Democratic candidates play up "clean coal"

[Pawel K]

Source: Reuters

CLEAR FORK, West Virginia (Reuters) - Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking more about "clean coal" and less about global warming as they woo voters in West Virginia and Kentucky -- two states that sit at the heart of the nation's coal economy.

...

"We need some big investments right now in figuring out how to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal," Clinton told a rally in the rural town of Clear Fork on Monday.

...

Not to be outdone, Obama's campaign has distributed flyers in Kentucky stating that "Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal." The flyers show a picture of giant barges carrying coal down the Ohio River.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1231769120080512

---

Disgusting. :puke:

There is no such thing as "clean coal", I can't tell you how disappointed I am to see both of them pandering like that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Nope. No clean coal.

I wonder what McCuckoo would do....???

[still_one]

2. Thank-you for informing people the truth, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL /nt

[SpiralHawk]

4. Because it is true that there is NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL

Jeez...sad state of affairs...

[still_one]

9. I know, it is just that a lot of people do not understand the politics involved /nt

[hatrack]

3. Did they do a photo-op next to a carbon-sequestering power plant?

Oh, that's right, they didn't - because such plants DON'T EXIST.

Of course, we're talking about maybe building one someday, or maybe some additional studies or something . . .

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. I think it was next to the place where they're thinking of building one.

I'm checking for a link...

[Sequoia]

5. We used to heat our old water heater stove with coal when I was a kid

We couldn't afford it really so mom heated water on the stove and we'd have to wash our dishes like that and have 2 inch bathwater baths. I didn't have a real bubble bath until we got an electric water heater when I was in 11th grade. Clean coal....what a joke. I'm a little disappointed our candidates would support such a thing.

[Lautremont]

6. Bunkum & honeydew.

[ToughLuck]

7. This is a huge problem, clean coal is an oxymoron..way too expensive

and the destruction to the environment is an outrage. If Al Gore does not endorse either of them, won't be a surprise this is the reason..and I don't blame him.
Mountain top removal..horrible!!!!

[Nihil]

27. "Clean coal is an oxymoron" ... so true ...

Furthermore, it is an oxymoron that is only supported by full-blooded morons ...

Don't worry America: you'll get the best presidential candidate that the
corporations can buy!

[ohio2007]

8. Must be stumping for votes in W.Va....next stop.clean nuclear hazardous waste disposal

nt

[mod mom]

10. Coal's True Cost" By RFK Jr. 'there is no such thing as "clean coal." ':

Coal's True Cost
Posted November 29, 2007 | 09:31 PM (EST)

Last evening's GOP CNN/YouTube debate and the Democratic presidential debate on November 15 were jointly sponsored by a coal industry coalition comprised of mining, railroad and utility interests.

Their high profile civic involvement is designed to further confuse American voters about coal's true cost to our society. Many of the Republican candidates have endorsed massive new subsidies for King Coal and dutifully parrot industry talking points including earnest promises of cheap "clean coal." Given that climate change is the most urgent threat to our collective survival, it is shocking that no debate moderator has pressed the candidates to clearly state their positions on "clean coal."

In fact, there is no such thing as "clean coal." And coal is only "cheap" if one ignores its calamitous externalized costs. In addition to global warming, these include dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates. Coal's most catastrophic and permanent impacts are from mountaintop removal mining. If the American people could see what I have seen from the air and ground during my many trips to the coalfields of Kentucky and West Virginia: leveled mountains, devastated communities, wrecked economies and ruined lives, there would be a revolution in this country.

Well now you can visit coal country without ever having to leave your home. Every presidential candidate and every American ought to take a few seconds to visit an ingenious new website created by Appalachian Voices, that allows one to tour the obliterated landscapes of Appalachia. And it's not just Arch Coal, Massey Coal and their corporate toadies in electoral politics who are culpable for the disaster. The amazing new website allows you to enter your zip code to learn how you're personally connected to the great crime of mountaintop removal. Using this website Americans from Maine to California can see these mountains and the communities that were sacrificed to power their home. The tool uses Google Maps and Google Earth as interfaces to a large database of power plants and mountaintop removal coal mines. A November 15, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journalhighlighted the site as one of the most innovative, cutting-edge uses of these powerful tools. The site puts a human face on the issue by highlighting the stories of families living in the shadows of these mines.

Each day the coal barons from companies like Massey and Arch detonate 2500 tons of explosives-the power of a Hiroshima bomb every week-to blow away Appalachian mountain tops to reach the coal seams beneath. Colossal machines then plow the rock and debris into the adjacent river valleys and hollows, destroying forests and burying free-flowing mountain streams, flattening North America's most ancient mountain range. According to EPA 1,200 miles of American rivers and streams have already been permanently interred and 470 of Appalachia's largest mountains have simply disappeared, leaving behind giant pits and barren moonscapes, some as large as Manhattan Island. I recently flew over one 18 square-mile pit - Hobet 21 - which you can now tour on Google Earth!

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/coals-true-cost_b_74738.html

[DUlover2909]

11. I think they should pander if that's what it takes to win.

The repukes make a living lying to voters and renigging on campaign promises. At this point it's more important to get the White House and do some good rather than tell the whole, stark, ugly truth during an election and lose because of it. Mondale admitted that higher taxes were a necessity and got killed in the GE.

[Pawel K]

12. I don't know that's such a good idea

We are on the verge of gaining a bigger lead in both the house and the senate as well as taking the white house. Lying to voters isn't going to keep you there too long. Americans have had enough, being told the truth for once in their lives might be a nice wake up.

Maybe this is a pipe dream on my part but this story really shocked me. I expected this from Hillary but in the case of Obama he is pandering in an election he already won. I expected better.

[Dogmudgeon]

14. Some of Obama's big corporate sponsors have been energy companies

He has been an active promoter of nuclear energy. I don't consider this to necessarily be a bad thing (the left should rethink its position on all energy issues) but I was amazed to find so many reliably anti-nuke lefties waxing poetic about him.

"I expected this from Hillary ..."

So much for external appearances. People often see in their leaders what they want to see -- there are no exceptions. This always happens with successful liberal politicians.

--p!

[Pawel K]

16. Just for the record I am all for nuclear energy

and from what I recalled about Obama was that he was against it from what I've seen at one of the debates. I hope I'm wrong, I hope he is for it.

[depakid]

22. Obama's statement in Oregon this weekend on nuclear power:

Asked by an audience member whether he would favor more nuclear power plants, Obama said: "My position is not to say 'No nuclear ever.' My position has been if you can show me a way to store nuclear waste or recycle it in a way that is safe . . . then I would be happy to consider it as part of an overall energy mix."

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1210474514111150.xml&coll=7

Here's a statement from his 2004 Senate campaign:

As Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/05/senator-obama-climate-change-air.html

I reckon that's a pretty reasonable statement in light of America's tremendous (and exceptionally wasteful) energy appetite.

Edwards Statement is probably what you recalled from this debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE

As was mentioned, it is curious that some of the more rabid anti-nuke folks seem to have put the issue on the back burner, so to speak -as they're also among some of the more ardent Obama supporters.

[rdenney]

25. Nuclear energy or coal? Take your pick because wind and solar ain't gonna cut it for

many, many years, if ever, as a primary energy source.

When your house is freezing cold, your food is rotting in the non-working fridge, your stove cant cook food, and the bathtub water is "cold only", who ya gonna call on for the energy needed?

Until the day that we can develop a better, cleaner and compact source of energy (fusion?) then
we have right now we are going to have to make do with what we have, as best and as cleanly as
we can make possible.

I know lots of you won't like reading this, but those are the COLD, HARD facts, like it or not.

[madrchsod]

19. obama has been a big coal guy since

southern illinois has more coal than god but it`s high sulfur..northern illinois is reactor heaven...i have no illusions about obama when it come to these issues...

[Benhurst]

28. Do a Google on Obama and Excelon if you really want to get depressed.

[jmowreader]

29. RENEGING!!!

"Renigging" sounds very racist.

[DUlover2909]

30. sorry mispelled. I shoulda checked.

[nam78_two]

15. That is disappointing :-/ .nt

[Phred42]

17. Stupid bastards - there is NO clean coal

[madrchsod]

18. big coal democrats

several of the democratic debates were sponsored by big coal...you noticed there were only a few questions asked about the environment...do`t look for either candidate to actually do something drastic about the use of coal

[daleo]

20. The more things change... n/t

[jcooksey]

21. Cleaner Coal

I understand everyones concern about coal right now, but we have to realize that we cant just shut off the coal fired power plants. I believe that if 50% of the electrical generating capacity left us overnight, there would be very many of you out there wondering what kind of mistake you made, first of all your food in the refrigerator would be thawing out, your computer wouldn't be able to be powered up so you can bitch about coal fired plants, your 50 inch flat screen would be nothing more than an object hanging on your wall, air conditioner would be dead, and in the evening you would have to figure out how to light your home and what you are going to do without TV all evening.
I hope I made my point I am as concerned about the environment as the next guy, but we have to be smart about how we go about approaching the problem. Scientific research has proven that we need to get going on this problem.
I hate to say it but I agree with both candidates on this issue we need to clean these coal plants up immediately in order to buy some time for alternative power to be brought on line. As it stands right now wind energy is fine but the wind only blows approx. 35% of the time which until we come up with a way to store that energy we still need to provide power for the other 65% of the time.Solar energy is great but in order to produce I believe its about 50 megawatts it takes a tremendous amount of land for the solar panels and mirrors, hundreds of acres. Right now there is major research going on for a super small Solar Panel that will provide as much energy as a panel 100 times its size, but once again what do you do when the sun goes down? We as a country need to invest as much into alternative energy as we have in an ill advised war and then possibly we can come up with the method and capability to store this green energy, but until then this country is going to burn coal so lets spend the money and time to take the Carbon out of coal.
In speaking with the the power industry they realize that something has to be done as far as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, but they are resisting due to the cost and also the loss of anywhere from 25% to 35% of their generating capacity. On top of that our government has done nothing in the last eight years to give these companies any kind of direction, they are waiting for some kind of direction to go as far as Carbon Capture and Sequestration is considered they know they have to spend the money in order to eliminate the carbon flow into our atmosphere.
I spoke with a geology professor three weeks ago and asked him what it would take to sequester carbon underground safely, he told me about 1/100 of the Iraq war bill. He stated that the research is being done but on a shoestring budget, and that there are a lot of areas that are capable of storing carbon for thousands of years, hell they held oil forever till we pumped it out.
In conclusion I would like to say that yes coal is dirty, we need to spend the money to clean it up, which in turn will raise the price of coal generated electricity which in turn will promote conservation.But in the interim until we get the bugs worked out with alternative and green energy sources we still need the capacity to use coal for electricity production, and not put ourselves literally in the dark ages prematurely for the sake of crusade against big coal.

[magellan]

24. I foresee a lot of Americans facing thawing, rancid food SOON

...because the US is currently shipping boatloads of coal to places like CHINA and that is increasing electricity prices across America NOW.

Our situation: we are consistently using LESS kw/h month over month than last year but paying 20-30% MORE for it. Explain to me how even more expensive "clean" coal is going to help us keep our lights on?

The "clean" coal nonsense is just another way of sticking it to middle class America while the energy companies make profits hand over fist selling our resources to the highest overseas bidder. Until we get serious about renewable energy sources right here, we can expect to see bad go to MUCH WORSE.

[eilen]

32. Nothing seems to make a difference

When we conserve, we get hit with a "surcharge" because we aren't using as much. When we switch to a clean energy supplier, it costs more because it is more expensive to set up, it's an emerging technology. I'd rather see some type of regulation requiring our national energy needs be served first before any export. I say this knowing we purchase quite a bit of energy from Canada (natural gas). My distributer is owned by a British company (National Greed oops, Grid). Since NG took over, we have more power outages for longer amounts of time. They have cut down the service trucks drastically.

We are becoming more and more like a third world country. We have foreign owned companies appealing to our government to execute eminent domain to benefit their companies to the effect of disenfranchising state taxpayers --check out NYRI (or rather Stop NYRI).

[rdenney]

26. Well put !!! n/t

[eilen]

31. Thoughtful and warranted

thanks for your well reasoned post. It is true, we do need to transition.

[cnc1970]

23. Gee a politician compromising themselves for needed votes!

What a surprise! When will everyone learn that both of these candidates like all others are just after your vote so they can get power no matter how they get it, none of them give a rats arse about any of us.