Clean Coal Blog

Initially, after viewing both videos my opinion my opinion sided with the view of opposing the clean coal technology. Then, as I watched the video that was pro clean coal my opinion changed until I read who made the video and was conducting the research, ACCCE the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. This pointing out to me that it is not as credible and is certainly biased since the coal company is trying to make business off of the clean coal technology that isn't necessarily "clean."

What is at stake with the argument is two things; the economy and personal side (pro clean coal) and the destruction of the environment in the long run (con clean coal) The pro side is saying that the clean coal technology is the future, creating more energy more efficiently and all the while creating jobs in a time that the economy is below par. On the other hand the con side is saying that there is no such thing as a clean coal, that the technology does not even exist. The black smoke coming out of the chimneys at the coal plants is not clean, and it has to go somewhere. That somewhere being our environment and that the bi-products of using coal will slowly destroy it.

The audience of both is the general mass public. With both side's fighting the power struggle for the most support. I tend to believe that the pro side is trying to play on peoples good intentions by saying how it helps create jobs and boost's the economy but saying nothing unbiased and scientifically supported about the environment.

The pro clean coal site is supported by the coal companies. The con is supported more by the general public, people who don't have anything to gain economically wise by using the "technology." Those being non-profitable groups such as Sierra Club, National Wildlife Foundation, Alliance of Climate Protection, etc. I believe the con site has more credibly mostly due to the fact that they don't have anything to gain by using the clean coal "technology" they only have things to lose (healthy environment) Whereas the Pro site is sponsored by the coal companies, which have things to gain and is obviously biased.

Initially, the pathos of the pro clean coal site is appealing. Stating that it is harmless to the environment while being more efficient and creating jobs. Which appeals to the lesser informed public, especially with the economy how it is. Then as it goes on and on the legitimacy decreases in opinion. As for the con clean coal site the pathos there is more straight to the point. They come straight out saying there is no such thing as clean coal, the bi-products of using coal has to go somewhere. After viewing both sites I feel they are trying to save the environment, and the pro side is trying to sell an idea (clean coal technology).

Visual expressions on both are effective in stating their opinions. But as stated before even though the pro argument side sounds good on the surface, once you dig deeper it loses its luster to me personally.

Personally I find the con clean coal site to be more persuasive. Mostly because it has more credibility to it than the pro site does. I feel that the pro site, being supported and headed by various coal companies, is trying to sell business. Whereas the con side is looking out for the best of the long term environment.