<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: And the winner is &#8230; clean coal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://econews.org.au/and-the-winner-is-clean-coal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://econews.org.au/and-the-winner-is-clean-coal/</link>
	<description>Environmental news from Eco online, Sunshine Coast and Queensland environmental news, with indepth sections including interviews, sustainable business, eco adventures, green living and wildlife</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:25:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JohnMackenzie</title>
		<link>http://econews.org.au/and-the-winner-is-clean-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-302</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnMackenzie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:16:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://econews.org.au/?p=879#comment-302</guid>
		<description>Thanks for this article Lindsay. 

The investment in so-called &#039;clean coal&#039; is nothing more than a cynical tactic, and a costly diversion of public funds and precious time designed to buttress the coal industry, not to address climate change. I have no problem with the industry being required to fund its own research and development into &quot;clean coal&quot; - but the reality is that they won&#039;t. Because, as Weller is clear, it is a wasted investment that is too speculative to return on expenditure and will likely prove technically impossible at commercial scale.  

I wanted to point out, though, that the $100 million investment is only part of the Queensland subsidisation of the coal industry. In addition to this, there&#039;s the $300 million investment in a &quot;Clean Coal Fund&quot; and also the establishment and funding for a &quot;Clean Coal Council&quot;. 

In the most recent Queensland budget, we saw an 2009-10 allocation of $19 million to so-called &#039;clean coal&#039; (not including money set aside for investigating geosequestration sites), but only $10.3 million for renewable energy. 

More info here - http://www.sixdegrees.org.au/content/queensland-budget-coal-versus-climate-change</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for this article Lindsay. </p>
<p>The investment in so-called 'clean coal' is nothing more than a cynical tactic, and a costly diversion of public funds and precious time designed to buttress the coal industry, not to address climate change. I have no problem with the industry being required to fund its own research and development into "clean coal" - but the reality is that they won't. Because, as Weller is clear, it is a wasted investment that is too speculative to return on expenditure and will likely prove technically impossible at commercial scale.  </p>
<p>I wanted to point out, though, that the $100 million investment is only part of the Queensland subsidisation of the coal industry. In addition to this, there's the $300 million investment in a "Clean Coal Fund" and also the establishment and funding for a "Clean Coal Council". </p>
<p>In the most recent Queensland budget, we saw an 2009-10 allocation of $19 million to so-called 'clean coal' (not including money set aside for investigating geosequestration sites), but only $10.3 million for renewable energy. </p>
<p>More info here - <a href="http://www.sixdegrees.org.au/content/queensland-budget-coal-versus-climate-change" rel="nofollow">http://www.sixdegrees.org.au/content/queensland-budget-coal-versus-climate-change</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
