Back when I was supporting Edwards, one of my major concerns with Obama was in his support for “clean coal.” I wrote about it at the time, over at Green Mountain Daily. Here’s what I wrote:
There’s a great diary over at MyDD which outlines some serious problems with an energy bill which is cosponsored by Obama. The first is a bill to support liquid coal. From the diary:
We don’t know how to sequester mass quantities of carbon dioxide created during coal liquefaction yet. Even once we figure that process out–a solution that will no doubt reduce the net energy output of the coal to fuel process itself–we’ve still got a dirty fuel that increases greenhouse emissions compared to petroleum.
There’s also a draft bill up for discussion that includes a provision which will screw us, as Vermonters, over, along with a lot of other states.
Per The Rutland Herald:
A dozen states, including Vermont and Massachusetts, would be blocked from imposing new requirements on automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under a draft energy bill being prepared for a vote later this month.
The “discussion draft” would prohibit the head of the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing a waiver needed for a state to impose auto pollution standards if the new requirements are “designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
This is bad. The first bill has quite a few Democratic sponsors and presents a serious danger. The second is only in draft form, so it’s got a much better chance of being modified before it makes it into being an actual bill, but they’re both representative of how much work we have to do to deal with the existing archaic mentality when it comes to proper energy usage.
I hadn’t heard much from Obama on the clean coal front lately; I was hoping maybe he’d figured out what a bad idea it was. Apparently not. Talking Points Memo has a pro-coal ad going up in Kentucky, in which he promotes his legislative record in support of “clean coal:”
Think Clinton’s any better on this? Not according to her website:
…Hillary will urge all of the nation’s stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.
Here’s Chelsea promoting “clean” coal in PA:
And please, don’t even get me started on McCain.
This is royally screwed up. No matter whom you support, you should be telling them what nonsense “clean coal” is. Greenpeace has its number:
Despite over 10 years of research and $5.2 billion of investment in the US alone , scientists are still unable to make coal clean. The Australian government spends A$0.5 million annually to promote Australia’s ‘clean coal’ to the Asia Pacific region. “Clean coal” technologies are expensive and do nothing to mitigate the environmental effects of coal mining or the devastating effects of global warming. Furthermore, clean coal research risks diverting investment away from renewable energy, which is available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now.
The first CCT programs were set up in the late 1980s in response to concerns over acid rain. The programs focused on reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), the primary causes of acid rain. Now the elusive promise of “clean coal” technology is being used to promote coal as an energy source.
(also see their myths and facts about clean coal)
It’s time all our candidates get off this bandwagon and it’s past time we start challenging them when their debates are sponsored by lobbyists for the coal industry.