Disproportionality, Discourse, and the Debate over Coal-Fired Power

According to Freudenberg's "double relocation" framework, this paper aims to understand environmental inequality as a product of two interrelated processes. (1) inequality arising from environmental hazards, or "imbalance", and (2) ability to discuss environmental hazards through inequality discourse or "privileged accounts". I am using a hybrid approach to assess disproportionate power and discouraging abilities in the discussion of US coal-fired power generation. First, we analyzed emissions data at the facility and parent company level, and evaluated whether a small number of producers account for most of the carbon dioxide generated in this sector is imbalanced. The results show that at the parent company level emissions are unfair than facility level. Only 3 companies account for the most serious 25% of emissions in 2015. Secondly, I analyzed qualitative data (n = 209) through a thorough interview with the Federal Government and the Ohio state policy elite, and formed a discussion about coal-fired power generation before and after the 2016 general election A story and discourse alliance was identified. I identified the "legal discourse" that was used to support coal-fired power, and then compared these "privileged accounts" with the framework of the anti-coal counter. The result of discourse analysis shows how coal factions convert discourse strategies to adapt to the disadvantages of anti-coal stories trying to change the changing policy background and discourse into environmental interests . Finally, in order to understand the relationship between unbalanced patterns, we examined how "extreme emitters" identified by quantitative analysis appear in interview data. In summary, these analyzes show the impact of privileged accounts on conflict, definition, and response to sustainable environmental issues.

The increase in coal-fired power generation and natural gas is equal to or greater than that. From a certain point of view, debate on train debris seems to be an argument between coal and natural gas. However, because the gas-fired power plant is also subject to some new regulations, the discussion is not that simple. Some regulations may affect coal-fired power plants that are not proportional to other power plants, but other regulations such as cooling water recovery plans may affect non-coal power plants to a greater extent .

These facts indicate a dramatic decrease in coal fired power over the past decade. In recent years, new coal-fired power plants are rarely used in developed countries. None of the 120 coal-fired power plants proposed in Europe in 2007 have entered the construction phase. Only one factory was built in North America. It is a 17 MW power plant constructed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. There are some exceptions to this trend, but Japan is the most noteworthy. Japan responded to the disaster in Fukushima by proposing 45 new coal-fired power plants. However, economic and environmental reality has begun to be affected, and most of these proposals seems impossible to achieve.

Nevada province is becoming a battlefield to determine the future of power generation in the United States. However this time it is not a discussion between nuclear power and Yucca Mountain. In contrast, Nevada is the focus of discussion on coal-fired power plants, and coal-fired power plants supply about half the power of the country. Three new factories were proposed at Yinzhou, and environmental groups said their impacts were fatal to the environment and human health. Although the coal-fired power station's proposal reappeared in the first half of this decade, as evidenced by the 59 coal-fired power plant plans canceled, abandoned or shelved last year, this trend reverses the coal Stated. They also pointed out that Mr. Harry Reid of the Senate majority vote leader was dullly opposed by a favorable position to the new coal-fired power plant.