Here’s what Barack Obama has to say about global warming on his website:
We need to take steps to stop catastrophic, manmade climate change. If we do not act, the consequences will be devastating for future generations, especially for the poorest global populations.
Al Gore couldn’t have put it better.
So why did Obama introduce the “Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007,†a bill that would promote the use of coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, as a transportation fuel and make global warming a lot worse?
There’s a clue in the fact that the other champions of coal-to-liquid fuels in the U.S. Senate are Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Wyoming, both Republicans.
Yes, Illinois, Obama’s home state, is, like Kentucky and Wyoming, a major coal-producing state. Nearly 32 million tons of coal was mined in Illinois in 2005, generating nearly $1 billion in revenues for the state’s producers.
Big coal companies and their allies in the United Mine Workers union want us to fill our gas tanks and airplane jet engines with a liquid fuel made from coal, which is abundant in the U.S. They call it a step towards energy independence. Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal company, which is based in St. Louis, is a big backer of coal-to-liquid tech.
When Obama introduced the coal-to-liquids bill back in January, he drew catcalls from environmentalists. Frank O’Donnell, the executive director of a Washington group called the Clean Air Watch, told Grist’s Amanda Griscom Little: “Obama may be a climate crusader, but in this case he’s marching in the wrong direction.â€
Now, as his presidential campaign gathers momentum, Obama’s position will get more unwelcome attention. Along with other coal-state lawmakers, including two powerful House Democrats from Virginia, Nick Rahall and Rick Boucher, Obama backs massive federal subsidies for coal as a so-called alternative fuel.
As Edmund Andrews reported in an excellent front-page story in The New York Times:
Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years…
Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel.
Environmentalists are appalled. Frances Bienecke, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me: “If you fill your Prius with liquid coal, it would be like driving a Hummer.†She described the coal-to-liquids proposal, as now written, as “an ecological disaster.†You can download an NRDC report on coal-to-liquids here.
An MIT researcher told The Times that “at best, you’re going to tread water on the carbon issue and you’re probably going to do worse.â€
Coal-to-liquids technology has a less-than-illustrious history. Known as the Fischer-Tropsch process, it was used by Germany during World War II and by South Africa during the apartheid era because both countries had access to coal but were unable to obtain oil on international markets.
But the problem with the technology isn’t its history. It’s the fact that no coal-to-liquids plant built on a commercial scale has been able to capture and store carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that causes global warming. Without carbon capture and sequestration, studies show, turning coal into liquid fuel generates 125% more CO2 than producing diesel fuel and 66% more than burning gasoline.
An Obama spokesman told Grist that the senator “believes that through investment and innovation, we can make these technologies cleaner.†The trouble is, the massive federal subsidies now being proposed do not require that energy companies deploy technology to capture and store carbon.
I take no pleasure is saying that this will damage Obama. I read his autobiography, Dreams From My Father, a few months ago, and came away very impressed. I want to believe that he is a different kind of political leader.
But by supporting a Big Coal boondoggle, Obama is not simply disappointing those voters who care about environmental issues.
He is undermining his own claim to be above politics, to be the kind of leader who looks beyond narrow, parochial interests to do what’s right for all Americans.
Energy independence is a laudable, if elusive goal, but the resource in short supply here is political courage.
So what I don’t understand is if this legislation is proposing such massive investments and commitments, involves developing a new means to capture carbons, and involves new construction and re-tooling, why don’t the senators from coal states just propose the funding be used to fund these companies to produce clean alternative energy sources?
Regarding Barack Obama’s support for coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel, you may want to conduct more research about the issue before you critize him so strongly. The truth is that this process is, indeed, not only an intelligent approach to our energy future, but is backed by a number of enviromentalists. The popular current knee-jerk reaction is to condemn anything that has the word “coal” associated with it as automatically bad for greenhouse ommissions and unacceptable. It’s also currently popular to support nuclear power-which doesn’t contribute to the greenhouse gas problem, but has other significant problems that make it unacceptable to those who really understand the issue.And another current darling-ethonol-is a complete fraud-expensive, polluting and not cost-effective except to corn farmers. The new processes being developed to make CTL clean and safe are impressive , and if you want to really understand the issue, rather just react, please do your homework.(Google: coal to liquid- and read about both sides of the issue) CTL works, is plentiful here in the US and offers a very reasonable long-term solution to a very serious problem.
Alternative Energy Setback: Obama Coal-to-Liquid Supporters Disappoint…
If you looked at the front page of today’s (Tuesday) NY Times, you noticed the article on coal-to-liquid technology. It’s a big deal. Bigger than the Texas coal plants and TXU problem. The blogoshere has erupted and it looks like Obama Barack showed …
Thanks for all your comments. John, I agree with you about corn ethanol but I haven’t found any environmentalists who support CTL in the absences of carbon capture and storage. If this bill was conditioned on capturing and storing carbon, I’d support it, I think, and I certainly would not be disappointed in Obama. I don’t believe there is a large-scale CTL capture and storage facility anywhere.
Besides, I much prefer markets to govt subsidies of any kind (including for ethanol, solar, wind). I’d say put a tax on carbon to capture its true environmental costs and then let the clean energy competition begin.
Any president’s most significant action is who s/he appoints to office. The evidence that Obama is receiving and repeating very bad energy advice now is a bad omen for his candidacy
[...] Business writer Marc Gunther doesn’t like liquefied coal. Neither does the New York Times editorial board. [...]
In a nutshell — because of its chemical composition, coal emits more carbon to create the same amount of energy, compared to petroleum or natural gas. More on this on Environmental Defense’s blog: http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/04/24/should-we-fill-our-gas-tanks-with-coal/.
As Marc says, we *can* both use coal and limit carbon pollution. But John, that doesn’t seem to be the proposal on the table. If we don’t plan to limit the carbon pollution, replacing gasoline with coal would take emissions in the wrong direction. This is why we favor a cap and trade solution — it would make carbon pollution a factor in technology decisions like this.
[...] E tu, Barack?: On his personal blog, Fortune reporter Marc Gunther has some strong words for Barack Obama about the incongruity of the presidential candidate’s Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. (MarcGunther.com) File under Big Ag, Meat & poultry, News, Revolting food. LINK [...]
[...] E tu, Barack?: On his personal blog, Fortune reporter Marc Gunther has some strong words for Barack Obama about the incongruity of the presidential candidate’s Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. (MarcGunther.com) File under Big Ag, Meat & poultry, News, Revolting food. LINK [...]
[...] Coal-to-liquid is one of several technologies in recent memory that have tried to stretch the definition of “alternative fuel” in the name of energy independence. Experts are in disagreement about whether coal-to-liquid technology breaks even or is a negative in terms of carbon, although all agree that it does much more harm than renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar. [...]
In a recent TV interview Al Gore called this legislation “a horrible mistake”. Watch the video and learn who else is co-sponsoring this legislation at West Virginia Blue: http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=458
this article is worthless. the author doesn’t even know the difference between Virginia and West Virginia. Nick Rahall is a powerful democrat from West Virginia. In case you didn’t know, West Virginia broke away from Virginia when President Lincoln was in office.
The facts are despite an 80% emissions increase since 1970’s, there hasn’t been the slightest real-world temperature trend change up in any of our four seasons, period. And, according to Mt. Washington Weather Station AMS (American Meteorological Society) report, the 70-year data summary actually shows the summer temperature trend to be slightly down.
Real world, the isn’t the slightest proof CO2 has cause and effect to anything except making plants grow. Further, new and recent satellite and ocean buoy data show all climate models got it totally wrong. To justify consumers spending $billions extra for electricity and oil each year based on such baloney science is unthinkable, and unfair.
Sorry, Mr. Gunther, but global warming is a lot of hot air, and as more scientists and engineers who know this get heard, that will become totally apparent to the average American as well. They will then stop this dirty CO2 politics once and for all. There need be no restrictions on coal use due to CO2 or any other fossil energy source
[...] correct position opposing a scrap of the gas tax, he’s come under fire for his support for coal-to-liquid technology. His record on coal is mixed to say the least, and I’d look to his vice [...]
[...] before Obama returns to the state for the debates on Sunday, we have to point to this blog entry that explains Obama’s position on coal-to-liquid fuel. It writes: “he is undermining [...]
[...] remember last spring when coal, specifically Obama’s flip-flops on liquefied coal technology became a big frickin’ deal to a lot of my John Edwards supporting friends in Blogtopia. [...]
[...] remember last spring when coal, specifically Obama’s flip-flops on liquefied coal technology became a big frickin’ deal to a lot of my John Edwards supporting friends in Blogtopia. So [...]
Marc Gunther
Mr Obama made it clear yesterday that getting our economy going again was to be one of his first priorities when he reaches the white house. I believe that our government encouraging the coal companies and others to build several coal to liquids plants would prove to be an excellent component of the stimulus package. The path to energy independence must certainly include increases iin solar and wind power gernertion but diesel trucks and locomotives must have diesel fuel that can be made in coal to liquids plants.
In addition to energy independence, clearly thousands of good jobs would be created in construction, mining and manufacturing industries if the coal to liquids plants are built.
Matt McMahon
Former Group Leader in Coal Research