Carbon-loaded question

Obama parries ABEC 5

Obama gets buttonholed by a planted ABEC coal shill:

Nothing he says here is particularly objectionable. The priority on reducing CO2 emissions is welcome. It is true that if we can figure out a way to cost-effectively sequester coal emissions, it will bring some benefit.

More important, though, is what's not said. He says we can't emit more CO2, but he stops short of calling for a moratorium on dirty coal plants with no sequestration. (He says he won't "license or encourage" them. Hm ...)

And he tip-toes around the central question about clean-coal: at what price? How many subsidies and tax breaks will we offer to the coal industry relative to what we spend on other climate measures? The ding against clean coal is all about opportunity costs.

Nonetheless, there isn't a lot of daylight on this issue between him and Clinton, and I seriously doubt McCain has the same grasp of the particulars or the same concern.

(h/t GreyFlcn)

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 4:03 am
    01 Feb 2008

    Nice find , GreyNote the guy in the background clapping his hands when Obama calls Illinois the Saudi Arabia of coal.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

  2. PDXOutdoors Posted 5:39 am
    01 Feb 2008

    The man knows his stuffIt's so refreshing to hear a candidate with such a clear, and clearly communicated, understanding of an issue as complex as energy policy.  I am SO ready to have a smart Democrat in the house.  I'm voting for Obama but would still be happy with Clinton, even though she's probably more conservative than Bill was.

    Permalink

  3. Pompey Road Posted 7:33 am
    01 Feb 2008

    MTRI hope someone gets to ask him about Mountain Top Removal, would be interested in hearing his views on this matter!

    The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

    Permalink

  4. kenshin Posted 11:52 am
    02 Feb 2008

    So where are Edwards' supporters going?You know,the supporters for the candidate who was first with a green energy plan and global warming plan?  The only candidate who's ever mentioned cellulosic sources for biofuels??  The only candidate who's taken a clear stand on no new nuclear power plants? Who's never taken a dime from special interests, or Excelon corp?
    Glad you asked!  We're still voting for Edwards in the primary!
    Take the pledge today, and let these other two left-over know that we mean business when it comes to going green!
    http://edwardshasmyvote.wordpress.com/ing

    Permalink

  5. kenshin Posted 11:57 am
    02 Feb 2008

    if obama's so smartwhat solution does he have for nuclear waste?  he gets $200,000 from Excelon corp, and he wants nuclear power in our energy mix.  i mean, i'm just a lowly little muggle here, but what does obama have cooking in the Department of Magical Mysteries for nuclear waste?
    Edwards has the plan, and we're still voting for him in the primary.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement