Alternative Energy Setback: Obama + Coal-to-Liquid Supporters Disappoint

If you looked at the front page of today's (Tuesday) NY Times, you noticed the article on coal-to-liquid technology.  It's a big deal.  Bigger than the Texas coal plants and TXU problem.  The blogoshere has erupted and it looks like Obama Barack showed his true colors.  I've noticed a few articles worth mentioning to get up to speed on the issue (all on the pro-green side):

• Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process [NY Times]
• America To the World: Drop Dead, We Have Coal. [Treehugger]
• Barack Obama's Dirty Politics [Marc Gunther - Fortune]
• Clean Coal: The Myth Ends Today [EcoGeek]

Here's the gist: a powerful, bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats are pushing for billions of dollars of subsidies on the controversial coal-to-liquid production plants.  We're talking about loan guarantees for 6-10 major coal-to-liquid plants at a cost of $3 billion per plant.  Coal companies are calling the technology an "alternative" because it's not coming from the Middle East.  In that sense, it's true.  Coal is plentiful and cheap in the United States. Its supporters include Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), and Larry Craig (R-Wy.).

My Opinion:
First of all, recall the difference between renewable and alternative fuels.  Don't conflate the two.  We should now recognize that the term "alternative" includes dirty forms of energy.  Second, in my humble opinion, I'm going to have to side with Marc Gunther. Previously, if I were to vote Democrat, I would have gone with Obama or Edwards.  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).  And I say that because no one is putting the cleaner variety of coal-to-liquid on the table.  It's a bad joke on the American population.  I'm embarrassed that we argue so much about supporting solar and wind, but our politicians jump on the coal-to-liquid bandwagon so quickly.  What is wrong with this situation?

Comments

[Wendy]

Obama's continued support for "clean coal" is a huge disappointment. Before I began to understand his position on energy issues, I was quite inspired and excited by his candidacy.

[Alex Hammer]

Barack Obama Wiki!
http://candidatesforpresident2008.wetpaint.com/page/Barack+Obama

[Marc Gunther]

Thanks for the link, Preston. Of course, I'm disappointed with Obama over this issue as you are. Having said that--I must add that I remain an admirer of his. Perhaps naively, I think he is a good man and think his history of community organizing, roots in Africa, thoughtfulness, embrace of diversity and the like might make him a good president. On CTL, if he were to amend the legislation to REQUIRE carbon capture and story, I'd find it easier to respect his position.

[Preston]

Wendy & Marc,

Thanks for dropping by and leaving your thoughtful comments. Prior to this LTC thing, I thought Obama was an incredible politician. I still think he brings hope and perspective to politics, but his stance on LTC has made me question that. I guess, to a certain extent, I realize leaders will lobby for legislation that helps their state, but shouldn't that be different for leaders running for president? This is going to be an interesting debate, and currently, it seems the balance shifts towards monetizing coal resources at the expense of investing in clean energy and reducing carbon emissions.

[Ken]

One part of this story that hasn't gotten much attention is how the proposed coal-to-liquids subsidies stack up against existing U.S. R&D into energy production and conservation. When one looks at the proposals from this stance they become even more disturbing. In researching this issue, I discovered that the amount of money the coal industry projects they will need to be able to supply just 10% of the U.S. liquid fuel needs is equivalent to around 125 years of energy production and conservation R&D based on how much the U.S. is currently spending on this type of R&D. Make no mistake about it, the coal-to-liquids proposals working their way through Congress have the makings of a boondoggle that will dwarf the Synthetic Fuels Corporation disaster of 1980. To read more about how coal-to-liquids stacks up against other energy R&D, see: http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/06/subsidies-for-coal-to-liquids-compared.html