Let's talk coal - A talking head on Chris Matthews April 6th said Obama is wrong on coal - is he???

[1776Forever]

Obama on the Record
An interview with Barack Obama about his presidential platform on energy and the environment
By Amanda Griscom Little
30 Jul 2007

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/30/obama/

In his two and a half years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has been active -- even hyperactive -- on matters of energy and the environment. The Democrat from Illinois has introduced or cosponsored nearly 100 eco-related bills on issues ranging from lead poisoning and mercury emissions to auto fuel economy and biofuels promotion. Along the way, he's racked up a notable 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

Question:

You've received a lot of criticism from enviros of your support for coal-to-liquids technology. You recently shifted your position somewhat, but haven't retracted it. Why?

Answer:

I was always firm that if the life-cycle carbon emissions of coal-to-liquid were higher than gasoline, we couldn't do it because it would contradict my position on reducing greenhouse gases. But I also believe that, because of the abundance of coal in the U.S., coal-based fuels could be a substitute for some of the oil we import from the Middle East, as long as we can reduce the resulting CO2 emissions to 20 percent below current levels from petroleum-based fuels.

Question:

How much should we be willing to pay in taxpayer money to make liquid coal that clean?

Answer:

Our original bill on coal-to-liquids -- which generated a lot of heat in the environmental community, no pun intended -- proposed $200 million for demonstration projects, to see where this technology might take us.

If the technology exists for us to use coal in a clean fashion, then that is something all of us should welcome, particularly because China and India are building coal-fired power plants at a rapid rate, and they likely have lifespans of several decades. Coal is a cheaper resource, and they're going to be figuring out a way to exploit it, so we should help to find technologies that will ensure that if it is used, it is used cleanly. The U.S. is recognized as the global leader in understanding better geologic coal-sequestration technologies. If we abandon that leadership, we risk leaving the rest of the planet wide open to investing billions in polluting infrastructure.

But I stress again that my position has been consistent throughout: If we are using coal in the absence of these clean technologies, then we are going to be worsening the trend of global warming, and that is something that we can't do.

Question:

Do you support a freeze in the U.S. on new coal development until these clean-coal technologies are commercially available?

Answer:

I believe that relying on the ingenuity of the free market, coupled with a strong carbon cap, is the best way to reduce carbon emissions rather than an arbitrary freeze on development.

.........................

Per this website:

http://www.americaspower.org/

Did you know that half of the electricity that heats our homes, lights our schools, and powers our businesses comes from coal?

.................................

Technology Called The Key To Climate Change Challenge

04/03/2008 02:54 pm

Posted by: Joe Lucas

Interesting reading in Scientific American this week.

Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs wrote:

Technology policy lies at the core of the climate change challenge. Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people. The key is new low-carbon technology, not simply energy efficiency.

We routinely receive comments that our commitment to promoting CCS technology simply is a “ploy” to ensure profits for “big coal.” At some point, regardless if you believe simply renewables and energy efficiency are the cure-all to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions, it ultimately becomes entirely counterproductive to argue against the need to develop clean coal technologies.

According to Dr. Sachs:

Early demonstration projects are likely to be many times more costly than later ones, and will almost certainly require some public funding. Broad public acceptance and support will therefore be crucial for the technology. Yet to date, the U.S. government has failed to get even one demonstration CCS power plant off the ground, and various private initiatives are currently stranded, all because of the lack of public support and financing.

Let's not forget that coal production and usage is not going away as a global issue, and the sooner we develop these technologies, the sooner we can share these new technologies with other countries. Instead of wasting valuable time protesting funding for critical new technologies, isn’t the planet better served if all that time and energy were put toward finding ways to ensure the funding and deployment of these essential new technologies?

..............

Let's see where this goes before jumping on the issue too much - I think it needs clarification and research.

[KittyWampus]

1. I support using "clean-coal" technology for the next 30 years for purely pragmatic reasons.

#1. we will need cheap, easy fuel in the very near future when switching to green economy.
#2. any politician coming out against coal would be crucified.

Now when it comes to nuclear, I am very much not in favor of it. At all. And disagree with Obama if he endorses it.

[1776Forever]

2. I agree with that - I am curious as to how the nuclear issue will be vetted - I think he will listen

He says he will and if enough people remark on this it will be a mandate against using nuclear power.

:headbang:

[uponit7771]

6. France has been recycling their nuke waste for decades safely, there's no reason we shouldn't

...do the same.

Matter of fact, France sells their capacity to the rest of Europe.

[provis99]

7. because the French are careful and efficient, and we're incompetent American clods?

Just because the French don't blow themselves up, doesn't mean we won't. After all the French didn't invade Iraq and create a giant clusterfuck, we did. Never underestimate America's ability to do the wrong, dangerous thing.

[sudopod]

3. Holy shit!

Compromise!

[OzarkDem]

4. Obama: "Relying on the ingenuity of the free market"

Sorry, Obama. Thanks, but no thanks. The free market doesn't work well with any energy industry, the oil industry being a perfect example.

Keep in mind, Obama comes from a state where coal companies exercise a great deal of influence on public policy and politicians.

[uponit7771]

5. No, America is the Saudi Arabia of coal and we SHOULD be using our own resources to get off....

...OPEC and the foreign oil markets. To hell with them, they've cause us more harm than good.

Germany survived WWII on their own coal (with a lil help from Austria) there's no reason this country can't do the same.