Testing BuryCoal

As discussed recently, there seem to be a few key ideas about climate change that aren’t yet widely recognized or discussed, much less accepted. The major purpose of BuryCoal.com is to help spread these: arguing that we don’t need to burn all the world’s fossil fuels;that doing so would be extremely dangerous; and that we can choose to leave the carbon embedded in these reserves safely underground forever.

I have personally spent much of the past five years reading and writing about climate change issues. As such, there are a lot of ideas (and a lot of terminology) which is already very familiar to me, where it might not be to most educated people.

If readers are willing, I would really appreciate if they would have a look at BuryCoal.com and the ‘Why bury coal?’ page and identify elements that are confusing, too technical, or otherwise problematic. It doesn’t have much value if is simply serves as a forum for those who agree with the message. It needs to be able to speak to those who have different views, as well.

As always, the site is also looking for contributors.

Author: Milan

In the spring of 2005, I graduated from the University of British Columbia with a degree in International Relations and a general focus in the area of environmental politics. In the fall of 2005, I began reading for an M.Phil in IR at Wadham College, Oxford. Outside school, I am very interested in photography, writing, and the outdoors. I am writing this blog to keep in touch with friends and family around the world, provide a more personal view of graduate student life in Oxford, and pass on some lessons I've learned here.

3 thoughts on “Testing BuryCoal”

  1. Transcribed from Facebook

    For what audience are you asking we evaluate the term “confusing, too technical, or otherwise problematic?”

    I would imagine that a majority of my colleagues know what “unconventional” fossil fuels are, but I suspect the same is not tr…ue of a majority of people living in my apartment building…

    Additionally, it may help if you were to define the term “catastrophic,” as well as the term “runaway” when applied to climate change. My gut reaction is to interpret the former as stronger, although the text suggests the reverse interpretation.

    Finally, my one nitpick would be to suggest that you add an adjective or two to “welfare” in the first sentence. For example, “economic” and “intergenerational” come to mind.

    (As a side note, what distinction is a lay-reader meant to draw between “natural ecosystem” as opposed to simply “ecosystem”)

    Hope that helps!


  2. Thanks a lot for the suggestions!

    The intended audience is interested laypeople, of all educational backgrounds. Basically, anybody who might follow a link or do a suitable Google search.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *