Voting For Coal
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 06.23.07
As covered in the New York Times and elsewhere, the US National Academy of Sciences has challenged thirty year old estimates of the sustainability of coal as a US energy resource. Maybe not the talking point "250 years" left after all. Maybe more like 100 years, or less. Depends on who you ask, and assumptions on consumption rate or prospective carbon tax levies. But definitely not 250. The NAS report, titled - Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy is available for purchase by download here. TreeHugger is not going to be doing anything to improve the precision of the coal reserve estimates. But, we do have a point about coal politics over the next two years.
Look at the table (pictured above). Probabilities that US Senate or House of Representatives candidates from the the prominent coal states will be opposed to whatever is good for the world's climate will be in direct proportion to the coal reserves of their respective states. If several of these are "swing states" in the coming US presidential election, no serious presidential candidates will campaign on a platform that restricts or would add cost for control of coal emissions.
Via:: Daily KOS Diary
Bill Richardson seems to be ready to restrict carbon, and he's from NM (on the list). Barrak Obama, however, very obviously does NOT.
=== author's response follows ====
Yes. It's not a black or white, absolute rule of course, but the numbers are a pretty good commonsense indicator . Exceptions will be in the case of a few highly principled individuals who fully understand the risk of climate change or who are wealthy enough not to need campaign donations from the energy sector.
Coal as a fuel is still unrenewable, no matter how you cut it. Unless our congress has this point in mind, it is difficult for them to make decisions leading to sustainable energy development.
Our country is beginning to stick out like a sore thumb when it comes to future energy plans. We can't even seem to gat a required 15% for states by 2020 when other countries are aiming much, much higher. Are we supposed to be the "last kid on the block" when it comes to renewable development? It makes our country look retarded.
adrianakau2aol.com
It seems like we should be making a lot more effort into researching better ways to use coal, because such research would probably have some payoff, and building nuclear plants would be so much more expensive in comparison.
The research may be (relatively) cheap, but carbon capture and scrubbers are not.
Obama's a joke if he thinks he can appeal to young progressives and working stiffs who need new coal-based jobs. Edwards is more on the right page, choosing to wait until whether carbon sequestering works. And, since it hasn't been proven on any industrial scale, nor will it be unless the research is bought and sold, he'll be further into renewables.
But no one knows it better than Kucinich, who is ready to promote localized solar & wind. Switching to and promoting new energies will clean up the environment and spur new jobs/industry. It's a win-win, unless you're part of the heavily subsidized CONG (coal oil nuclear gas).
Enough BS and pandering that America is "doing the best we can". It insults our integrity, our intelligence, and our visions of a better future.