Obama faces coal conundrum

From the article:

Barack Obama likes to portray himself as the ultimate environmentalist, but on the issue of coal, the Democratic presidential candidate’s green ideals bump up against hard political and economic realities.

Mr Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, are promising to lead the United States though an energy revolution that will create five million jobs in renewable energy, reduce dependence on foreign oil and cut carbon emissions.

But the Illinois senator comes from a state that mined more than 27 million tonnes of coal in 2007, earning about US$1 billion (Dh3.67bn) in revenues for coal firms there.
Mr Obama cannot afford to lose voters in coal-producing constituencies, nor risk higher energy costs with the economy in turmoil.

Many environmentalists cringe when Mr Obama touts “clean coal” as the way of the future.

“There is no such thing as clean coal,” said Jonathon Dorn of the Earth Policy Institute. “If we want the world to move forward we must leave coal behind.”
There is no denying that Mr Obama faces a serious coal conundrum. The United States is a major coal producer and consumer, yet globally, the burning of coal accounts for 40 per cent of world carbon-dioxide emissions. “There will be no solution to climate change minus a solution on coal,” said Jonathan Banks of the Clean Air Task Force.

Both Mr Obama and John McCain, the Republican candidate, support the development of so-called “clean coal” plants, which would capture and bury carbon-dioxide emissions. Environmentalists say such technology is decades away from being implemented on a large scale, and may not be economically viable once they are.

In 2007, Mr Obama shocked environmentalists when he introduced the “Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act”, a bill that would have funded the creation of a coal-based liquid to run cars and power plants.

Mr Banks said Mr Obama’s support for the gasification of coal appears to reflect a position of pragmatism – that coal is not going away any time soon – and an understanding that liquefying coal may be the least offensive process from an environmental standpoint.

“If you get real about coal, and accept the fact that it is going to grow – not go away but grow – then it is imperative we build plants that reduce emissions to a level we can live with,” Mr Banks said.

But some charge that the candidates are not making these decisions freely.

The Center for Responsive Politics has reported that Mr Obama tops the list of US members of Congress receiving donations from the coal industry in the current election cycle. Mr Obama accepted US$248,000 in campaign funds, the centre reported, while Mr McCain’s ticket pocketed US$93,000.

“With so much coal industry money going into the campaigns,” Mr Dorn said, “we cannot expect a truthful dialogue on this issue.”

'The Center for Responsive Politics has reported that Mr Obama tops the list of US members of Congress receiving donations from the coal industry in the current election cycle. Mr Obama accepted US$248,000 in campaign funds, the centre reported, while Mr McCain’s ticket pocketed US$93,000.'

341,000 dollars... how many lives does that buy?

"CLEAN COAL" is a misnomer.
(btw..fuk you CNN and your sponsor that manipulated the debates and the choice of our candidates)

Coal is a dirty and possibly one of the biggest environmental rapes in the name of corporate interests threatening the forests and the air we breath ..
This energy is the biggest threat to global warming (IE..C02).

Watch them rip the top off a mountain and destroy the forest in the name of energy.
Fuk'd up..

It's not a REAL alternative to the energy problems we face.

So why do the "Candidates" embrace "Clean Coal"?
Can you say lobbyists?

With all the advisers and information at their disposal, why do these people act like they are oblivious to the science and the facts?

I believe only a few believe Obama to be absolutely perfect and nearly flawless...

I believe Obama is absolutely perfect and nearly flawless when compared to McCain.....

elementaljim:

I don't know the answer to that except to say fear of change, greed, ignorance and misinformation. And it is killing people and that is where any candidate should draw the line in putting the money first. I also read today that Democrats are bringing out a bill regarding climate change and emissions... still the same 80% by 2050... they want to give the coal companies plenty of time to continue screwing this planet up while trying to look green. Where is the standing up to Republicans on this? It is unbelievable because as you stated, they are truly acting oblivious to the scientific facts telling us all that we don't have until 2050 to get this right.

100% renewable energy in 10 years. Where is the pledge? Where is the courage?

You can vote this off the site if you choose, but it doesn't change the reality of what is happening to this country at the hands of coal companies that both Obama and McCain have supported... and it is a crime against this planet and that is the inconvenient truth. Hopefully though, people out here who do really care and put this planet above politics will be able to come together as people in Appalachia and other parts of the country have to stop new coal plants from being built, and put an end to the environmental rape that is coal.

....Jan...I agree that the choices are ridiculous for a country of this magnitude.....I have been saying that this country should be run like a large company...now I am having to rethink that....there must be some way to run this country.....and not in the ground...like now.......I have never voted....have never trusted politicians...and still believe votes are not counted....just a tool to sooth the masses.........and yes there are some good politicians...but they are definitely in the minority....and every time I hear...drill..baby..drill.....it makes me want to kill..baby..kill.....and I cant even hurt mosquitoes.....clean coal....young old...its one or the other.......Golden Ruler...Will...

Well, time to use the mining company's own words against him, and try to really put the pressure down. Sure, I agree with his words "nature has a miraculous way of healing itself," however, how is it going to? I'm sure he's pretty clueless on how. If I said... one of the ways nature can heal itself is to wipe us off the planet, or make us a minority compared to other animal species, wouldn't that be a good enough reason to stop doing destructive things?

I never really liked Obama or John McCain in the first place. Didn't turst them. I think there was a saying of how people's eyes are the gates to their souls. From what I saw from their eyes was that they were over ambitious, willing to do all sorts of things just to "win." Too bad I'm not old enough to vote against both of them... Oh, and "clean coal"? Psh... it'd still create carbon dioxide/monoxide (whichever one comes from buring, since I don't remember which it is.) You COULD do something to deal with the by-product, though it'd be hard to make all people using it do so.

Now, for those who would bother to care, the world isn't as "delicate" as you might think, though not so "strong" to handle all that we're doing. It is delicate in the way that whatever you do could potentially end up wiping out a whole species or ruin a whole ecosystem. It would be considered strong for how it can recover/regrow from a forest fire, since forest fires occur naturally. However, destroying mountains by "taking off the top" would be one of those actions it can't recover from. You'd have to learn how mountains form in order to know why that's so. You could try to "rebuild" a mountain; however, it'd most likely be flawed to the extent that a single earthquake would make it collapse, or if it rained, it would get washed away. Also, you'd have to make it able to support life, which would be rather difficult.

I believe there are lots of misconceptions on nature and how it behaves. For example: If it were striving for perfection, we wouldn't be dominating practically the whole world. Honestly, I'd think it strives to survive rather than perfection. If you were trying to "save the world," you'd have to get some facts straightened out, in which you can't always trust what the public likes to believe. (And this last bit was directed at people who actually are trying to "save the world.")

I think, as a vote for anyone but Obama or McCain is 100% wasted, that Obama's still the guy, becuase he acknowledges that the soluton to America's energy crisis is a combination of all you have listed, plus nuclear, while McCain thinks nuclear will do the whole job.

A COMBINATION? A combination continuing to include COAL DOES US NO GOOD NOW.

...Coal is organic material...burned and covered up...over millions of years.....charcoal briquets....oil is similar....they are part of the makeup of this planet.....would you tear down your bedroom to add on to your kitchen?....look around at your yard....your trees....your friends....they will someday be either oil or coal....and will serve a purpose where they are....please start using sources such as the sun and wind....they are there for you and all your ancestors knew this....the dumbing of society has reached a point where it must be turned around...Sol means Sun....you need Solutions...seems pretty simple...coal..ition....no........sol...ution.....yes......Golden Ruler....Johnnie Hargrave.........

I completely agree, but I am also a realist. Before Coal can be disregarded in its entirety, (1.) Other sources must be created first. (2.) Most importantly, these new sources must fill the employment vacuum in the regions of the U.S. that coal now creates.

There are regions of this country where coal generates 100% of its economy and employees the entire population.

To me, any suggestion is better than "Drill Drill Drill".

I totally agree with you Jan. It upset me when he (Obama) said more drilling. But in the long run I must vote for him as we know what to expect if McSame wins and dies in office. That scares me more than anything. We know there is going to be drilling and strip mining as long as we drive when we can walk, take twenty minute showers instead of ten, continue to use plastic and non degradable items. But at least with the democrats you will get some kind of law to do some protection, with the repugs it will be total destruction.

I really enjoyed the responses to this posting. Thanks Revelations for sending it my way...

Now we are really getting to the problem--environmental issues are always hindered by politicians securing votes and maintaining jobs...This is why I don't vote. Sorry, I catch hell all the time, so I don't need any more please.

To finger point at dems or repubs accomplishes nothing...How do we get the voting miners in West Virginia a new job? Can't be done over night...How do we generate electricity for the scale we presently use it without using coal? I really can't answer short term, but I see 60 rail cars per day enter a facility not far from here--just think of that-- 60 rail cars of coal per day generating electricity from one generating station on the Wisconsin/Illinois border...Use less electricity, that's a start.

Gasoline is $3.49 today...Did conservation drive down the price increasing supply to only increase demand--don't you want to cry? Driving less is still the only answer...F supply!

I always ask what aspect of "life style" I am willing to give up for the sake of the environment and how could I effectively make this happen on a greater scale for the good of the environment. Let's just take something as seemingly innocent as auto racing. To be honest with you, I detest the sport but many others love it. OK if I were King, it would be gone,. They beheaded the King?

What politician would dare take on NASCAR or whatever other divisions of auto racing dictate the sport? I bet none-- especially in Indianapolis with their famous speedway and resultant low, low real estate taxes, Taladega in Alabama, or even the races conducted in Milwaukee. I bet if a national politician picked on just NASCAR he would lose the election--so let's not even think about picking on coal.

The fight for our world starts from our homes without Washington! Gotta change the way we do business, gotta use sites like this to ask chain stores why they need to publish one stupid newspaper "flyer" after another to tell the world their bananas are 39 cents a pound and Crest toothpaste is on sale. I know, newspapers need advertising--damn again...Do we need newspapers every day?

Gotta ask major league baseball what happened to the double header--see more games with less driving for fans, less flying for teams...I know--less revenue for all kinds of things...

Gotta ask the factory down the street why every damn light in their parking lot is on all damn night...Maybe your own municipality needs a nudge as well...I get no where with mine, a nation afraid of the dark I guess...

Gotta figure out why 100,000 cars go into the big city to do the same job as the 100,000 cars going out--can't there be some "job trading network" so people stay closer to home?

Maybe we should quit buying soda altogether and mix up our own little flavorful concoctions...In a crystal clear glass!

I feel for the young, but tis old fart still likes a good fight, and this fight is a "dooooosie"...And to be honest with you, I think it is keeping me young--trouble, I kinda like it...solutions, I really like those as well.

I respect you all...no kidding...this world is in good hands

I've been getting chewed out by others...Bummer...All I'm trying to do is get along...Geez

McSame is just pathetic. But every time I hear Obama say off shore drilling or clean coal before mentioning sustainable energy options as an afterthought, if we're lucky, I just cringe. What don't these guys get about fossil fuel usage becoming extinct? Oh yeah. All those oil company political contributions candidates need in order to become electable. This is as a sad fact of campaign financing when we're ironically trying to get a candidate into office that will change this incestuous relationship. I would feel more comfortable with Barack if he would at least talk about our various energy options when they could be the cornerstone of his vision of CHANGE-addressing both our economic & energy woes.

Obama is not perfect by any means. You have to play the game to even get a chance to get in office. It is a dirty game just like coal. There is no clean coal and no clean politicans. I agree third parties need a stronger voice.... Democracy would rise again if issues were voted in by popular vote of this nations' people.
I voted for and will vote again for Obama because frankly I think McCain is out of touch and needs to hang it up. Let's see what Obama can accomplish and if he screws it up he will not get a second term. (2012 is coming anyway and will be a major test of our resilience as a species) Obama needs to win by more than a slight margin to actually be victorious because we saw in 2000, elections are rigged! I will be VERY SURPRISED if Obama gets elected.
Whatever life is made up of illusions....