Last week, I wrote about some of the horrible energy legislation coming up in the Senate. A particular aspect, which has generated a lot of controversy, is Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's co-sposorship of energy legislation that contains huge subsidies for the coal industry, in the form of money for 'coal liquification', that is, making usable oil and gasoline from coal. Like many others, I believe Obama is showing an astounding lack of leadership on this issue, and it's making his statements that he is “serious” about global warming a bit hard to take seriously. More below the jump.

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. 

Maybe some of you have seen this already, but Media Matters and the Campaign for America's Future lay it all out…

Here's the Executive Summary of their joint report…

Conventional wisdom says that the American public is fundamentally conservative – hostile to government, in favor of unregulated markets, at peace with inequality, wanting a foreign policy based on the projection of military power, and traditional in its social values.

But as this report demonstrates, that picture is fundamentally false. Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time.

This report gathers together years of public opinion data from unimpeachably nonpartisan sources to show that on issue after issue, the majority of Americans hold progressive positions. And this is true not only of specific policy proposals, but of the fundamental perspectives and approaches that Americans bring to bear on issues.

Nor is the progressive majority merely a product of the current political moment. On a broad array of issues, particularly social issues, American opinion has grown more and more progressive over the past few decades. In contrast, it is difficult to find an issue on which the public has grown steadily more conservative over the last 10, 20, or 30 years.

The issues covered in this report include the following:

• The role of government – Americans support an  active government that tackles problems, provides services, and aids those  in need.
• The economy – Americans support increasing  the minimum wage and strong unions, and believe the wealthy and  corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes.
• Social issues – Americans support legal  abortion and embryonic stem cell research; opinions on equal rights for  women and gay Americans have grown dramatically more progressive in recent  years.
• Security – Americans support a  progressive approach to national security, emphasizing strong alliances  and diplomacy over the indiscriminate use of military force. On domestic  security issues, progressive approaches to crime and gun control enjoy  wide support.
• The environment – By enormous margins, Americans  favor strong environmental protections, a core progressive belief.
• Energy – Americans support energy  conservation and the development of alternative fuels.
• Health care – Americans clearly favor universal coverage and are  more than comfortable with government solutions to the health care  problem.

In short, a look across the scope of American public opinion reveals a public that holds progressive positions and supports progressive solutions on economic issues, on social issues, on security issues – indeed, on nearly all the key issues confronting the country. For years, the conventional wisdom has maintained just the opposite, but the facts are impossible to ignore.

 For the full PDF, go here. But, there's more detail below the fold…

• The role of government — 69 percent of Americans believe the  government “should care for those who can't care for  themselves;” twice as many people (43 percent vs. 20 percent) want “government to  provide many more services even if it means an increase in spending”  as wanted government to provide fewer services “in order to reduce  spending.”
• The economy — 77 percent of Americans think Congress  should increase the minimum wage; 66 percent believe “upper-income  people” pay too little in taxes; 53 percent feel the Bush tax cuts have failed  because they have increased the deficit and caused cuts in government programs.
• Social issues — 61 percent of Americans support embryonic  stem cell research; 62 percent  want to protect Roe v. Wade;  only 3 percent of  Americans rank gay marriage as the “most important” social  issue.
• Security — 43 percent of Americans  say we are spending too much on our military; 60 percent feel the federal government  should do more about restricting the kinds of guns that people can  purchase.

» Read the Report and Spread the Word!

• The environment — 75 percent of Americans  would be wiling to pay more for electricity if it were generated by  renewable sources to help reduce global warming; 79 percent want higher emissions standards for automobiles.
• Energy — 52 percent of Americans believe “the  best way for the U.S.  to reduce its reliance on foreign oil” is to “have the  government invest in alternative energy sources;” 68 percent of the public  thinks U.S.  energy policy is better solved by conservation than production.
• Immigration — 57 percent of Americans feel “most  recent immigrants to the U.S.  contribute to this country” rather than “cause  problems.” 67 percent  of Americans feel that “on the whole” immigration is a  “good thing for this country today.”
• Health care – 69 percent of Americans think it is the  responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have  access to health coverage; 76  percent find access to health care more important than  maintaining the Bush tax cuts; three in five would be willing to have  their own taxes increased to achieve universal coverage.

( – promoted by odum)

Benefits to Vermont property owners and Businesses

1. H. 520 provides grants to businesses that invest in energy efficiency as part of new affordable housing construction or renovations to existing affordable housing.

2. H. 520 provides grants and zero-low interest loans on a sliding scale based on need to home owners and businesses for energy efficiency investments.

3. H. 520 creates new programs will be targeted to help more multi-family and rental properties achieve a higher level of energy efficiency.

The Legislature Must Act

The governor says he wants to implement H.520 administratively. But he can’t. Of the 46 sections in the bill, 30 of them deal with changes to existing laws or tax code. Only the legislature can make these changes: the governor proposed to implement a handful of do-nothing provisions and turn the rest of the bill into a giant study, postponing action indefinitely.  

A bit of enviro news for y'all, a shocking and enraging story from Deep Sea News. The military's treatment of the oceans are well known whether it be SONAR testing that harms ocean mammals or nuclear testing. It's just been revealed that the ocean is apparently a great munitions dump, as well:

“The Army now admits that it secretly dumped 64 million pounds of nerve and mustard agents into the sea, along with 400,000 chemical-filled bombs, land mines and rockets and more than 500 tons of radioactive waste – either tossed overboard or packed into the holds of scuttled vessels.”

Apparently, dolphins have washed up on shore with mustard gas burns and such, it's not a pretty sight. It seems the military's path of destruction isn't limited to the just the Middle East. It would be nice to think that heads will roll over this, but I'm not holding my breath, as 'accountablity' isn't in the current regime's vocabulary. Have a look. There's even maps that show where the dumps occured.

( – promoted by odum)

The energy bill (H 520) is important on many levels.  It’s most obvious function is to strike a symbolic (yet necessary) first blow in the fight against Catastrophic Climate Change.

At the same time, it could help set the stage for a new business policy in Vermont, one which favors the small, innovative individual owner-proprietor rather than a model which continues to offer support to big business which return little profit and no loyalty to the state.

Politically, it represents an opportunity to show where we stand as a state, and where we want to go.

The tragedy of Jim Douglas is that he seems determined to follow the national Republican model of rule by fiat rather than by discussion and collaboration…and, in so doing,  he has set himself against the best interests of Vermont.

An earlier Draft of this Post was Cross Posted at Rip and Read

I've already written about my support for H 520, the energy bill which the Vermont Legislature passed, and which Governor Douglas swears will wither under the heel of his veto, and which the Democrats who control the Vermont House are going to fight to keep alive in a summer session. 

I believe that, in addition to a strong symbolic blow against Global Warming (at, at the beginning of an uphill battle, symbolism is actually very, very important), this bill would also be the first step towards creating a business climate in Vermont which would favor small innovative companies…companies which would supply good jobs, and opportunities for citizen ownership and Independence…building, in short, post-industrial version of Jeffersonian Democracy.

 As we look at the deals with Big Business that we have made here in Vermont, and have seen the return we receive…often in the form of corporate pullouts and massive layoffs…a change in our business strategy seems a very desirable outcome. 

There are other reasons to want this bill passed over Jim Douglas' objections. As John Odum, has pointed out:

Legislative Democrats had their chances for a significant power shift increase dramatically today – and they have Jim Douglas to thank for it.Despite an enormous, broad-based push on its behalf, the Governor has made it clear he will veto the climate change bill, which has become less and less controversial the more members of the media, the legislature and the public have had time to familiarize themselves with it… …if a Douglas veto -any veto – is overridden, that'll be the headline in all the papers the next day. And the perceived power shift will have the potential to send shockwaves into the next session, as well as the next election season.

The Burlington Free Press raises an interesting point in a Monday Editorial( yes, the Burlington Free Press…no, I'm not kidding) on Governor Jim Douglas and H.520. In speaking of Douglas' alternative to H 520, the Free Press asks:

At the same time, if the administration had the ideas and the power to act on global warming without legislation and without a new tax, then why did the governor wait until after the session to make his move?…At the same time, if the administration had the ideas and the power to act on global warming without legislation and without a new tax, then why did the governor wait until after the session to make his move?

I think, alas, the answer to the paper's question is obvious: Vermont Republicans have adapted the Republican National Strategy. The Republican national strategy, which has worked so well for George W. Bush, boils down something very simple: ignore the will of the people, they will go home eventually. 

This is a strategy which has stymied progress and overridden the express choice of the people time and time again- the most recent and obvious example being the failure of the U.S Congress to force an end to the now pointless Iraq War. 

And I think it is now clear that this Republican National strategy is seeping down to the State Level. Ruling by fiat is so much simpler than engaging in debate with one's opponents, so much easier than crafting compromises. Rather than engage in a debate, the administration will wait for the legislature to have it's say, and then, go ahead and do exactly what it wants, secure in the knowledge that the people won't be back in sufficient numbers come summer time…. 

And to me, that is the real tragedy of the Jim Douglas story.    Here is a man who started out as (seemingly) a fundamentally decent human being and conscientious public servant; a man who, throughout his career, was often the choice of both major political parties for statewide office; a man who is courtly, neighborly and genuinely friendly; a man who seems to have escaped the trap of hubris and ego that claims so many public servants.

And yet, this man has chosen, time and time again since becoming governor to take the low road rather than the high one.  This man seems determined to grant Big Business what it wants rather than helping Vermonters achieve what they NEED.

 Loading ...