YOUR RIGHTS GETTING GORED

The much maligned coal companies and coal investors most likely just receive the biggest boost in confidence since David found the stone to put in his slingshot.

We don't know if little David's stone had any coal in it, but history says it apparently made its mark.

Former Vice President Al Gore, the same one who invented the Internet and magically turned millionaire investment guru, and one of his senior partners at their firm, Generation Investment Management, are not content with just bad mouthing coal on its environmental faults.

The message of Gore and Blood in their recent Financial Times editorial, "Economic case for stronger divestment of coal assets," write the following:

"The momentum behind divestment campaigns and other forms of protests against coal highlight that burning fossil fuels without regard for the consequences will not be tolerated much longer."

Fossil fuels is a broad term. It includes more than just coal. Here's a definition from Merriam Webster:

Any of a class of materials of biologic origin occurring within the Earth's crust that can be used as a source of energy. Fossil fuels include coal, petroleum, and natural gas. They all contain carbon and were formed as a result of geologic processes acting on the remains of (mostly) plants and animals that lived and died hundreds of millions of years ago. All fossil fuels can be burned to provide heat, which may be used directly, as in home heating, or to produce steam to drive a generator for the production of electricity. Fossil fuels supply nearly 90% of all the energy used by industrially developed nations.

There's another ringer in here, the kind that Gore and his species are noted for, "burning fossil fuels without regard for the consequences." This is well-chosen designed language. No one in the U.S. is using coal without regard for the consequences. First off that octopus in Washington, the Environmental Protection Agency, loves to levy fines. 

Secondly scrubbers and other federal regulated controls, however effective they might be, have been required for years.

Scrubber systems are a diverse group of air pollution control devices that can be used to remove some particulates and/or gases from industrial exhaust streams. The first air scrubber was designed to remove carbon dioxide from the air of an early submarine, the Ictineo I, a role which they continue to be used for to this day.^[1] Traditionally, the term "scrubber" has referred to pollution control devices that use liquid to wash unwanted pollutants from a gas stream. Recently, the term is also used to describe systems that inject a dry reagent or slurry into a dirty exhaust stream to "wash out" acid gases. Scrubbers are one of the primary devices that control gaseous emissions, especially acid gases. Scrubbers can also be used for heat recovery from hot gases by flue-gas condensation.^[2]

If Gore's and his comrade's view sounds vaguely like a threat, it's because that's what it is.  But then too it could just be some money runners who have short positions on the coal industry. This dynamic duo then cite a list of reasons from EPA regulations to Stanford, the mighty university that several years back in its obedience to PC changed its mascot name from Indians to Cardinal.

It seems the Stanford endowment fund has sworn off publicly listed coal firms. Now we don't doubt the missionary zeal of  Mr. Gore and Mr. Blood. But we do question what are obviously underhanded, cheap scare tactics in what still some believe is--and are trying to preserve--a semi-free society.

Investors last time we looked, notwithstanding the economic moaning of prophets like Gore and Blood, had a right to lose their money anyway they want. That right might not last long if people like Gore and Blood get their elitist way.

Instead of learning about the demise of coal by reading these two prophet's article, you want to read it to learn how to write in a stilted, convoluted, sophomoric style that reflects typical elitism one expects from people like this.
t. man hatter