Coal-to-liquid technology (CTL), also called the Fischer-Tropsch process, has been around since the 1920's, and was used in Nazi Germany and South Africa, according to Neiman Watchdog. And it's no bargain: The basic technology is expensive. The U.S. launched the multi-billion-dollar Synthetic Fuels Corporation during the oil-price shocks of the Carter administration to gain some protection against geopolitical blackmail like the Arab oil embargo and the emerging market power of OPEC. But after some $8 billion in spending, the Synfuels Corp. was dismantled during the Reagan administration, partly because it produced few results and partly because the price of oil dropped to levels where coal-to-liquids no longer had any commercial feasibility. The Reagan administration pointed with wagging finger to the episode as a lesson in why government should not intervene in free markets. Coal-to-liquids costs more in energy as well as in dollars. It takes a lot of energy, both as feedstock and process heat, presumably in the form of coal, to make a small amount of liquid fuel. Finally, coal-to-liquids technology, at the current state of the art, is no environmental bargain. It produces a lot more carbon dioxide (the principal gas causing global warming) than conventional petroleum or coal. The coal industry claims that this problem could be overcome by capturing and sequestering the carbon dioxide underground – but the technical ability to do this may be years away for most sites and is not provided for in the coal-to-liquids bill. Industry advocates often refer to coal-derived liquid fuel as "clean." But they are referring to the amount of pollution it emits, relative to conventional diesel or gasoline, when burned in a car engine. The real problem is the emissions produced in making the fuel in the first place.
We often heard Dick Cheney mention 'clean-coal technologies' in the Presidential campaigns. What an endorsement. Al Gore has called it a "terrible mistake". Now, Obama represents Illinois, which is the seventh largest coal producing state in the country, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, and nearly 32 million tons of Illinois coal were mined in 2005, generating nearly $1 billion in gross revenue. Those aren't small numbers. And look at what Obama and others want to give the coal industry (it's behind the Times Select archive, so I'm not linking): 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.
Did you get that? Automatic subsidies if oil drops below $40 a barrel? Great use of your tax dollars, eh? Now, Obama has defended this from the idea of 'energy independence', meaning that we should do this to wean ourselves of the Middle Eastern oil teat. Noble, sure, but incredibly short-sighted. As Eco-Geek points out: The technology to convert coal to liquid fuel has existed since the 1920s. If congress were to mandate and fund its implementation America would begin to slowly gain energy independence, Peabody Coal's net worth would increase tenfold to roughly $3.6 trillion, the Appalachian Mountains would be destroyed and U.S. carbon emissions would double. This is a bad idea.
Unless, of course, you like your mountaintops looking like this: 
Photo: Vivian Stockman/SouthWings Is this the kind of vision Obama has for the Appalachians? All of the inspirational rhetoric in the world isn't going to make this any better. Now, let me be clear here. I'm not writing this as one of those "my candidate is better" angles, because other than 'anyone but Hillary", I don't have a candidate right now. This crap is par for the course, more particularly if one is a Republican, and everything is measured by its worth in dollar signs and nothing else. But green issues are at the top of my list and Obama is failing miserably on this, and last I checked, he wasn't running for the GOP nomination. There's no way of spinning out of the fact that he's got Big Coal's back on this one. And this isn't doing anything, anything at all to help move this country to a sustainable energy policy. Zip. Zero. We need a leader who is going to lead on this, and that means thinking outside of the box, acknowledging that our habits will need to change, and acknowledging that certain industries' days are numbered. That takes some real courage. And the Netroots aren't happy about this, either. Stoller: I just don't get it. I really don't. But I think a lot of this kind of nonsense has to do with a basic lack of responsibility among citizens. Last week, I spoke to a friend who graduated from Harvard Law and just got done clerking for a high level judge. He's smart and highly credentialled, and he supports Obama because he thinks Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism and will decolonize our foreign policy. I walked him through the rhetoric which showed him that this was just not true, and he acknowledged that Obama's rhetoric was at odds with what he believed about Obama. And yet, he just didn't care. He just offered that Obama was saying this because he had to say it to get elected. And this post, though about Obama, could be about any of them. Here we have a clear example of how Obama just doesn't take global warming seriously as a Senator, pushing for billions of dollars of carbon spewing coal subsidies. And yet he's going to go on and talk about a different type of politics, and blow away fundraising numbers and continue to have people talk about how he's this great progressive. It's crazy. It's like Hillary Clinton hiring a union-buster as her chief strategist, and the AFL-CIO and Change to Win being... silent.
And Alex UA at FutureMajority: Why would Obama make such a brazen anti-environmentalist move, one that flies in the face of the cries for action on carbon emissions from the American Public and the World? Obama's excuse is that it is for energy independence, after all, if you don't support pushing us further towards environmental catastrophe then the terrorists have already won. Of course the real reason is the same reason that made me decide that I wouldn't go anywhere near politics as a young man: Obama's state is full of coal, and the powerful people who have given him the millions of dollars to run for Senate and the Presidency want payback. My big question is do Democratic voters care enough about the Global Warming issue to make it a wedge issue for the election? Are people so lulled to sleep by Obama's pillow talk that they fail to understand how morally repugnant his actions are?
Preston DK at the enviro-blog Jetson Green: But, recently, I've gone away from Obama, but not for any single issue. Why, you ask? Because it is clear he makes decisions based on money or popularity, or both. Coal is big in his state, and the lobby is really strong. But he capitulated to the lobby and made a decision that was unhealthy for the American people. That's illustrative of character. Who's going to be the politician that will stand up to the lobby and say, "I'm sorry, but that's not right for America." If we're going to be serious about bandying support for Al Gore's documentary, supporting coal-to-liquid is a blatant contradiction. You can't support efforts to stop global warming and support coal-to-liquid (in its current form).
Who, indeed? Now, as one who's never quite understood the Obama phenomenon, I'm not surprised by any of this. But to the Obama supporters out there, instead of trying to rationalize this away (as so many have), why not put some pressure on your man to change his mind and show some of that 'courage' that he seems to be so fond of talking about all of the time? A press release from Obama didn't really clear anything up: "Today's incorrect story in CongressDaily 'Senate Debate Is Likely To Test Party, Regional Priorities,' misstates Senator Obama's position on the development of coal-to-liquid fuels. Senator Obama recognizes that global warming is one of the most significant problems that we face. He supports an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from all sources by 2050 and a 10% reduction in the carbon emissions of transportation fuels by 2020. Senator Obama supports research into all technologies to help solve our climate change and energy dependence problems, including shifting our energy use to renewable fuels and investing in technology that could make coal a clean burning source of energy. However, 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. If an amendment is offered on the Senate floor that would provide incentives for - or mandate the use of - coal-to-liquid fuels without these environmental safeguards, Senator Obama will oppose the amendment." Howzabout opposing the bill, Senator? Last I checked, you were still a cosponsor. Clem Guttata at WV Blue, the West Viginia Sopblox blog (and a state that has been devastated by mountaintop mining in more ways than one could count) calls for a time out: There are many better alternatives to this corporate welfare--alternative that can help reduce America's energy dependence, start reducing our carbon foot-print, and produce high-paying technology-based jobs: 1. Invest that money in light rail, a smart electrical grid, energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, smart buildings, and the myriad of other American technologies to reduce energy consumption. For a top 10 list of good ideas, look no further than Al Gore's recent testimony to Congress. 2. Clean up coal first before giving the industry any subsidies: (a) require all coal-burning power plants to use the latest clean air technology, (b) solve the technical problem of carbon sequestration for CTL before approving any industry subsidies, not afterwards, and (c) end mountain-top removal forever more first. 3. What's the hurry to expand coal production today? Why not leave our coal reserves where they are for another 30-50 years? Let's wait until we figure out how to extract them without the devastating human, societal, and environmental damage caused by mountain top removal (MTR). The world may be all but out of oil by then, our coal will be worth even more, and maybe (just maybe) we'll have technology right to truly have clean coal.
I don't think we'll ever have 'clean coal. And like I said, even if we did, it's a non-renewable resource. We really need a candidate who is going to address these issues forcefully, and foreward thinking. I'm not convinced that there's one running at this point. And unless we hoot and holler about it, we're not going to get one. UPDATED: More on Obama's supposed about-face on this here. I'm still not clear, was the coal provison an amendment he's no longer supporting or is it part of the actual bill? If it's an amendment, then he did the right thing. But it still begs the question as to why he would have gotten on board in the first place, and the fact that it's still supporting a 20th century energy policy. |
