Obama for clean Kentucky coal
Hillary Clinton has been pilloried for pandering to working class voters with her gas-tax holiday proposal. But she's not the only one telling working-class voters what they want to hear.
"Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal." So reads a direct mailer being distributed in Kentucky ahead of the state's May 20 primary. (Click the image to the right for a larger version.)
Clark Stevens, press secretary for the Obama campaign in Kentucky, confirmed that the mailer came from the campaign. "Yes, it is an official mailer," he said.
Does Obama really believe in "clean Kentucky coal"?
"Clean coal" typically refers to coal burned in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants with operational carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities to bury the plant's greenhouse-gas emissions underground. There are no IGCC plants in Kentucky, and no operational CCS facilities. Technically, there is no "clean Kentucky coal."
There is one IGCC plant proposed for the state, but it hasn't yet broken ground. Most experts predict that widescale carbon sequestration is still a decade away (PDF).
The Obama campaign has made it clear that they want no new coal plants in the meantime. Jason Grumet, a top Obama energy adviser, told Grist that "the policies we have already articulated make [coal plants without CCS] economically unrealistic." He went further on a recent panel sponsored by the Society of Environmental Journalists:
[Obama] is confident ... that his carbon cap program ... will make it absolutely ludicrous to even contemplate any type of coal, new coal, that is not 100 percent sequestered. ... if he is unable to get that carbon policy in place quickly, that he will do whatever is necessary to prevent the siting of a new generation of pulverized coal facilities, including setting [emission] standards that would be essentially a moratorium ...
Given that CCS is a decade away, it follows that Obama's policies would amount to a suspension of commercial coal-plant construction for the duration of his term, whether it's four or eight years, excluding publicly funded demonstration projects like FutureGen. That would allow for little growth in Kentucky coal, unless it started shipping its coal overseas (as of 2006, 80 percent -- $2 billion worth -- was exported [clarification: "exported" to other states, not overseas]).
Meanwhile, Obama may believe in clean Kentucky coal, but many residents of the state are more familiar with the dirty kind. According to activists on the ground, strip-mining "is turning Eastern Kentucky into a despicable latrine." Hundreds of mountains have been leveled, leaving poverty and unemployment in their wake. The number of jobs created in Kentucky by coal has dropped by 60 percent in the last 15 years.
As Kentucky resident Erik Reese reported in Grist, studies in the state have found that children there suffer from "an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and shortness of breath -- symptoms of something called blue baby syndrome -- that can all be traced back to sedimentation and dissolved minerals that have drained from mine sites into nearby streams. Long-term effects may include liver, kidney, and spleen failure, bone damage, and cancers of the digestive tract."
There's a difficult conversation to be had with voters in coal states like Kentucky about the fate of coal and the steps political leaders can take to help coal communities through the coming transition. For the moment, at least, Obama seems unwilling to have that conversation.
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
Comments
View as Flat
Nick Berning Posted 12:16 am
06 May 2008
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 12:22 am
06 May 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:53 am
06 May 2008
But he is more likely to listen to reason than the others. That's the real "hope".
As we see from DR's excellent interview with Barack's energy advisor, he is not getting well informed opinion on energy at the present time.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:20 am
06 May 2008
As if this is unique to Barack.
Which it's not.
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/03/19/hillary-clinton ...
http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/mccain-endorses-future-clea ...
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:18 am
06 May 2008
The Candidate for change.
The Candidate not backed by corporate interests.
The Candidate willing to tell Americans the truth rather than pander.
The Candidate willing to protect our environment, even if it means people won't vote for Him.
Hah!
Looks like business as usual. He believes coal has a future. He's interested in convincing corporations that He's not a threat to their bottom line. He's prepared to perpetuate the fairy tale suggesting we don't have to conserve energy or change our driving habits... plenty of coal under those mountain tops. He's not going to bother making the hard decisions that will create a better environment and better jobs in the long run.
Maybe He should have mentioned His support for coal before other key primaries... oh... might not have won in the liberal states then. What else is He omitting from His campaign speeches? What else is He stretching the truth about? What's next? Will He switch gears and decide we have to attack Iran just to show He's more of a hawk than McCain? What does Obama really stand for? Guess we won't know for sure until He's actually President.
It is sad that there is not a single honest candidate for President of the United States.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:20 am
06 May 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
usandthem Posted 5:55 am
06 May 2008
I wonder if there has ever been an honest candidate of president of this country.
I will probably have to vote for Oboma,only because he is the lesser of two evils.Strike that,the lesser of three evils.McCain is exactly the same as bush.Clinton is a long time crook from as far back as "Whitewater" and is a true lieing politician,Obama is a neophite political liar.He is telling the people in Kentucky what they want to hear to get the votes.This is what politicians do.
I would just as soon have Mike Gravel,look it up,than any of the politicians running currently.
Why not ask why!?
Permalink
tipiglen Posted 5:56 am
06 May 2008
America (and the rest of the world) must be weaned from this destructive and addictive hypermobility, which is behind the present war and probably more to come, unless we recognise that there is NO WAY we can carry on as usual!
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/hypermobility.html
and
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/20-80.gif
xx
ed
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:11 am
06 May 2008
The decision one needs to make is this: Would you rather continue business as usual with a Democratic president who's merely not as bad as the Republican candidate, or would you rather make some sacrifices now in order to build a movement and whatever else is needed in order to have a realistic chance of electing someone like Kucinich or Nader who would make significant changes for the better? As they say, ya gotta break eggs to make an omelet, and without abandoning the Democratic Party for something much better, significant, meaningful changes will never take place.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 3:12 pm
06 May 2008
Don't vote third party for president. You're not party-building. You're just flushing your vote down the toilet. Worse, you're siphoning your vote away from the Democrat and thus helping the Republican.
Permalink
rwkenn Posted 6:17 pm
06 May 2008
I have been living abroad for nearly 8 years now, in Italy, and can assure everyone that the status of our Country in the world opinion has drastically changed over the Bush era. Obama has a huge following abroad and is seen as hope for the future not only by Americans but also by Europeans.
But I repeat the only way we will know whether or not he can walk the walk will be by voting for him now and hopefully in November!!
Ciao
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:15 pm
06 May 2008
As I keep mentioning.
Why do you think that's unique to Barack?
If anything, Hillary says it's okay to build new conventional coal plants. Barack says he would ban them.
http://greyfalcon.net/electionchart.png
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=358 ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:17 pm
06 May 2008
Not if you admit results are more important than principle.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:29 pm
06 May 2008
With Barack there really is "hope" for a better energy/agriculture policy.
The others? Completely hopeless.
Nader, whitewater? Even mentioning mass delusional buzzwords like that shows zero understanding of the harsh reality of GHG disaster and economic decline from soaring energy prices.
Barack is running very successfully on becoming the change he wants to see in the world, no diversion, just solutions to our many serious problems. He will be able to see through the nonsense being pushed by lobbyists for clean coal, nuclear power, and agribizz gas guzzling.
At least we can all "hope"?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 11:49 pm
06 May 2008
A senior fellow from there - Joseph Romm even posts here. She cared enough to come to the Grist Climate Debate and showed us in a fluid and detailed eco policy discussion how she can and will get us to a carbon free future.
Obama has slipped too many times for this to be a mistake that "we" can somehow correct him on.
MCain = McSame: check this eco voting record (!)
Permalink
PaulLoeb Posted 5:38 pm
11 May 2008
Obama's honesty is his trademark. It helped him win on the gas tax. I think he should do it here.
Author of Soul of a Citizen & The Impossible Will Take a Little While. See http://www.paulloeb.org
Permalink
Leanna Posted 2:43 pm
12 May 2008
There is another choice, Ron Paul, who isn't pandering to anyone. Maybe that's why the press seems to be so unfriendly to him.
He isn't pandering,unless one considers working to restore our republic pandering.
Leanna
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:58 pm
12 May 2008
That less than half of McCain's rating and almost a sixth (1/6) of the rating that Clinton and Obama have.
Ron Paul doesn't pander alright...he doesn't pander to Earth and he also doesn't pander to the theory of global warming.
Be glad he isn't in the race, he'd be just 'bout as bad as Huckabee, if not worse.
Permalink
WKB Posted 11:47 pm
12 May 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:49 am
13 May 2008
It will be vital to minimize the effect of old energy economy lobbyists from the process of crafting energy policy. Can that be done?
That is probably the best course for environmentalists now. Expose the lobbyist scamming during the bushco regime to try and marginalize corporate lobbyists. And get our lobbyists to stop touting clean coal, nukes, and fuel farming. As many enviro groups like NRDC still do. Did they dump nuclear power yet?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:10 am
13 May 2008
He would contract everything government is supposed to do out to corporations. We see how that worked out with the bushco regime. Exxonmob rules the world. They name a tanker after duuhbya's Condi.
Your social security funds would be spent on contracting. Turned into a private investment deal that could go bankrupt, complete with golden parachutes for CEOs. Not very secure.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Bad Credit Repair Posted 3:34 pm
26 Nov 2008
Permalink