Obama clarifies position on liquid coal fuel.

[Radical Activist]

There have been some over-the-top accusations made about Obama not being serious about global warming because of his support of research into liquid coal fuel technology. This statement shows that he's responsive to the environmental community, is serious about global warming, and its consistent with his long career record of being an environmental champion.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-energypol13jun13,0,214084.story?coll=la-politics-campaign

"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," the e-mail said. "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."

[Dogmudgeon]

1. It's not the carbon that worries me

Coal has an enormous amount of uranium, (radioactive) thorium, arsenic, and mercury in it. The average 1 gigawatt coal-burning plant emits in one year about the same amount of radioactive material as was released at Chernobyl (10-20 tons), only the stuff has a much longer half-life.

Coal-to-liquid needs a LOT more filtering than it usually gets in test runs. It's a dirty, inefficient, greenhouse-gas-emitting, toxic fuel, and we ought to proceed very carefully with developing it.

Unfortunately, as soon as petroleum gets real expensive, there is going to be a major push for liquefied coal -- and every other destructive technology we can squeeze a drop of combustible hydrocarbon out of.

--p!

[zulchzulu]

2. I was talking to a Sierra Club member about this last weekend

He was saying that the Sierra Club would endorse him if he made a statement concerning what to do with the CO2 emissions that coal-to-liquid technology produces... this looks like what they wanted to hear...and I'm glad.

[Tellurian]

3. There is no technology that has been perfected and tested enough

at this point in time to guarantee the safety of CO2 emission disposal.

It's a bad and dangerous undertaking at this time.

[zulchzulu]

4. Yeah, let's ignore the fact that 45% of US electricity comes from coal

:crazy:

[Tellurian]

5. How much longer can we ignore the biggest CO2 polluter?

[zulchzulu]

7. Do you have a replacement for coal that will cover 45% of electricity?

Are you for or against nuclear...

Listen, I hate CO2 gases as much as the next person and would love to just have solar, wind and hydro (and perhaps gravity), but we need to look at what resources we have...and use them as smartly as possible.

[Tellurian]

9. If coal did not exist we'd have to find another way..wouldn't we?

We've been on this wild goose chase for a century without coming up with real solutions. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to 'tame the tiger' so to speak. My impression is this. Even if we are able to successfully capture CO2 emissions, we are going to permanently pollute the earth by injecting the captured CO2 gas permanently sequestering it underground and beneath our ocean sea beds. We are facing problems by using the proposed methods of CO2 mentioned in this official report detailing the sequestration methods with, potential leakage, unknown impact of tainting indigenous vegetation, agriculture, the future of our food supply, poisoning our oceans and extinguishing existing sea-life and their habitat as we have always known it.

We're playing Russian Roulette with the unknown by injecting poisons into the earth and beneath our oceans.

Here is the latest projected report including partnerships designating the areas assigned for CO2 deployment within North America..

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/carbon_seq/project%20portfolio/2007/2007Roadmap.pdf

and the is no mention of a real downside here. I'll have to look elswhere for that information.

Oh, there is a chapter on "selling this to the public for acceptance", though...

[Kingstree]

11. LOL Go to your Candidate and Force her to Change

Her Stance on the issue.

[Tellurian]

14. She's too smart to get caught up and a scandal...Obama, not so much!

[Radical Activist]

21. LOL

Sure, she would never get caught up in something like whitewater. Too smart for that. Thanks for a great laugh.

[Tellurian]

23. Obama lashed with scandal...

I'm having a hard time dealing with Obama's call for clean government and INTEGRITY as his platform criteria...when he has BIG problems ahead.. Supporting the biggest polluters in the history of the World COAL...only adds fuel to the fire..pardon the pun..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3316428

[Radical Activist]

24. That's a nowhere story.

But I'm sure you'll try to milk and exaggerate it for all its worth. The Republicans will thank you next year.

[abburdlen]

6. It's not a sure thing

so let's not spend any on research?

Global warming crisis isn't likely to to be solved by a single magic bullet.

[Radical Activist]

12. The Sierra Club

has an endorsement process that involves a lot of its members, so I think their endorsement decision is up in the air and will be more involved than that. But, I agree that it would be great to see them endorse Obama. He has an excellent record and platform on environmental issues.

[mckeown1128]

8. Great post!!!

Nice to inject some reality into political discussion instead of fantasy based attacks.

[beachmom]

10. This is excellent that he has changed/clarified his position on this issue.

We need to kill liquefied coal before it gets out of the gate. Now Big Coal has one less vote in the Senate for this bad idea. It's best to concentrate on CO2 sequestration, something Big Coal should redouble their efforts on.

[Tellurian]

13. Obama is sponsoring the Coal Bill..

Illinois has one of the most concentrated coal deposits in the country. Deals have been made..He won't cancel anything. Too much water has gone under the bridge to do anything about it. Read my post above. They've been working on capturing emissions for over a century and have made little progress in succeeding. The point, which few people seem to grasp. There is a reason coal and oil are buried so far beneath the earth...they have toxic qualities and were never meant to be commonly used in vast quantities.. By allowing the oil industry to become the tyrants they are, they've quashed other avenues of alternative energy sources for years buying up patents for emission free sources just to keep the 'family trusts' intact. This surge for coal is virtually on the same idea. This new dynasty of energy Trusts getting in on the ground floor, some old some new, the newer ones rewarded for helping getting the job done.

It's a snake pit, no matter how you look at it!

[mckeown1128]

15. Now all we need is for your candidate

to change her position on Liquid coal...:7

[Tellurian]

17. I'm not worried about my candidate..

Hillary is not a Co-sponsor. She has signed on in general for the program and can sign off just as easily.

Obama is in it waist deep.

[mckeown1128]

18. being a sponser doesn't mean he has to vote for it

[w4rma]

19. What? Why would anyone sponser a bill and not vote for it? (nt)

[Radical Activist]

20. not anymore

I guess you still aren't paying attention. Why stick to reality when you have an ax to grind?

[illinoisprogressive]

16. thanks. I wrote his campaign to ask for clarification on this. guess alot of others did to.

[welshTerrier2]

22. here's the point that I'm not hearing from the candidates

this is not a post about Obama or any specific candidate; it's a post about defining the framework for discussing energy policy.

let's start with the basic understanding that global warming is likely to produce catastrophic impact on life on the planet. if you disagree with that, stop reading right here; the rest of this post won't make any sense to you.

now, when faced with the very real possibility of a catastrophe, any catastrophe, ALL steps to prevent that catastrophe must be considered. some of those steps either won't actually address the problem or will cause other problems so severe that they are ill-advised.

this week's Senate debate on energy policy, especially its focus to mandate that 15% of energy come from renewable sources by 2020, MAY be a step in the right direction. but here's what is not being discussed:

IS THAT SUFFICIENT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM???

if not, the American people should be told the truth and should be told why more isn't being done. could we get to a higher percentage of renewables? is that feasible? is it technically feasible but being obstructed by certain elements of the energy lobby like big oil? are certain politicians acting as puppets for the obstructionists? one good tip is "follow the money."

now remember, the Democrats are pushing 15% from renewables. that means they're pushing for a bill that will allow 85% to come from non-renewables. is that acceptable? what impact will our energy output have on global warming if we are still getting 85% of our energy from non-renewables? cities underwater? arctic populations wiped out? disruption of the food chain. warming of the oceans leading to a major decline in fish populations? can we survive at 85% non-renewables.

have ANY of the candidates answered that question??? i doubt it. but that really is the ultimate question here, isn't it????????????

and some might argue that 15% is about the best that can be achieved given the current state of technology. OK, perhaps that is true. i have no idea. but if that's true, the "ultimate question" remains the same. can we survive? which then, if greater percentages from renewables is NOT achievable in the near-term, brings us to real conservation. it brings us to real mass transit. but who among those running for office would be willing to ask the American people to make sacrifices to help fight global warming? who will say that we should reduce auto use by 50%? who will demand a "war on CO2 emissions". we're so busy spending massive amounts on the military-industrial complex that we aren't spending anywhere close to enough on focusing on a potentially much more deadly adversary.

So, which candidate wants to really spend money to defend the nation? Which candidate will stand up and tell us the truth? Don't hold you breath. Instead, we get "cute little plans" with "bright little futures." Can we survive that???

[Solon]

25. The CO2 emissions should be the least of our worries...

The fact of the matter is that we already have enough Coal to produce electricity for the rest of the century, not much longer than that. Divert some of that resource to create liquid coal for use in place of oil and you shorten that time span. In other words, the choice would be heat/cool the home or drive to work.