Multiple approaches

        I would like to focus on the “natural gas versus coal” part of Obamas speech regarding global warming. On June 25 the president gave the speech and mentioned the benefits of using energy from natural gas over coal. It is true that we see dramatic whether changes that have been happening recently which are associated with global warming. One of the impacts of coal mining to our environment is increase of carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Coal mining has been a long time industry and it provides incomes to many of Americans as we know. As I read the speech script it seems like it is a done deal, replace coal with natural gas to reduce carbon emissions. It is more complicated than that and there is so much politics involved. Members of congress rarely agree on simple issues nowadays. Transition from coal to natural gas as source of energy requires a lot of money to finance the projects. There are not enough industries to extract natural gas. There is also so much risk involved in extracting natural gas. So solving the global warming issue by replacing coal with natural gas requires multiple approaches. First public awareness about the global warming issue must increase. The president gave a good speech but it’s definitely not enough. Congress needs to pass laws that directly focus on environmental preservation. Also how about all those people involved in coal mining after the mines are shut down? How are they going to earn their income?


2 responses to “Multiple approaches

  1. I agree with a lot of what you say and there’s certainly always going to be politics in the handling of our environment. I’ve always thought that we had moved away from coal mostly and that we should be looking for something different than natural gas, but it does seem that coal is worse. I suppose we just have to take little steps with how the government deals with things in handling our environment.

  2. Another issue of extracting natural gas is the same as using coal; CO2 emissions. Yes, natural gas would be a significant decrease in emissions, but the process of “fracking” (how one would go about extracting natural gasses) requires heavy machinery that emits MORE CO2 than what is emitted from vehicles and machinery using coal/fossil fuel. I believe that if the government is going to get involved in issues like these, they need to do statistical research for both pros/cons for BOTH sides of the issue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s