Crossposted on Pennsylvania for Al Gore
Last week, during the runup to Live Earth, a few of the Democratic candidates for President did what they could to associate themselves with the event, in an effort to woo those Democratic voters who see the environment as their top priority (I count myself amongst this group). And while some of these efforts seem noble enough, others make me want to throw something. That "other" is none other than media darling, and vanguard of the "new" kind of politics: Barack Obama. On Obama's Live Earth page, which appears to be called "O Live Earth", Obama has this to say:
Our dependence on fuels such as oil and coal is jeopardizing our planet, setting off a chain of dangerous weather patterns that could condemn future generations to global catastrophe. We see the effects of global climate change in our communities and around the world in record drought, famine, and forest fires. Hurricanes and typhoons are growing in intensity, and rapidly melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland could raise global sea levels high enough to swallow up large portions of every coastal city and town.Ok. That sounds reasonable enough, and I for one agree with everything that he said. The only problem is that he seems to think that Democratic voters are, for lack of a better term, brain dead, because the following article is also linked to on his Presidential Campaign site. The article discusses Obama's environmental stance and his continued support of forking over BILLIONS of dollars to the coal industry, in the form of subsidies for Coal-to-Liquid "research" and "implementation".Despite the urgency, there are those who believe America cannot come together to find a solution. Politicians are afraid to ask the oil, auto, and electricity industries to do their part, and those industries hire armies of lobbyists to make sure it stays that way.
While Obama scored green points over the weekend, his stance on liquefied coal remains a sticking point with many environmentalists such as Erich Pica, spokesman for Friends of the Earth.Now, there have been claims by the Obamaniacs that their hero had "seen the light" and moved on to take a rational position on Coal-to-Liquid: since it cannot, under any circumstance, emit less carbon than fuel, than Obama would just have to reject it. And after all, he did say he wouldn't support anything that didn't produce 20% less carbon than liquid fuel."I don't think you can be serious about global warming and support technologies like liquid coal," Pica said.
Obama drew the wrath of many environmental groups, an important constituency of the Democratic Party, when he and Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) introduced legislation earlier this year that would provide loans to build large-scale coal-to-liquid plants and allow for them to use federal land.
Obama's sponsorship of the proposal and the criticism he received for it was a classic example of a presidential candidate torn between the needs of his home state and the demands of influential national interest groups.
The development and spread of coal-to-liquid fuel processing plants could revive the domestic coal industry, which is an important part of the economy of southern Illinois. National environmental groups, however, say the fuel would accelerate global warming dramatically.
So he will only support CTL if some fantasy about CTL technologies would come true. But since we don't live in a fantasy world, and CTL CANNOT, under any circumstances, create a fuel that emits less carbon than liquid gas, than Obama would just HAVE to pull his support from the bill, right?
Ted Glick, the national coordinator for the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, said Obama has moderated his support for technology that would manufacture liquid fuel from coal. But Glick said he is not satisfied with Obama's position and that
it contradicts his statements on global warming."We don't think anyone who 'gets it' on global warming should be supporting any money going into coal-to-liquid research," he said. "We do think it is inconsistent."
Obama's spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said his boss still supports the legislation he introduced with Bunning in January. But LeBolt said that Obama only would support coal-to-liquid fuel programs that produce less pollution than regular gasoline.Does Obama think Democratic voters are that stupid? Does he really think that we too watch Fox News and sit idly by while politicians push on with their Assault on Reason? Well, given that he still seems to garner about 20% of Democratic primary voters, I guess there are a few closet Fox watchers amongst us."Sen. Obama believes that America should both pursue energy independence and fight climate change," LeBolt said. "He supports research into all potential sources of energy, including solar, wind and coal. But his support for coal-to-liquid fuels is dependent on whether we can capture and sequester enough carbon that [we can] produce fuels that have 20 percent lower emissions than gasoline."
In a statement released before the Senate energy debate, Obama announced that he would only support the development of coal-to-liquid fuels if they emitted less global warming-linked carbon than conventional fuels.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 53 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
