Would you vote for someone who is for increased carbon emissions?
I really must have been paying too little attention to national politics over the past few months, because this totally slipped my attention.
West Virginia Blue (via a MyDD diary) noted that an absolutely horrendous and potentially disastrous energy bill was introduced in the Senate last week in January, and one of it's sponsors was Mr "Audacity of Hope", Barack Obama. The New York Times has a good rundown of the issue (emphasis added):
Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years.
...
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.
...
But coal-to-liquid fuels produce almost twice the volume of greenhouse gases as ordinary diesel. In addition to the carbon dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel.
...
“At best, you’re going to tread water on the carbon issue, and you’re probably going to do worse,” said Howard Herzog, a principal research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a co-author of “The Future of Coal,” a voluminous study published in March by M.I.T. “It goes against the whole grain of reducing carbon.”
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?
Here's what a real leader has to say on the issue :
This Grist blog post is also right: Barack Obama is not serious about Global Warming, as is this post by Stoller.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Contribute to the Young Voter PAC
Register to Vote
|
Advertising
Blogroll
- Ablogistan
- Apophenia
- Bad Subjects
- Burnt Orange Report
- Campus Progress
- College Democrats
- Culture Blog
- The Daily Background
- The Daily Taylor
- Ezra Klein
- Everyday Citizen
- Generation Next
- Got Democracy
- It’s Getting Hot in Here
- Kid Oakland
- Kossacks Under 35
- Left in the West
- Liberal College Kid
- The Low Post
- Matt Ortega
- Michigan Liberal
- Michigan Youth Political Alliance
- Open Left
- Penn Progress
- Planting Liberally
- Policy Farm Team
- Political Teen Tidbits
- Prose Before Hos
- Pullman Progressive
- Pushback Network
- The Raw Story
- Rethinking Youth
- Rock the Vote
- Tapped
- Think Youth
- Young Democrats
- Young MO Politico
- Young People For
- Young Philly Politics
- Young-Politics
- YouthinkLeft
- WireTap
- Wonkette
If you have a blog written by or for young progressives, and you would like to be listed, contact Mike.
Young Progressives
- 21st Century Dems
- Black Youth Vote
- The Bus Federation
- Campus Climate Challenge
- Campus Progress
- Campus Wellstone
- Center for Progressive Leadership
- College Democrats
- DNC Youth Council
- DMI Scholars
- Forward Montana
- Future 5000
- Generation Change
- Generational Alliance
- The League
- Kossacks Under 35
- Lose the Label
- Minnesota Youth Caucus
- New Era Colorado
- Oregon Bus Project
- Progressive U
- Roosevelt Institution
- Run For Office
- Students for a New American Politics
- Swing Semester
- USSA
- Washington Bus
- Young Democrats of America
- Young Elected Officials Network
- Young People For
- Young Voter PAC
Cultural Capitalizers
- All Ages Movement Project
- Billionaires for Bush
- Drinking Liberally
- Free Culture
- Head Count
- Hip Hop Summit Action Network
- Ironweed Films
- Justice Through Music
- Laughing Liberally
- Lokahi Outreach
- National Hip Hop Political Convention
- ONE Campaign
- Progressive Book Club
- Rock the Vote
- Screening Liberally
- Vera Project
- Youth Movement Records
Technorati
Syndicate
Thanks for mentioning this.
Thanks for mentioning this. I think the bill was actually introduced in January, though. I also wrote about Obama and coal today, at the barack the youth vote blog: http://baracktheyouthvote.wordpress….
Fixed...
Thanks!
Let me ask you this: if Obama does retract his support of the bill will you still support him?
It seems to me that this shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the seriousness and severity of the threat of Global Warming and its connection to carbon emissions. Otherwise, imo, it shows that his morals are more akin to the “old politics” of Clinton than to anything “new” that might provide some hope.
hmm
I assume you meant to ask if I’d support him if he doesn’t retract his support of the bill. I’d say it depends. If he acknowledged the pros and cons of the technology and presented a good argument as to why he’s supporting it, that would be a step away from politics as usual. I think it’s his responsibility to prove that he’s not just being a pawn of the coal lobby. Retracting his support would be the clearest way to do this, but I think there’s also room for either explaining himself or changing the legislation so that it’s actually what it says it is. Supporters of the bill say it will put more money into researching how the technology could be cleaner, but it doesn’t put any limits on to how the technology would have to be.
If he doesn’t take a more hard-line stance on climate issues, my support of him would have to depend on who the viable alternatives are. There’s still room for him to emerge as a leader, but the clock is ticking and if he doesn’t get on it soon, other people will take on that role and win the votes of many environmentally-conscious people. But that being said, I hate single-issue voting, so my support would have to depend on the whole picture.
I agree that his weakness with climate issues seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the danger and immediacy of climate change and its relationship to carbon emissions. If he genuinely listens to the grassroots, like he says he does, he would hopefully realize how serious this issue is.
An assault on reason
Yes, I meant if he doesn’t retract the bill.
And can you find me any good argument for doing this? I can easily give you his: He claims it is a National Security good, even if it does do extensive damage to our environment. But other than that, to quote one of our Philly Congressmen, “shit spinning” it is clear as day that this would be, at best, a continuation on our course towards heating up our earth, and at worst an environmental catastrophe. Check out this graph from the NY Times:
The first red bar represents the increase in carbon emissions if scientists can master the carbon sequestration process, which is not a sure thing by any stretch, AND if all of the plants that are built are forced to use this, which the current bill does not do. The second red bar, the one that shows huge increases in carbon emissions that is a lot more likely, since sequestration is not very likely. AND even if they were to sequester the gases, where do they go? They get buried in the ground, a hidden treasure for future generations to discover. So- where is the room for explanation? Will he somehow prove that there is no link between carbon emissions and global warming? And sure it will put more money into the hands of coal companies so they can research this technology and then reap huge profits while destroying our mountains and polluting our air, but why should our government be funding this? How about $25 billion for clean technologies, some of which are much closer to our grasp than this sequestration BS, and all of which are, if you look at the chart, much cleaner forms of energy, and many of which are .
I’m not asking you, nor anybody, to vote on any single issue, even though this should be the biggest issue for all (being that the climate/ecosystem is the system upon which all other systems are dependent). But, what I do ask people to do is to take a hard look at this unknown salesman with his magical “new politics” potion. Maybe that potion will solve that itch for real leadership that we’ve all been craving, but my guess is we’ll all just be left feeling burned. And maybe it’s better to some that Obama listen to the grassroots rather than scientists and experts, but I for one would like some leadership in the White House, someone who can rally support behind issues which are abstract and which may not be easy to see with one’s eyes, someone like… oh never mind. ;-)
I am also asking any Obama supporter I can find: if Obama cannot see what any and every reasonable person recognizes as the biggest threat to not just our nation but to humanity itself, how can we expect him to see any threat we face. Maybe he’s just short-sighted, or maybe he’s got numerous blind spots that prevent him from reasonably assessing threats. Either way- is this the risk you want our nation to take at this crucial moment in our, and human, history?
yeah you're right
Yikes, I hadn’t seen that graph before. When I said that Obama could present his argument, I wasn’t very familiar with the technology myself and I was allowing for the possibility that either it wasn’t as bad as people thought it was or that money into r&d could potentially be beneficial. The more research I do into coal-to-liquid, the more awful it seems. It looks like I was wrong about there being a gray area leaving room for explanation.
It’s obvious that Obama doesn’t take climate change as seriously as he should. If he “got it,” I think he would be a great president. I’ll make a posting in the My Policy section of his campaign website, and I’d urge other people to do the same.
If he doesn’t get it soon, my support will go elsewhere.
Take a Second Look at the Text of the Bill
First off, I really do commend you on examining issues like this closely and keeping an eye on all the candidates. That’s truly important and lands us in the area of basing our support on policy, which makes a lot more sense.
With that said, I want to throw some facts out there (please feel free to check elsewhere) that might change your perspective a bit on the bill.
I was confused as you guys, why would Obama co-sponsor a bill that would garner so much criticism at a time like this? I checked with some people to see what was up. The answer: The bill actually does the opposite of what most people are discussing.
For example, you brought up the graph which is absolutely right on. That’s why Senator Obama only supports the development of coal-to-liquid fuel technologies that would emit less lifecycle carbon than conventional gasoline.
In fact, the bill you’re referring to, not only contains tax incentives to decrease the emissions of coal-to-liquid fuels, but pushes coal to become more environmentally friendly by ensuring no support is given for anything that results in a net increase in carbon emissions.
In fact, coal-to-liquid fuels must meet the same standard Senator Obama introduced for vehicle fuels (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/en…), which requires that they have a net 10 percent reduction in lifecycle carbon emissions by 2010.
Check out the facts, there’s a bit of fishy business out there if you check where the facts are coming from for attacks on this bill (check those sources). Senator Obama is doing this for the environment, not at its detriment.
Nice lipstick on that pig...
First of all, please show me where in that bill that it says that it will require companies to reduce carbon emissions, or even sequester their CO2 emissions. Then, please show me one source, not funded or associated with the Coal Industry, that claims that the coal-to-liquid process can reduce carbon emissions. I did quite a bit of looking around and I could not find one credible source that stated that reducing carbon through CTL was anything but a fantasy being pushed by Big Coal. In fact, since the sequestration process is almost completely unproven, there is a MUCH bigger chance that this will significantly increase carbon emissions. If you look at that chart again, the CTL process increases carbon emission by 4% with sequestration, so where exactly is the reduction going to come from? Does Obama’s hope reduce carbon all on its own?
The fact that Obama says that the CTL process has the potential to actually reduce greenhouse gases is exactly what worries me so much, since it’s the equivalent of telling the nation that eating more fast food will reduce their weight and increase their health, if only we fork over $25-billion dollars to the fast food industry to figure out how to make fatty and sugary foods that don’t make one gain weight. Obama is either lying through his teeth to protect his financial interests(i.e. morally corrupt, the “old way” that Dems do politics), or he’s incapable of looking to science and experts for the scientific realities. I know the guy isn’t stupid, so then he is…
As far as the “fishy business” and my “questionable” sources go, try a google search and you’ll find who those “questionable” sources are: environmentalists and those who want to curb global warming. I mean I know that reality has a well-known liberal bias, but I never guessed that Obama would pit himself against reality in such a brazen fashion.
Good thing he has tons of supporters/worshipers who believe any and every thing that the man says. Too bad for him that they won’t be enough to win him the election, and you better believe that this will be used to beat him down as primary season approaches. But, Obama is going to have to do better than “no really, my advocacy for increased Carbon is so that we can fight Global Warming”. Too many liberals are too smart to be fooled by this blatant spin.
Standards
Please see the answer below. Please do not call him a liar when his position, ironically, is remarkably similar to what you are advocating. 20% less carbon, that seems like a pretty good step to me.
ironically "truthiness" is not "truth"
Ironically, there is no possible way, except in the most theoretical sense, that this is even remotely possible with CTL. OK, he’s not lying, he’s using truthiness. Is that a better word for you? Either way he is being fundamentally dishonest. And why? As Al Gore said when he was asked why in the world any Dem would support CTL: “Political ads cost a lot of money.”
and...
Offering tax incentives to reduce carbon is not the same as requiring that companies reduce carbon, and when you’re already giving away billions of dollars to the worst polluters, this strikes me as a HUGE leap backwards.
Unlikely
Senator Obama is doing this for the environment, not at its detriment.
It doesn’t seem like the fact support this. The bill contains incentives to use methods which would boost carbon by 10 to 15% (bad) and nothing to prohibit the (more profitable) methods which would boost carbon by 100% (terrible).
Considering we’re talking about 10s of billions of dollars and a 25-year contract to supply the military with liquid coal fuel, it feels like a definite step in the wrong direction. Why can’t we do the exact same thing with cellulosic ethanol? It’s got the same Energy Independence benefits, and it’s a heck of a lot better on carbon. Well, only because there’s no established corporate interest that would score big…
This is where leadership counts.
In response...
In response to this and other confusion about the bill, Senator Obama clarified his position a bit more in a public manner. “Sen. 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.”
Fortunately that seems to be in line with everything you guys (rightfully) asked for above.
Nice words!
This is what worries me about Obama and his effect on his supporters. Just because he says that he “will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.” doesn’t make it true. He is the SPONSOR of the current CTL bill, which DOES NOT require that coal companies sequester their emissions, let alone reduce “life-cycle carbon” by 20%. Sorry, but Obama’s nice words won’t make this horrible bill any better, or Obama any less of a liar for pushing this bs line.
CTL co2 Emission reduction
The best plans for liquid coal call for the use of pebble bed nuclear reactors at the refinery. If that happens, the c02 problem goes away. We only have around 30-40 years left on conventional oil, and severe shortages are predicted to happen way before that. Peak oil is a reality many people choose to ignore. I know, we have heard it before- but remember the boy how cried wolf did in fact meet his fate with the wolf at the end of the story!
Nuclear + Coal = a Bright Future!
Those sound like some great “best plans!” And here I thought that heavily investing in renewable forms of energy were the answer. Thank the lord we have Obama (bought to you by your friends in the coal industry) who can show us the err of trying to come up with actual long-term solutions to our energy and climate crises!
The Limits Of Politicians
I would love it if we could get an Energy Policy wonk to be president, but we don’t really have one running. :)
Coal is a bitch of an issue. It’s the worst source of energy from a carbon perspective, but we’ve got mountains full of it. I remember seeing a presentation once where a guy was showing energy costs (pure efficiency), economic estimates and environmental impacts. Coal delivers jules for cheap, but it’s just hell on the air any way you cut it. The presenter’s take was “it has to be regulated out of existence.”
That will take some doing, especially as energy demand continues to grow. I don’t know if this kind of bill or issue is quite ready for litmus testing, wedge sharpening or rhetoric like “moral repugnance,” but it’s certainly a bad route to take for a national energy policy. It’s also something to continue watching:
Obama’s a sponsor, but with some pressure he could pull back. This has been known to happen.
On an unrelated note, the graph you posted prompted me to go do some research. Thanks for piquing my interest.