Kerry: Coal to Liquids...I'm against it. Strongly.

[ProSense]

Coal to Liquids

Cross-posted from BlueMassGroup.

Charley (from BMG) called up my office to ask about my position on coal-to-liquid technology and efforts in the Senate to promote it. Let me lay it out for you here in person:

I'm against it. Strongly.

Coal-to-liquid technology is a step backward in our fight to control greenhouse gasses. With CTL, there are actually two streams of carbon emission exhausts, at the production plant producing the liquid and from the vehicle burning the liquid as fuel. The total "well-to-wheels" emission is therefore much higher from CTL than regular petroleum.

A study from Argonne National Laboratory, a research arm of the Department of Energy, shows that every gallon of liquid fuel from coal produces as much as 2.5 times the global warming emissions as every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel from crude oil. Even if we use carbon sequestration at the production plant, CTL emissions are still 17-25% higher.

This is just the wrong way to go. Our climate crisis is growing ever more urgent, and putting federal resources into pathways that make the problem worse is not a good option. We were not elected to the majority last fall just to do things a little better than Republicans; we were elected to actually fix these issues and go in a bold new direction. As I said in a speech last week:

We weren't elected to be like Republican Congresses of the past, only a little more progressive. No -- if we merely tinker around the edges of energy policy or climate change, or write an energy bill indistinguishable from the ones we criticized Republicans for passing--then we have not earned our majority.

The energy bill the last Congress passed was a hollow exercise masquerading as a new direction while giving the majority of the spoils to the same old special interests. It had no guiding national goal, no tough decisions, no change in priorities--just a collection of logrolling, back-scratching subsidies for any industry with the clout to get a seat at the table and a share of the pork.

There's no reason why we shouldn't take more effective action on global warming that will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We can raise CAFE standards in an aggressive way. We can require that 20% of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. We can encourage efficiency and conservation in a myriad ways. All of these will be effective on reducing our dependence on oil and will help to halt the warming of our planet.

So-called "solutions" that take us in the wrong direction aren't "solutions" at all.

Edit to add background on who is pushing coal:

Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process

[waiting for hope]

1. Interesting....Glad he's against it

Let see - who's not:

The Green Gripe With Obama: Liquefied Coal Is Still . . . Coal.

The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901503.html

[beachmom]

7. FYI -- Obama has "clarified" his position on this, i.e. reversed it:

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."

Obama's aides described the statement as a "clarification," distributed to correct what they said were false media reports describing the senator's views on the issue.


This part really made my blood boil. From the coal industry:

"He's trying to walk a fine line, trying to be a good Democrat but at the same time recognizing that not only is Illinois well-served but he's serving the country with these incentives that could really stimulate the industry," said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Assn.

Popovich said the industry had been impressed by Obama's "willingness to take a stand that's unpopular with some of his party's constituents."

He called the senator's new statement the result of a "jihad" waged by some environmentalists against the coal industry.

"Clearly they are trying to intimidate Obama from doing something sensible," Popovich said.




"Jihad"? That has got to be the most insulting ad hominem attack I've ever seen.

[beachmom]

2. Yep. Everything I have read is how bad coal liquification is.

We need to kill it before it starts, and focus on CO2 sequestration.

[rox63]

3. K&R for my Senator

I'm proud to be his constituent. :patriot:

[ohtransplant]

4. Right again Senator.

[wuushew]

5. Is this coal liquidification in H.R. 6?

now being voted on in the Senate. My mother got an email from Moveon.org and she asked me to find what specific piece of legislation needed a call to our Senators.

[politicasista]

6. K&R

:kick:

[blm]

8. What I wouldn't give to see men like Gore and Kerry in the White house ushering

in a whole new era of responsible planetting.