Barack Obama has finally decided that coal isn't any particular god's gift to humankind after all. It wasn't easy breaking with his black-seam mining allies in downstate Illinois, but it looks like he's decided green votes are more plentiful. About time. I was beginning to wonder whether he really is ready for prime time. I'm still not convinced, but...
In the early hours of this year Obama re-introduced the absurd Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007, a desperate attempt by the coal industry to hop aboard the "let's break American's oil addiction" bandwagon. Never mind that producing diesel fuel from coal creates 190% of the carbon emissions as does regular old gasoline and ravages the landscape beyond repair. He justified his support of the legislation by saying
Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Senator Obama believes it is crucial that we invest in technologies to use these resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
But this week, in an email to green lobbyist, he reversed course, although, as the LA Times reports, "his aides called it 'clarification,' distributed to correct what they said were false media reports describing the senator's views on the issue."
...unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels."
Since the state of the art in coal-to-liquid technology hasn't changed since January, Obama must have changed his spots.
Luke Popovich, a National Mining Association mouthpiece responded that his employers are disappointed Obama has joined a "jihad" against the coal industry. "Clearly they are trying to intimidate Obama from [sic] doing something sensible," Popovich told the Times.
But Popovich's gang can't be all that unhappy. Sure one of the top contender for a place on the 2008 Democratic ticket has given up on their hopeless cause, but plenty of other members of the party haven't. The Washington Post reports that
A group of Senate Democrats from coal-rich states is drafting an amendment to proposed energy legislation that would provide as much as $10 billion in federal loans to pay for capturing and storing greenhouse gases produced by plants that would turn coal into liquid transportation fuels or chemicals.
Now, I like the fact that at least climate change concerns are being taken into consideration, but $10 billion would go a long way toward bringing truly clean alternative energy sources to the market, instead of pouring it all down the black hole that is the carbon-capture fantasy. It's going to take decades to bring that kind of wizardry to maturity, and we simply don't have the time to kill.
Obama must have realized which way the wind (turbine) is blowing. Good. I will remain suspicious of his environmental bona fides, however. For example, today he endorsed the California approach to auto mileage standards:
Obama also called on U.S. automakers to double gas mileage of cars and trucks over the next two decades. Obama assumed the stance of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who earlier this year proposed cutting carbon emissions in auto and truck fuels by 5 percent by 2015 and 10 percent by 2020
That's just far too easy a target. Despite Detroit's silly position that such plans are technologically impossible to reach, many other countries already do better, and the only reason Americans aren't now averaging 50 mpg is the industry isn't making enough cars that get that kind of mileage. That and the fact that too many people are stupid enough to think that they need a 14-mpg SUV to take the kids to soccer practice.
Two decades is long enough for Detroit (and Japan and South Korea) to give us a fleet average of well over 70 mpg. Without even trying. Clean diesel hybrids could get better than 120, if the carmakers would just get off their butts and start producing them.
I know, I know. You have to be realistic. This is American politics. But I'm not talking about putting a man on Mars by Christmas -- just embracing existing technology and showing some courage and leadership. Which is what Obama is supposedly all about. All right, then. Prove it.
- Log in to post comments
No one in living memory has won a Presidential election by showing courage and leadership.
Politics is the art of finding a parade and putting yourself at the head of it.
While I trust him more than I do Hillary he's just too slick. This is nothing more than an attempted vote grab and I doubt it has any relationship whatsoever to his real beliefs, whatever they are. The moment he gets elected is when we'll see what he really believes until then this is just political weighing. Too bad the media wouldn't give Gravel or Richardson the same exposure they give Edwards, Obama and Clinton.
The coal industry hasn't shown us anything except slick productions touting "Clean Coal". Add "Carbon Sequestration" for jargon and whaddya got? What's that smoke...? My BS-O-Meter just melted.
I'd like you to explain the basis on which you believe that it will take decades for the sequestration process to come to maturity. I have had conversations with two different coal sequestration experts with whom I am personally acquainted, one at the University of Texas and one at the Department of Energy. Of these, I know one of them rather well and believe him competent, serious and trustworthy.
Both assure me that there is nothing speculative in the entire process. While the entire cycle has never been done at scale, all of the pieces have been, and pilot projects are going smoothly. If nature can hold methane underground for eons, it can hold the larger CO2 molecule down there as well.
If you have some basis for believing that the process is not ready for deployment, I would appreciate knowing what it is.