Post by
no1coalking on Jan 14, 2008 2:23pm
CLEAN COAL NOW !
THE MESSAGE is CLEAR WE NEED CLEAN COAL,[K-FUEL]
CAMPAIGN 2008: Many green activists now looking past Obama's CTL stance (01/14/2008)
Ben Geman, Greenwire senior reporter
Environmentalists hungry for a sharp break with President Bush appear willing to forgive what they saw as a major sin by Sen. Barack Obama, who embraced a plan last year for making diesel fuels from coal.
The Illinois Democrat sponsored a bill last January with Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning to provide financial incentives to build coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants. His stance prompted criticism from environmentalists, who fear the technology would lead to increased emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
Obama later tempered his support for CTL, saying he would back the technology only if making and using the coal fuels reduces emissions of greenhouse gas by 20 percent compared to conventional fuels. And overall, Obama as a candidate for his party's presidential nomination, is winning applause for his environmental platform.
Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York lead the race for the Democratic nomination. They split the first two contests, with Obama handily winning the Iowa caucus and Clinton defying predictions to edge Obama in New Hampshire last Tuesday. Both senators have offered broad energy and climate plans that call for steep cuts in greenhouse gases.
While CTL is just one issue, it is at the heart of a debate about what types of alternative fuels deserve government support at a time of soaring oil prices and concerns about import reliance. Coal already provides about half the country's electric power but is not used currently as a transportation fuel.
CTL supporters say the United States can increase its energy security by tapping massive domestic coal reserves to make transportation fuels. The coal industry has ramped up lobbying and public relations in support of building a domestic CTL industry and says carbon capture and storage technology can mitigate emissions.
But environmentalists question whether carbon controls would be developed fast enough to limit the high greenhouse gas emissions from coal fuels. And they also attack the fuels on other grounds, citing environmental effects of mining and water usage at CTL plants.
Several environmentalists said that if Obama were the nominee, he would be supported, but that green groups would continue pressing him to abandon support for coal to liquids. "If you look at his voting record, it is pretty good," said one environmental lobbyist. "They were concerned about the coal-to-liquids thing, but he has qualified his position."
Groups including the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have deployed staff to early primary states to raise the visibility of global warming on the campaign trail.
They are pushing candidates to make the issues a priority, and neither group has yet made an endorsement. Last month, in releasing a guide to the candidates positions, LCV said, "On the Democratic side, all of the candidates competing for the presidential nomination have shown strong commitment to addressing global warming, though the details of their plans differ."
Obama is proposing to curb greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 through a mandatory cap-and-trade plan, which is in-step with his Democratic rivals. He would also spend $150 billion over a decade to spur low-carbon energy supplies. In a recent debate, Obama emphasized that allowances to pollute would be auctioned to industry rather than given away free, a stance welcomed by environmentalists that is shared by Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.
"I absolutely applaud him for taking that position and hope that it will have a long-term impact on how legislation is ultimately written in Congress," said Frank O'Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. The group is not active in politics.
'Too close to Big Coal?'
O'Donnell also credits Obama's vote against the White House "Clear Skies" plan in 2005 when the issue was before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The plan deadlocked in committee and died. Obama's vote was tough because he bucked the interests of the coal industry, which is prominent in southern Illinois, O'Donnell said.
Clinton and Edwards also have what activists say are strong climate and energy platforms, with Edwards drawing praise for his early global warming plan and aggressive stances during the campaign.
But not all environmentalists are comfortable with Obama. The political arm of Friends of the Earth is backing Edwards, who finished second in Iowa and a distant third in the Granite State.
"Is Obama too close to Big Coal?" asks the group's literature. The group cites his past coal-to-liquids support and also say he is too willing to subsidize so-called clean coal efforts despite the technology being unproven. They are also concerned with Obama's support for new nuclear power plants, which he has said he backs if waste and proliferation issues can be addressed.
Clinton has been noncommittal on nuclear power. She says it should be considered, raising question about waste, safety and costs and saying in her platform that energy efficiency and renewables are "better options." However, she also said nuclear power should be "part of the energy solution" at a campaign event last year.
Edwards opposes new nuclear power plants. Friends of the Earth Action ran ads in New Hampshire backing his opposition and questioning Obama's and Clinton's views.
Elsewhere, Clinton recently attacked Obama for supporting a major energy bill enacted in 2005. "The energy bill that passed in 2005 was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Senator Obama voted for it. I did not because I knew that it was going to be an absolute nightmare," she said in a New Hampshire debate. The bill included support for low-emissions coal technology and ethanol, which is popular in farm-heavy Illinois.
But several environmentalists say the past coal-to-liquids support and 2005 energy bill vote are not major problems in comparison to what has been a record and platform they support.
The League of Conservation Voters gives the first-term senator a 96 percent rating, while Clinton has a 90 percent score. LCV opposed her votes in 2006 for a measure that expanded oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Bush's wake
Overall, several environmentalists said in interviews that activists are likely to embrace the major Democrat that emerges as the nominee. "After eight years of the worst environmental president in history, Barack Obama is a million times better than George Bush, and the mainstream environmental groups will absolutely rally to his banner," said a political consultant who works with environmental groups.
And even Friends of the Earth's criticism is gentle by campaign trail standards: "While his broad energy and global warming goals are strong, the public needs to know how he intends to achieve them. His positions on coal and nuclear power threaten to take America backward. We challenge Senator Obama to improve his positions in these crucial areas," the group says in its literature.
A few other elements of Obama's broad energy plan include reducing daily oil consumption by 10 million barrels by 2030 through support for next-generation biofuels and other technologies and doubling fuel economy standards in 18 years; extending renewable power tax breaks for five years, and requiring that 25 percent of electricity come from renewables sources by 2025; a "Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund"; and a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral by 2030.
Obama would also establish a "low carbon fuel standard" that requires fuel suppliers to reduce their products' carbon emissions by 10 percent by 2020. And he is calling for U.S participation in binding international efforts to curb emissions.
A campaign adviser said Obama's plan is not just paper. "These issues are certainly very, very high on the priority list and reflect the strong commitment of Senator Obama to address climate change and also to address oil dependency," this adviser said.
Jason Grumet, who directs the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, is one of Obama's energy advisers. Others include former high-level environmental officials from the Clinton administration. For instance, Robert Sussman, who was a deputy administrator at U.S. EPA, is on the team.
The campaign provided the names of several others, including Federico Pena, who did stints as Clinton's secretaries of transportation and energy. Two others listed by the campaign are George Frampton, who chaired the White House Council on Environmental Quality and was also a high-level Interior Department official, and Lois Schiffer, former assistant attorney general for environment and natural resources, at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Drawing attention on the stump
Two of the groups most active in politics -- LCV and the Sierra Club -- are holding their fire on endorsements for the moment. Cathy Duvall, the Sierra Club's national political director, said an endorsement decision could come this spring.
She said the group will spend roughly $8 million to $10 million on its 2008 White House and congressional election efforts, which will fund both public education and voter contact and turnout efforts.
Energy and climate have drawn frequent mention from candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire. "It is pretty consistently in everybody's stump speech now," Duvall said.
But several environmentalists say that energy policy and climate change are receiving little attention from large press outlets compared to how much the candidates themselves are emphasizing the issues.
"Our frustration is that the mainstream media is largely missing this whole piece," says Tony Massaro, a top official with the League of Conservation Voters.
The group grew irritated enough last month to launch a campaign called "what are they waiting for" aimed at pushing the talk show hosts of the major networks to ask about global warming. According to LCV, as of Jan. 4 the reporters had asked the presidential candidates nearly 2,500 questions, but mentioned global warming just two dozen times.
"I think that we still have quite a ways to go to convince the media that this issue is as important to voters as we believe that it is," he said.