Column by Kimberly Hoffmeister
UK’s Administration and Athletics Department have geared themselves in the wrong direction—where do I even begin?
In the past few weeks, UK has hosted events sponsored by Friends of Coal, T-shirts reading “COAL CATS CALIPARI Power Kentucky,†and a plan to rebuild Wildcat Lodge and rename it, “Wildcat Coal Lodge.†Where do I even begin?
As a passionate Wildcat fan and supporter of UK head coach John Calipari, I find these events to be completely contrary to everything UK athletics stands for.
First, since when has it been okay to mix politics and collegiate sports at UK?
Coal interests are one of the leading lobbyists in Frankfort. According to the a 2009 study by the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED), “the coal industry spent more than $1 million on state political donations in recent years and $255,145 to lobby the last two legislative sessions.â€
Additionally, Friends of Coal is buying the UK administration and the students through its monetary donations.
The administration needs to step in and realize this is more than a money issue; coal is an ethical and political issue that is highly controversial. It does not need to be blended with our great men’s basketball program anyway. There are plenty of other opportunities to fund the UK men’s basketball program that are far less controversial.
Coal is becoming an energy source of the past. It is nonrenewable, requiring repulsive extraction techniques such as strip mining and mountaintop removal that destroy the land.
Considerable amounts of studies have shown that the effects of these extraction techniques pollute the water that our friends and family drink and the air we breathe.
A 2007 study released by the EPA explained people residing nearby coal extraction sites also have to worry about arsenic in their drinking water, increasing risk of cancer. While that may seem over the top, arsenic is one of the most common pollutants from coal ash.
The environment is not the only thing that suffers from the hands of the coal industry; because coal companies refuse to step into the realm of renewable and more efficient energy uses, their workers, the miners, will be left behind, leaving an entire region jobless and without any hope for development.
Let me be clear, Friends of Coal wants to clean up their image, which led them to the recent events on campus, but first they need to clean up their act.
Moreover, the economic cost of coal to both the state and the nation is tremendous. As reported by the National Resource Council as of October 2009, pollution resulting from coal costs the nation $62 billion a year.
According to the aforementioned MACED study, the coal industry also costs the state of Kentucky $642 million – over a $100 million more than they provide in tax revenue.
Finally, there is great discussion of a plan to rebuild the Wildcat Lodge. The funding would come from, guess who, Friends of Coal. However, if UK accepts the funding, the Wildcat Lodge would be renamed something to the effect of, Wildcat “Coal†Lodge.
If you are going to rename the lodge why not continue to name it after some of the best basketball coaches, trainers or players that have walked these grounds.
Name it after someone who would inspire the players that live there. How inspiring is a pollutant? Kentucky’s most important resources are its people, not its rocks.
Kimberly Hoffmeister is an animal sciences senior. E-mail opinions@kykernel.com.
This article is a model for reasonable debate on this topic. The writer does a fine job of stating her side of the issue while being logical and respectful. At first I was hesitant to rail against the coal lounge, but there are better things we have in Kentucky that can be used in our nomenclature. This is a politicization of our cherished program.
Hi Kimberly:
A couple of things here. First and foremost, both your arguments have merit, the problem with mixing politics and sport, and the problem with the coal industry.
Unfortunately, both those arguments don’t belong in the same article. Criticizing UK for mixing politics and sports is something we can agree on, but we part ways when you turn around and make the rest of your article all about the politics of the coal industry rather than the decision by UK to mix politics with sport, turning your piece into a bit of a self-parody.
If you object to UK embracing the Coal industry because it is a polluter, say so. That may be a partisan position, but it is an honest one, fairly argued.
But when you take the position that UK shouldn’t be mixing politics and sport and then go on to decry the particular political interest they are de facto embracing, it makes it look like the first part was nothing more than smoke to make your political stance appear more reasonable. That looks dishonest, even if it wasn’t meant that way.
If you have a point to make, make it, even if it looks like a screed. People can appreciate honest attempts to debate a controversy, even if they disagree with the side you take. But it is unwise to try to hide behind a broadly appreciated “don’t mix oil and water” theme to score political points off an opponent. Leave that sort of muckraking to the politicians.
Glen,
The writer is saying that its distasteful to mix “politics and collegiate sports”. …and then she goes on to give an example of why that is…and that is because some poltiical positions are viewed as morally unaaceptable by some of the population, which she expresses in her opposition to the coal issue. Her position on coal is the catalyst in her argument to describe the division that poltiics creates, and collegiate sports are supposed to be about unity…not division. What is so hard to understand about that??
And as far the comment about ” not hiding behind broadly appreciated themes” to get one’s politcal agenda across….perhaps you should just say you are for destroying the enviorment in the name of profit, instead of ” not hiding behind broadly appreciated themes” by trying to destroy the validty of the writer’s point by making it sound like she lacks either journalistic competence…or journalistic integrity.
This is just embarrassing. Is UK really for sale to the highest bidder? Would the Board of Regents have considered “Wildcat Tobacco Lodge”? The Wildcat Lodge should have a name that inspires confidence, athleticism and success. Coal is none of those things.
COAL IS POWER.
If you wear synthetic clothing, you support coal.
If you turn on the lights, you support coal.
If you drive a car, you support coal.
If you heat your home, you support coal.
If you ride a bike, you support coal. (Synthetic Rubber Tires and Coal Used to smelt the alloy.)
Kim is so green she lives in van down by the river and walks to UK everyday.
COAL IS (ANTIQUATED) POWER
If you wear synthetic clothing,
turn on the lights
drive a car
heat your home
ride a bike
and love your world, your state, and your future jobs,
YOU SUPPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY.
Get with the times.
“Get Real”:
If you are a university student, I highly recommend any of the fine logic classes offered. They would serve you well in avoiding missing the entire point of an argument in the future.
You have set up a “strawman” argument, a logical fallacy whereby you change the argument because you know you have lost. More importantly, not only have you irresponsibly attempted to change the argument, but you have failed at making a solid argument for your own position.
Using coal energy does not mean that a person does not believe we need to look for better fuel sources. Coal is a dirty, nonrenewable energy resource. This is indisputable fact. Granted, it may be the best Kentucky has right now, but to say that means we should not try to find something better is tantamount to suggesting to our ancestors that “bronze works fine, let’s ignore all this iron age nonsense.”
Your post is rude, irrational, and wrong.
Kim’s point is that, because this is such a contentious topic, the University would be remiss to ally itself with such a politicized lobby. Her argument is considerate, responsible, and remarkably accurate.
That is right on Chad and Katie knock it to em. We can all see from here your addiction to coal. Let us all just turn off the lights and live like cave ‘people’ while Katie and Chad build windmills (antiquated power) and set up expensive solar panels which work when only the sun shines. Never mind the fuel of the future (Nuclear Power) which fuels 80% of the electrical power consumed in Europe. GO NUKES !!! Hey Chad and Katie, please let us all know when you reduce your carbon footprint. No bullshit straw-man logic here. I live in reality where people actually go to work and produce a good and service. Good luck Chad and Katie in the real world. Tonight I am going to grill steak over charcoal like cave ‘people’ did 100,000 years ago. Then when I go inside and distill beer into Bourbon with wood chips and turn the gas heat up in my home because it is cold outside. Chad just remember, if A then B. Katie do you ever get laid?
I am proud that UK supports the coal industry!!!!
We are getting off topic. It is important to express opinions, but hateful comments “Katie do you ever get laid?” and etc are not necessary and do not strengthen your argument.
The point is UK should not rename the Wildcat lounge, “Wildcat Coal Lounge.” Coal is finite. As Kimberly states, “Kentucky’s most important resources are its people, not its rocks.”
“RickJames”:
You are correct, you did not commit the same logical fallacy as “Get Real”-you committed the same one as get real in addition to making ad homonym attacks, another logical fallacy.
Kim’s point is, again, not specifically about coal (although she makes her personal opinion on that subject known in the column), it is about mixing politics and college athletics. In your “response,” you again do nothing other than provide a crude and clearly uninformed opinion on the subject of coal.
More importantly, you seem content to attack both “Katie” and myself, as if insulting us personally somehow removes your failure to comment articulately and responsibly on the subject at hand. On top of that, you act as if you have special insight into either of our beliefs on what energy policy should be and attack those presumed positions-another strawman fallacy.
So congratulations, you actually outdid “Get Real” by tripling the number of logical fallacies in one comment.
RickJames,
Have you ever gotten burnt on a sunny day? Solar panels work whether it “appears” there is sun or no sun.
Why don’t you stop contributing personal attacks and learn the issues.
RickJames?!
Why the personal attacks? Please someone with a pro-coal stance present a logical argument for an actual discussion. Really really sad to see the argument degenerate. I would love to see Rick James in person and see if he can’t hide behind the mask of the online secrecy.
I would also add, that I support nuclear power, but it’s 80% of France, not Europe. Germany is actually becoming a bastion of wind energy.
I’ll try to steer the conversation topical and play devils advocate: Some would argue that intertwining coal and Wildcat basketball is in deference to our cultural heritage. The sweat and grime of the miners. The hard work showed by the miners, the bravery of unionizing and community values passed down from generation to generation.
Also the Obama administration doesn’t seem to have a cogent plan for helping Kentucky economically in lieu of coal going by the wayside.
Let’s start there. And lets keep it civil.
Really, Rick James?
Not only are you incorrect about nuclear power in Europe (see above comments). Kentucky also has a lot of opportunity, and already developed technology, for hydro power. I am not saying that we have the answer, I am saying that we need to move in the direction of an answer. Glorifying coal is a resource is not helping us move in that direction. Not only that, it does not represent the whole of the students. Thanks for making the argument civil, Jo. I think it would be great to glorify the miners, so why don’t we call it “Wildcat Miner’s Lodge.”
Finally, Rick James, I have to say that it is really sad you had to resort to “do you ever get laid” considering that this argument has nothing to do with my sex life. In addition, most men who feel intimidated by women tend to act out by attacking their sexuality. Sorry if I *intimidate* you.
So I guess the UK and Russia are not part of Europe.
(1) First, since when has it been okay to mix politics and collegiate sports at UK?
(1) Answer: Since they day governors appointed the presidents of UK.
(2)Additionally, Friends of Coal is buying the UK administration and the students through its monetary donations.
(2) This ia an open lie and an insult to the UK Administration.
(3) because coal companies refuse to step into the realm of renewable and more efficient energy uses, their workers, the miners, will be left behind, leaving an entire region jobless and without any hope for development.
(3) The realm of renewable energy is a myth only KIM, CHAD and KATIE believe in. Renewable Energy is a bullshit political term coined by the hypocritical greenies. The correct term is sustainable energy use which coal will provide for the next 200 years and which Nukes will provide for the next 20,000 years.
And Chad it is not a logical fallacy when it is reality. Chad how many tons of coal does it take to produce an electric car? Chad how many tons of coal does it take to produce a hydro-electric plant? Chad how many tons of coal does it take to produce and electric producing windmill? Chad can you please tell us what the renewable energy sources are? CHAD, KIM and KATIE please take a course in Economics and please take a course in Finance. Currently I like the Return On Investment with Nuke and Coal. And CHAD says:
uninformed opinion on the subject of coal. Opinions are just that, opinions. How about the HARD CORE reality of clean coal. Well, we can all see Chad and his opinion of coal.
There’s a HARD CORE reality of clean coal? Really? Here I thought the problems of buried streams, destroyed mountains, lakes of slurry, mountains of coal ash and toxic emissions hadn’t been solved. Silly me!
You can always tell you’re winning an argument when the other side has to resort to personal attacks.
Hello,
A a couple of points and questions to keep this discussion going.
To Rick and coal supporters:
1. Russia is not Europe. Most of Russia is not nuclear, but a combination of natural gas, coal and nuclear and (believe it or not!) wood. Russia is an entirely different beast than Europe or Asia (Where it is located.) And is it’s own category no matter how you look at it. Frankly, I have no numbers on the number of United Kingdom nuclear power plants.
2. Please provide evidence that there is no such thing as “sustainable energy” or that Solar a wind/solar combo will not make a significant contribution. If you could cite a study, it would be much appreciated.
3. If the coal people were really trying to be nice to the University, why help the already profitable basketball team. Why not put money in the Mathskeller or a new Design Library. There more pressing and less political things to do on campus with 7 milion dollars. It’s a political move for certain. I don’t want any “cause” naming buildings. I wouldn’t want a “Coal Lounge” anymore than I a “Pro-Choice Lounge”
To the Anti-Coal folks:
1. What is the plan for the the economy in Kentucky as we scale back on coal?
2. Is there anything wrong with Atomic power? France is largely powered by this source and all indications point to it going very well. The failure at Chernobyl was …..well it was bad bad Soviet standards. The 3 Mile Island incident was a long time ago and the safety mechanisms have improved dramatically since then. (Compare any technology from the early 80′s till today…then apply that to safety standards. We have made huge strides in safety.)
3. Any documentation to support the idea that wind is the way to go? I’m fairly sold on the benefits of solar, but wind seems a little more regional.
Thanks
Jo
http://www.futuregenalliance.org/
This is a project where the nation’s 2 largest coal companies, coupled with many companies from around the world, are working to create a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois. This is an improvement on the world’s first clean coal power plant opened earlier this year in Germany. Carbon capture is real, and will lessen coals environmental footprint. Progress like this is being made throughout the coal industry worldwide, although it is not widely acknowledged by the opposition.
Pimentel is convinced, based on his research that when all fourteen types of energy inputs are included in the production of biofuels — especially ethanol from corn — that there is a net energy loss, not a gain, however modest, as others contend. He sees ethanol production as “relatively energy intensive.”
Pimentel is just a pessimistic about wood waste and switch grass, neither of which he contends are positive energy producers when compared to oil and gas.
The term “Renewable Energy†is commonly used these days and everybody seems to have a pretty good idea what it means or stands for. Instant associations of this term include solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity and perhaps biomass and biofuels. Renewable Energy is heralded as the saviour of our planet for a power hungry civilization who is currently burning fossil fuels to meet an ever increasing power demand. But is it true that we could go about business as usual, continue on the same road of ever increasing energy demand, if only we switched to 100% Renewable Energy? To answer this question, let’s go back to the basics of physics: consider, energy cannot be produced, generated, recycled or renewed. It can only be converted (from one state into another). However, every time we perform a conversion, it comes at a cost called entropy, which is a loss of useful or available energy. In thermodynamics, energy is made up of two components: entropy and enthalpy. Entropy is diffuse heat energy, many times associated with waste heat from mechanical or chemical processes and represents – to the largest extent – the useless component of energy that is unavailable to carry out work. Entropy is also associated with the level of disorder in a system. Enthalpy on the other side is the useful (non-diffuse) energy component that we can readily use to carry out work. Thermodynamics teach us that every time we use enthalpic energy (eg change it from a state of stored chemical energy into mechanical work) the total entropy of the system in which it occurs (our planet) increases. The larger the energy potentia, the larger is the amount of useful work we get from it. And here we are at the core of the problem: the entropy of a system (heat and disorder) increases over time as enthalpic energy is spent. This process is irreversible and forever reduces the usability of useful energy that remains. For this reason, fundamentally and despite popular believe, there is no such thing as “Renewable Energyâ€. Out of all sustainable energy initiatives available, the drastic reduction of our energy demand, also know as “demand side abatement†is the single most important one. If we continue to increase our energy consumption, even if we use “renewable†sources exclusively, we will necessarily also continue to increase the entropy, waste heat and resulting temperature in our planet’s atmosphere. Before we started burning fossil fuels, our planet was in good balance between the sun’s radiation absorbed and the heat earth re-radiated into space. This balance depends on many factors, including the gas composition of the atmosphere and cloud cover, however their individual roles and interdependencies in context with radiation absorbed and re-radiated are complex and still poorly understood. As we are running out of time to fix the problems associated with climate change, we cannot afford to take new chances and make assumptions about the safe and abundant use of “renewable†energies. Instead, we should take the more conservative view that we live on a planet with limited, finite resources, the use of which produces an ever increasing entropy. Since this process is irreversible, the best strategy for us is to reduce our energy consumption and thereby extend our lease.
Cornell professor Dr. David Pimentel’s address to the Sustainable Energy Forum’s 2006 Peak Oil and Environment conference.
This is really getting blow way out of sight. I think UK students blasting the coal industry should be ashamed of themselves. The only reason this entire issue has come up is because of a silly name on a building. A 7 millions dollar building to be exact with funds donated by a group in the coal industry. The name is tiny, tiny part of the big picture. Open your eyes and try to be a part of the real world. Not a tiny segment cryin about a silly name on a building. You are not only ripping the coal industry but the university as well. Over a stupid name. Name versus 7 million dollars. Duuuu, think I will cry about the name. Go get everyone involved and best of luck when you get into the real world.