A group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is waging a $35 million campaign urging Americans to make one choice in particular: coal. As U.S. activists step up their protests against coal plants -- and find increasing success -- the industry-backed ABEC is running ads chirping that the black rock "powers our way of life" and "will help us with vital energy security." Radio, print, and TV ads are targeting primary voters and caucusers in Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada; an ad that targets the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill can be watched at baggage carousels at Washington, D.C.'s Dulles airport. The coal industry has boosted ABEC's budget more than fourfold since September; the budget of Big Coal's main lobbying group, the National Mining Association, has increased by 20 percent. Caught in the crossfire: Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who's getting flak from enviros for counting among his advisers the CEO of R&R Partners -- ABEC's PR firm.
source: The Washington Post, DailyKos
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Comments
View as Threaded
GreyFlcn Posted 8:41 am
18 Jan 2008
Since Coal is an "Energy Independance" winner.
But a "Climate Security" loser.
Permalink
ridgerunn Posted 1:44 am
19 Jan 2008
Coal Truth on the Candidates by Jeff Biggers. See:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/the-coal-truth ...
Permalink
kenshin Posted 4:42 am
19 Jan 2008
John Edwards' website has got the be the simplest, easiest and most comprehensive website to navigate in the history of elections! Please read here for the REST of Edwards' plans to meet our energy and global warming needs:
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/energy/new-energy-econo ...
just a little excerpt:
Invest in Renewable Sources of Electricity: Renewable energy has been seen as socially desirable but costly. However, wind is already competitive with conventional sources in many markets. Solar could be competitive within three to eight years. [RAND, 2006; Economist, 3/10/2007]
Open the Electricity Grids to Distributed and Renewable Generation: Traditionally, electricity has been produced at large, central power plants and transmitted through miles of power lines. Distributed generation of electricity promises reliable, clean, cost-effective production that is less vulnerable to natural disasters and attacks. Farms, factories, schools, and communities ought to be able to establish their own power sources and efficiency projects and compete with traditional plants to sell wholesale capacity, as New England has pioneered. [DOE, 2000; New England ISO, 2006]
lots more, go read.
Permalink
enki Posted 6:40 am
19 Jan 2008
It is true that the CO2 produced would be pretty much the same as with petroleum based fuels but at least we could end our dependence on oil forever. Then we can get rid of coal as a second step.... mwahahaha :D
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:19 pm
19 Jan 2008
You are talking about a liquid coal. A process, that, even with carbon capture, still creates MORE CO2 emissions than regular gasoline. Without CCS it creates over TWICE as much CO2 as petroleum gasoline.
It is MUCH less effective for both energy independence AND reducing CO2. Using coal, with CCS, to make electricity for plug-in hybrids beats it by a mile.
Liquid coal would be a disaster. It would be harmful for the country and the world.
-Christopher
Permalink
sfj4076 Posted 10:05 am
22 Jan 2008
The important point is that the same plants that are doing CTL+CCS can incorporate a biomass component in thier feedstock mix, as many players in the CTL space are now starting to do, and actually produce a fuels with a dramatic reduction in lifecycle CO2. This process is the only process I am aware of that is both commercially ready and technically capable of producing a fuels with a lifecycle neutral CO2 footprint.
It is unfortuante that the NRDC and others continue to conspicuously omit this fact in thier discussion of coal-derived synthetic fuels. Seems kind of counter to thier supposed goal of driving implementation of large-scale fuels production with a reduced or neutral carbon footprint...
They would much better serve thier mission if they were to call for responsible development practices, as opposed to distoring the truth via omission, to try and stop an emerging industry that has a realistic major piece of the solution to both our energy security AND our climate change problems.
Permalink
btopro Posted 1:38 pm
23 Jan 2008
Permalink