Clean Coal

So for my class we're supposed to look into the two sides of the clean coal debate by examining two websites, one pro clean coal and one against it.

The first website I checked out was the main website for a campaign against clean coal called "This is Reality". Initially I definitely was entertained as a cartoon canary flies around the screen and takes the reader from fact to fact. With each surprising fact, the canary poetically dies as you read (I say this is poetic, because canaries were historically used to warn miners of dangerous gasses in the mines. The indication of danger came when the toxic gas killed the canary first, thus alerting workers to get out.) The site looks like it's targeted predominantly for individuals who've heard of the campaign and want to learn more/get more involved.

The second website I looked at was Americas Power, a site sponsored by the Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is dedicated to showing the important role coal production plays in our society and how research efforts are underway in an attempt to develop a clean coal technology (or eco friendly coal production) that will revolutionize the industry by making it clean. This site, like its message, looks clean and crisp while seeming intellectual and trustworthy. Based on appearance alone, I felt comfortable that the information on this site was credible. The "reality" site is much darker and much simpler than the bright "power" page. At the power page, it seems that the target audience might be a homeowner, a husband/wife, somebody who pays the bills. The site looks to inform them that coal is a necessity in their lifestyle.

The clean coal debate is essentially this: Coal Production is a dirty industry. It produces a huge amount of greenhouse gas and damages our environment. Clean Coal is a concept that would allow production plants to trap their CO2 emissions prior to their release into our atmosphere. According to "America's Power," over $12 billion is being put into clean coal research, and in the mean time, the coal industry has lowered its toxic emissions by 77% since 1970.

The flip-side of this, and the true thesis of the "reality" campaign, is that the coal industry uses these facts to make the public feel comfortable and content with their efforts, but the reality is that there is not one clean coal plant that exists today.

In my opinion, each site has some strengths and some weaknesses. The "reality" definitely has the edge when it comes to emotional appeal. When the cartoon canary dies as you finish reading the facts, a part of you dies with it and you want to bring down the coal companies. Coupled with the canary's presentation, the emotion brought on with each fact is maximized.

However, the "power" site gets the edge in the logical department. There is so much going on at this site that you can find support for their position in almost every offered link. The "power" site is much deeper than the "reality" site and in my mind, depth of knowledge gives you more credibility. Thus, I also give the edge to the "power" site in terms of trustworthiness. Though this is a close call because there are many powerful facts (with sources) that make up the "reality" site.

To conclude, I really think that these two sites are arguing completely different things. The "reality" site, wants to dispel any rumors that clean coal exists, but on the "power site" there are no indications that they are claiming clean coal plant DO exists, but rather, the research to develop it does. Really I think that both of these sites want the same thing: a clean alternative to the pollution ridden coal production industry that we have today.