “ivory tower” he sits in. “… he’s become more and more radical,” says Dr. Peter J. Webster, an atmospheric scientist at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences of the Georgia Institute of Technology. Talk about attacks belittling my intelligence? Billings, you are the one who used the word boneheads. Perhaps you should check out some basic science classes at your nearest community college and brush up on chemistry, biology, meteorology, climatology, oceanography and physics. I have to apologize for the last couple of sentences; I will never win you over to my side with remarks that put down your intelligence. Perhaps my childhood story of the Grasshopper and the Ants was a little harsh, but I thought it was humorous too. "

Dumb Montanan wrote on Jan 24, 2008 7:52 PM:

" To No Common Sense:

Florida is a waste anyway. Between all the old people and the hurricanes maybe it's time to let Florida go. AND if the government really believed in global warming why are we building N.O. all over again? Now that is what I call a conspiracy. "

Mary K wrote on Jan 24, 2008 7:50 PM:

" Global warming is the greatest farse perpetrated on mankind since Jesus Christ claimed to be the son of God. "

No Common Sense wrote on Jan 24, 2008 1:58 PM:

" To: Yawn wrote on Jan 24, 2008 12:19 PM & To: Hiram wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:07 AM:

You're both right. Until our grandchildren ask us why we didn't do something when sea levels have risen 20 feet and half of Florida is underwater.

"

Yawn wrote on Jan 24, 2008 12:19 PM:

" This global warming debate is boring. Same, same, same arguments over and over and over. Either you believe it or you don't and neither side will ever convince the other side otherwise no matter how many 'scientific' arguments you submit. "

Billings wrote on Jan 23, 2008 5:47 PM:

" Mr.Bismarck: I have been dismayed over the bogus science and media hype associated with the( dangerous) human-induced global warming hypothesis. My innate sense of how the atmosphere-ocean functions does not allow me to accept these scenarios. Observations and theory do not support these ideas.(Professor Emeritus William Gray,Colorado State University) Some key questions and answers that are revelant to the climate change debate include the following: Is there an established Theory of Climate?Answer:no. Do we understand fully how climate works? No. Is carbon dioxide demonstrated to be a dangerous atmospheric pollutant?No Can deterministic computer models predict future climate?Another no. Is there a consensus amongst qualified scientists that dangerous,human-caused climate change is upon us?Absolutely not. Did late 20th century temperature rise at a dangerous rate or to a dangerous level?No in either case. Is global temperature currently rising? Surprisingly,no. And finally,is the IPCC a scientific or political advisory board. Your ad hominem attacks belittle your intelligence--now go back to teaching 8th grade chemistry. "

Captain Crunch wrote on Jan 23, 2008 4:46 PM:

" Bill Clinton didn't inhale, Al Gore won't exhale, and they want to lead the country? "

REX wrote on Jan 23, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Al Gore a "good American"? Well lte's see, in 2000 he tried to overthrow the Government of the United States (otherwise known as a coup) and disinfranchise every voting citizen. He lied about inventing the internet, and he has yet to be proven on the issue of climate change. I think he's a bone head. "

BC wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:28 PM:

" "Stop beating up Al Gore, he is a good American. "

Thanks....I needed a good laugh today!!!! "

Hiram wrote on Jan 23, 2008 11:37 AM:

" Hey Bismarck, the Sierra Club indeed considers CO2 a pollutant and even sued the EPA to classify it as such. The case even reached the Supreme Court. So, again, my question is if the Sierra Club considers CO2 a pollutant, why do they continue to pollute by exhaling?

http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0316.asp

Sierra Club Lawsuits
Supreme Court to Hear Pivotal Global Warming Case
Case Updates:
April 2, 2007

In a huge victory in the fight against global warming the Supreme Court today issued a ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA decisively rejecting the Bush administration's inaction on global warming. In a 5-4 vote, the High Court sided with the Sierra Club, 12 states, 3 cities, and the other petitioners in the case by agreeing that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Additionally, in a separate 5-4 ruling, the Justices wrote that the EPA cannot refuse to regulate these pollutants for political reasons. The Court gave its overwhelming stamp of approval to states that are taking action to fight global warming. At a time when automakers are suing states for taking this step forward, the Supreme Court stated clearly that states have the right to protect their citizens and the environment. It also provides momentum for efforts in Congress to reduce vehicle emissions.
"

Dumb Montanan wrote on Jan 23, 2008 11:20 AM:

" Bismarck:

You said "Stop beating up Al Gore, he is a good American." Did you not read my previous post? Can you not defend him?

We want to charge companies for tax credits, but it's the consumers who will end up paying for it. It's that same governing body that took forever to raise the MPG on my vehicle, and then they only did it after gas hit $3 a gallon. If they would have raised the MPG just by just 1 each year for the last 18 years (1990) we would've come from 25 (which my car gets) to 43. Then it would be almost like buying gas at $1.50 a gallon. Oh to dream. "

Bismarck wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Hiram, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, read my previous posting. The Sierra Club has never claimed it is a pollutant. Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is however, not a good thing for you or me from the perspective of climate. Stop beating up Al Gore, he is a good American. "

Hiram wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:07 AM:

" If CO2 is truly a pollutant, the Sierra Club should collectively stop breathing. I have to hand it to Al Gore though, he has orchestrated one of the world's biggest rackets which benefits no one as much as it benefits him. I mean, without the fear of the end of the world from something as innocuous as plant food, who would buy his movie tickets or his carbon offsets? "

Worse than that wrote on Jan 22, 2008 11:23 PM:

" http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/PlateTectonics/Maps/map_plate_tectonics_world.html Actually the ocean picks up most carbon dioxide. Unfortunately the oceans have their own problems. The seafloor spreading down the middle of the Atlantic pumps large amounts of carbon dioxide into the oceans. Perhaps some day it will belch like that killer lake in Africa? "

All energy is solar wrote on Jan 22, 2008 10:05 PM:

" All energy is solar energy. Coal was once plants, plants need sunshine. Wind is caused by the earth spinning under the sun causing hot and cold areas. The ocean tides are caused by the gravity of the sun and moon. Rain is caused by the heat from the sun on the oceans. Which means the hydroelectric power plants at various dams are producing solar energy. (Whatever happened to the argument about the ozone hole or pyramids and canals on mars?) "

Dumb Montanan wrote on Jan 22, 2008 9:30 PM:

" Bismarck:

Ok first I'll agree there is climate change, but you have to agree with me that Al Gore is getting sued for misleading facts (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth). Oh and that GE (you know make the new little flashy lightbulbs) owns NBC(full disclosure?). After that, then we'll have to agree about the Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age).

After all that I will say yes climate change, but we don't know what caused the Little Ice Age or even what the cause for climate change is now. It was what 50 years ago scientists said we were going into an ice age?

Before we go spend a DIME how about you prove it works? I have no problem with innovation. I prefer having a nuclear power plant with my car plugged into it than use oil. But that technology is proven to work.

A company paying a tax on carbon helps the environment out how? The company still pollutes and makes money while my bill goes through the roof. When it comes to electricity I can't just say "Oh tomorrow I'm not going to pay my bill." I'd freeze to death.

I don't like it that people are trying to profit off of this. The KYOTO Protocol was a joke, and it obviously didn't work. They haven't reduced their levels yet. We're going into a recession. How about we deal with that then we'll talk? "

Should Help then wrote on Jan 22, 2008 8:54 PM:

" If the earth warms up we won't need so many furnaces and the co2 emissions from all the homes in the world will cease and the problem will be solved Eh. then we will have an ice age and we'll have to heat up again. Seriously, if CO2 makes up only 1% of the atmosphere how can the little bit we contribute to it have that much effect. If the US stops emitting all CO2 today it will make no difference in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. China and India produce way more pollutants and no one is asking them to stop what they are doing. Its only the evil US. One volcanic eruption will put more CO2 in the air than all the coal fired plants in the world for their duration of service. If you're worried about CO2 levels go plant a tree and
walk to work but don't tax me because of hypotheticals. "

Scientifically speaking wrote on Jan 22, 2008 7:50 PM:

" For many hundreds of millions of years animals have been eaten by others, or have otherwise died and the remains consumed by the roots of plants. The plants have been covered by various earth’s’ mechanisms like volcanic ash, acidic bogs, and river deltas, to become coal. For many hundreds of millions of years lightening has been hitting coal seams, causing them to burn until exhausted. The coal is the remaining molecules of ancient forest and all its inhabitants. The energy in the coal is the energy of the ancient forests that was covered but never used. China is building a new coal powered electric power plant every five days. Only in this country are “environmental organizations” telling us not to burn coal or not to drill for oil in the “pristine wilderness of Alaska”. Obviously the conspiracy is to keep us dependent on foreign power sources like the oil in the Mid East. I would wonder how much money is donated to various environmental organizations from foreign oil producers. Why is no one complaining about the oil wells in the pristine wilderness of Siberia? Or Canada? All efforts and treaties seem designed to restrain the United States. We become more and more in debt to our “trading partners”. Then like big ducks we waddle down town and buy slightly cheaper toys and tools from China, Indo China, India, and the many other places that always benefit at our expense. When the environmentalists were using our courts to block logging the lumber still came in from somewhere else in the same world. When they prevent motor vehicles, logging roads, and fire breaks from our mountain ranges the earth is still pushed up by plate tectonic forces and eroded by rain and snow to become topsoil. Erosion is normal except when discussed in a courtroom. I remember about sixty years ago when one of our top astronomers was drawing pictures of what he believed to be canals on Mars. "

Bismarck wrote on Jan 22, 2008 3:36 PM:

" Rebecca, we need to clarify some things you have written. Coalmines are not the problem, the problem comes when you burn coal and release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yes we have fairly clean air in North Dakota. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide occurs naturally in the Earth’s atmosphere and is necessary for life on Earth. Less then one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere is carbon dioxide. One of the physical properties of carbon dioxide is that it retains solar heat in the atmosphere; think of it as a blanket holding in the heat. Most of the suns heat (infrared energy) bounces off the surface of the Earth back out into space. If you add more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from man made activity (factories, automobiles, thermal-electric coal fired power plants, the gas or propane furnace in your home, etc.) you will hold in more of the sun’s heat. It is like adding another blanket to sleep under. Doing this will increase the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, land surface and oceans, which in turn will alter the Earth’s climate. Coalmines in North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming ship, by rail, millions of tons of coal nationwide each day. How many long coal trains pass through Bismarck each day? The answer is not one or two or three or four. When that coal is burned in a thermal-electric power plant, be it in North Dakota, or Minnesota, or Wisconsin, or Illinois or somewhere else, tons of invisible, tasteless, odor free carbon dioxide gas is released into the atmosphere. Worldwide thermal electric power plants that burn coal are the major sources of our electricity, they produce the only product on Earth that is bought and used the instant it is made. Thermal electric power plants are able to reliably and cheaply produce electricity. Rebecca, in a sense they are weapon of mass destruction along with our automobiles and everything else that releases carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere above natural levels. "

Rebecca wrote on Jan 22, 2008 1:56 PM:

" A recent national survey showed that ND is in the top three for cleanest air in the U.S. So there are obviously bigger factors involved in this than coal mines. I am not against alternative energy sources, in fact I support them wholeheartedly, but it is just interesting to see an article like this in ND, where we have much less of an impact globally than other states. "

BC wrote on Jan 22, 2008 11:49 AM:

" To tree hugger....typical environmentalist crap...
SO good try, member of the Flat Earth Society. "
First thing out, you have to start personal attacks and avoid any REAL checking of the data available. By this I don't mean you Play Station climate MODELS (yes...models...that don't work).

As if you and the rest of the "huggers" are so enlightened...PLEASE.... "

Cold Heartless Non Enviromentalists wrote on Jan 22, 2008 9:28 AM:

" More "Global Warming" bunk! One thing is for sure, NATURAL events do more to help warm the atmosphere than ALL of industrial civilization has done. Mt. St. Helens deposited more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than all of human history to date… Another factor not mentioned are solar events (i.e. Gamma bursts, solar flares, etc.). These events are underestimated and not completely understood. What is known is that the atmosphere is heated millions of times more from the sun, than from the atmosphere keeping it all in. If you have a rising energy input, but the control stays relatively constant (i.e. atmosphere), you will
have a rise in temperature.

Another fact that people IGNORE is that there has only been about 110 years of weather data recorded. Other than that, all we have is geophysical evidence which can be (and has been) misleading. Within that 100+ year time, only the last 50 years have we had measurement devices that are accurate enough to measure to the tenth of a degree. So for some “Scientist” to base his global warming theory on the fact that the global temp has increased 0.2 degrees…is just pure drivel.
Now stop fueling the bogus lefty industry called "Global Warming" and start thinking correctly. That would be based on history....and on fact! "

Anger Management wrote on Jan 22, 2008 7:32 AM:

" To John: Do you work for the coal industry? "

Bismarck wrote on Jan 21, 2008 11:29 PM:

" John with a single stroke of absolute ignorance, with your remark, "100 years ago they went to the bathroom outside and had no electricity, (sic) I discredit the accuracy of anything 100 years ago." Have dishonored the construction of the Panama Canal, Orville and Wilbur Wrights flight at Kitty Hawk, the Gettysburg Address and the entire Civil War, The Emancipation Proclamation, The invention of the Telephone, the Colt Revolver, the first iron clad ships, the electric light bulb, the first x-ray machine, the first motion picture projector, the steam driven locomotive and ocean going ship and, if I had time, I could list a myriad of other things. John you have no credibility with me. People one hundred years ago were in the midst of the Industrial Revolution and were developing the first technologies. "

Tree Hugger wrote on Jan 21, 2008 10:57 PM:

" John, you sound like it is all for not. We all are part of the system that got us here, now we need to be part of the system that promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy which are said to be the "twin pillars" of a sustainable energy policy. Both strategies must be developed concurrently in order to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide emissions in our lifetimes. Efficient energy use is essential to slowing the energy demand growth so that rising clean energy supplies can make deep cuts in fossil fuel use. If energy use grows too rapidly, renewable energy development will chase a receding target. Likewise, unless clean energy supplies come online rapidly, slowing demand growth will only begin to reduce total carbon emissions; a reduction in the carbon content of energy sources is also needed. A sustainable energy economy thus requires major commitments to both efficiency and renewables.

We have to try, "we don't own the earth, we only borrow it from our children"
Cheif Seattle. "

Bismarck wrote on Jan 21, 2008 10:32 PM:

" John you strike me as someone whom is very unpleasant to be around. History has proven that war; plague or famine is not successful ways to limit population growth un-less weapons of mass destruction are used and they are very non-selective. You could be one the "dead air producing idiots" to not survive, but that may be good for those who do survive. The Chinese had a successful two-child limit that worked well. John there was no vegetative cycle that caused an outburst of plant growth on Earth a mere 100 years ago. Speculation does not work within the realm of science only hard observable facts are acceptable. Climatologists have those facts. "

mpg benefits wrote on Jan 21, 2008 9:59 PM:

" I would really love some straight up facts on global warming that are not swayed by someone who benefits, from either side. Go to any site that allows you to check your "carbon footprint" and you will find you can purchase carbon credits. So you can pay some group to plant trees or promise to use less carbon on your behalf depending on the $ amount you sent. This seems a bit of a red flag to me. I was doing some checking on the shrinking polor ice caps. If you look at the intermitant years it will seems as though they shrink dramatically. But if you find a place that shows every year in succession you will find that in 1997 they were almost exactly the same as in the 1970's despite the receding that occured in the 1980's. So I am left to wonder, how much would be required to reverse the trend? I am also left to wonder, if we think they are melting and will raise the sea level a minimum of 3-10 feet, why did we rebuild New Orleans? Does our government actually believe these numbers or is there a benefit to someone? I am concerned about a level of alarm raised and the small effort to make a change. Where is the reliable alternative to coal fired electricity, please don't say wind because I said reliabe, and where is the realible alternative to a petroleum based fuel for our cars? People driving vehicles on average of 75mph down the interstate and getting 20 mpg, 300 million cars on the road in the US alone has a damaging effect as bad or worse than the coal power plants which run on STRICT regulations. Where are the REAL answers and not the "cause alarm and fill my pocketbook answers", or the "don't worry and keep driving that SUV and fill the oil companies pocketbook answer." "

John wrote on Jan 21, 2008 8:37 PM:

" To farmer,
Well, Plants make co2 into what, oxygen right.
Maybe there was a vegetation cycle that increased the co2 leverls 100 years ago, but we'll just blame it on coal, beacause the cool thing nowadays is hate things that make our lives better.
What we need is a plague or huge famine, that would get rid of most of the dead air producing idiots, and life would be btter for those who survive. Thing is, people are into saving every thing, let natural selection take control, we as humans are ego driven, that is all. Save this, prevent that, some day we will be the very reason the human race isnt around, and some other life form will find our waste as a valuable item. History repeats itself. "

Bismarck wrote on Jan 21, 2008 7:03 PM:

" Billings, I can never understand people like you who have such dislike for Al Gore. Now you are attacking the National Weather Service. The next time the National Weather Service issues a tornado warning, pay no attention to it. Anthropological Global Warming, so that is what you call it. While the use of the word anthological in this case is not incorrect you have done it simply to impress the common person. You do not impress me! Anyone who understands the fundamentals of atmospheric science (taught in Junior High) can understand the science involved. Plain and simple Carbon Dioxide and Methane (natural gases in our atmosphere) hold in solar heat acting like a type of blanket and have given us the climate we have now. Increase those gases and we will warm up the atmosphere, which will warm up the surface of the Earth including the seas. No rocket science in that. Burn anything organic (coal, natural gas, propane, wood, gasoline and others) and you will produce the gas Carbon Dioxide. Ice cores from the Antarctic have shown a steady increase in Carbon Dioxide content in the Earth’s atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution (late 18th-early 19th century). Because North Dakota and the rest of the northern part of the United States lies close to the artic we will always have very cold days in the winter. Those cold snaps will decrease in length of time. We already have a warming trend coming at the end of this week. Our winter and last winter and the winter before that have been usually mild. I would love to be wrong, but what I know about science in general, climatology, meteorology and oceanography I don’t think that is going to happen. Prepare for the worst hope for the best is one of the rules governing my life, but Mr. Grasshopper don’t expect much help from us bonehead ants when your delusional idea of warming preceding a rise in Carbon Dioxide demonstrates to be false. "

Treehugger wrote on Jan 21, 2008 6:44 PM:

" John, nice language, regardless of how you view this issue, one thing I missing from the discussion, climate change. Global warming is the cause, climate change is the effect. It ‘s very easy talk about things that fall into a simple cause effect scenarios, global warming = one would believe that winters must be warmer. Not that simple, oh by the way they are warmer, dryer, and getting to be troublesome. Yup, it is true that the Earth will correct this imbalance, but I have children and I want them to have a fighting chance, so if you do not want to part of the solution, get out of the way and let us “tree huggers” work on slowing this down. And I hate to say this but coal, is an Industry that will be hurting, and I believe that might be sooner then we think. SO good try, member of the Flat Earth Society. "

Billings wrote on Jan 21, 2008 5:11 PM:

" Yesterday the national weather service(one of Gore's global warming fans) forcast a low for Billings of +2. The actual temp was 32 below. And these clowns want to tell you what the weather is going to be like 50 yrs. from now? Anthropological global warming is the biggest hoax perpetuated on the people of this earth. How many times do we have to point out to these boneheads that warming PRECEDES a rise in co2. Since the beginning of earth! "

Irony wrote on Jan 21, 2008 3:33 PM:

" Did anyone else find the irony of reading the articles about global warming on the coldest days of winter. Also, with all the press about global warming, I hope you didn't miss the stories of snow in Baghdad, Florida farmers worried about their citrus crops freezing. It was also ironic that Bob White of the Dakota Resource Council talking about the world becoming "uncomfortable" because of the CO2 emissions. Think how uncomfortable we will become when we can't heat our homes with electricity and natural gas because they are too expensive. It's already getting too expensive to drive our cars. Gotta love 'em.

But also, let me extend a thank you to the Bismarck Tribune reporters and editors for doing an outstanding job of presenting both sides of a very difficult and technical story. Their reporting is balanced and understandable. They are to be commended. "

china wrote on Jan 21, 2008 9:29 AM:

" We could stop all of our coal burning today and not make any measurable change in the world because the Chinese burn way more coal, every house uses coal to heat, to cook besides all of their factories and power plants. If you want to stop coal then you had better promote nuclear. "

farmer wrote on Jan 21, 2008 8:11 AM:

" response to john.
Not sure if you know but those PPM amounts of CO2 were gathered from ice core samples from the south pole. Maybe you should do some research before posting negative comments. Also response to john about his ND was a rain forest. yes your right we were once a rain forest millions of years ago. For anyone that doesn't believe coal burning causes at least health problems maybe they should do some reasearch about england during it's industrial peak and look at how dirty the air was in london. Or what about those pic's of LA during the 80's with all the smog. And we wonder why everyone has breathing problems. "

research wrote on Jan 21, 2008 7:56 AM:

" I find it interesting that so many speakers and ordinary citizens say they debate is over, the results are in.... The debate over global warming is NOT over. This is just progoganda from people that don't want to debate the issue. Please don't confuse your religion with science. May the chips fall where they may. "

good info wrote on Jan 21, 2008 7:50 AM:

" www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
check out this site if you'd like to learn more about man's impact on CO2. "

John wrote on Jan 21, 2008 2:58 AM:

" 100 years ago they went to the bathroom outside and had no electricity, I discredit the accuracy of anything 100 years ago. "

Natural Cycle?? wrote on Jan 20, 2008 11:21 PM:

" Scientists have discovered that CO2 levels fluctuated from 250-300 ppm for the last 400,000 years and then increased in the last 100 years or so (when we started burning a lot more fossil fuels) to about 380 ppm. It's pretty difficult to call that type of an increase in such a relatively short time span a "natural cycle" as some are trying to do. "

MSN wrote on Jan 20, 2008 5:14 PM:

" How about articles for those are skeptical about all of the global warming talk? Humans contribute to an extent, but what about a climate change for the entire planet.

And most of these treehuggers (I'm looking at you Dorner too) need to take a long walk off a short pier. I am tired of them talking down to me and not listening to those of us who may not agree with everything they say. "

Thinking person wrote on Jan 20, 2008 2:01 PM:

" Let's throw some facts into the global warming discussion for a change. CO2 comprises only .13 (13/100) percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Human activity accounts for a small fraction of the .13 percent. Source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency. Should we be good stewards of the environment? Of course. Should we panic and come up with some costly knee-jerk reaction? I think not. "

No Common Sense wrote on Jan 20, 2008 11:20 AM:

" To: GOD wrote on Jan 20, 2008 10:14 AM: " To those that think the best solution is to stop coal fired power production to reduce CO2 emissions --- stop breathing, you're releasing too much CO2. "

Yes God, but we were created by you in your image. Couldn't you see this one coming.....? "

John wrote on Jan 20, 2008 11:20 AM:

" So which is it, years back our Ozone was depleting, now it is getting thicker, well that is easy then, use cfc's again in the hairspary and such, sounds easy, that did it the last time, now we need it again.

This is all a bunch of crap. The earth after humans are long gone will clean itself up, think about how the coal was made, The earth did a fine job of covering that up.
Global warming, yeah right, it is just a cycle of the earth. To think ND was an ocean one time, or how about the rain forest it once was, or how about the desert it once was, what about the ND that was covered in ice.
How ignorant of the human race thinking it can control the earth. One day the earth will chew us all up and convert us into something that another species will fight over. LOL
We have been burning coal for what, 2, 300 years. In the earths time, that is hardly a speck onits timeline, Human have been around for a few thousand years. To think we have made any difference is ego driven scare tactics. I wonder what the dinosaurs did when they were here for what, 10 million years, one day they were gone. Did they too burn coal? must have huh.
Nice try tree huggers. "

GOD wrote on Jan 20, 2008 10:14 AM:

" To those that think the best solution is to stop coal fired power production to reduce CO2 emissions --- stop breathing, you're releasing too much CO2. "

Independent Conservative wrote on Jan 20, 2008 9:27 AM:

" To Duh: no kidding. Now, how are we supposed to believe the rest of this alleged journalism? I certainly hope there will be an article or twelve dedicated to global warming opponents so both sides of the argument are heard. "

My 002 Cents wrote on Jan 20, 2008 8:47 AM:

" The other thing is that the term "smokestacks" is incorrect. They should be called stacks - as that is what the workers at the plants call them. What you see being emitted on the cooler days is water vapor (like in the photograph). If you drive by the plants on a warm summer day - when they are fully operating - most of the time you don't see anything coming out of them. Check it out sometime next summer (mid afternoon - 90 degree day). If there would be smoke coming out of the plants, you would see that year round, and you don't on the warm summer days. Thus - stacks. "

MPG--just one way wrote on Jan 20, 2008 8:35 AM:

" This post is in response to the quote from the article, "Robert White, an Emerado resident and member of the Dakota Resource Council, said he sees no other way to reduce CO2 emissions on a large scale than to wean North Dakota and the nation off coal-fired power." I'm just wondering if Mr. White is aware that petroleum also contributes to the CO2 problem? If we were able to buy cars at an affordable price that got better than 22-25 mpg, wouldn't that help? I think we also need to be looking at an alternative form of transportation, not just power production.
"

DUH!!! wrote on Jan 20, 2008 7:54 AM:

" coal creek station is not in Beulah. how hard is it to do a little research? "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.