Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Obama and Coal


But he can build one...YES HE CAN!!

Gotta love the Obama future. =)

Posted by Cato | May 13, 2008 12:34 PM

This is exciting. Pretty soon all of Hillary Clinton's people will have tons of great advice for Obama.

Right UnPC?
Only you guys know 'the winning strategy'.

Posted by Scott Dow | May 13, 2008 12:35 PM

I gotta say, I agree. Whenever he brings up ethanol or coal, I wish he would shut up.

Posted by Levislade | May 13, 2008 12:36 PM

Barack Obama will take all the coal and crush them into diamonds with his bare hands.

Posted by JC | May 13, 2008 12:36 PM

Shall I point out that Hillary Clinton pledged to invest more funds in carbon sequestration, according to that same article?

Eh, whatever - that barely matters anymore. I suppose aAt least you poked Obama on an actual policy issue this time, rather than rehashing the same tired old memes about culthood.

Posted by tsm | May 13, 2008 12:45 PM

Hillary Clinton HAS been "greener" on coal throughout the campaign, but since she's been campaigning in West Virginia, she's been talking up coal like crazy. Not that there's anything wrong with that. West Virgina is all about coal, and lots of paychecks come from coal. And West Virginia may have gone Republican in the last two elections, they have a Democratic governor, two Democratic senators, and are solidly Democratic on the local level.

America has more coal than the Saudis have oil: if it's possible to turn coal into clean diesel fuel and to pump the CO2 back into the ground, we should consider it as a part of a wider enviromental policy. Being for clean coal isn't nearly as big a sin as pushing a godawful gas tax holiday, which would have the double effect of increasing gas consumption while defunding the federal highway fund.

Posted by used to blog | May 13, 2008 1:13 PM

My guess is Sen Obama is focussed on the more likely path of installing CO2 scrubbers for all existing and future coal plants.


Because coal is already a large part of the pollution and global warming emissions in America, Canada is already doing this - making it easy for us to learn from their mistakes and implement it more easily with local supply lines, and it's one of the easiest things to do, even though they'll whine and gripe and do fake ads on TV and in print media about how mean we are to coal plants.

Plus, it will create EVEN MORE US JOBS.

Yup, less money exported out of the US, more money spent in the US which creates EVEN MORE US JOBS due to the multiplier effect.

That's what REAL Presidents do.

Not hack jobs like decrepit McSame and his Red Bushies.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 13, 2008 1:20 PM

Did I preempt a UnPC spasm?

If so, I rule.

Posted by Scott Dow | May 13, 2008 1:22 PM

obama is the senator from illinois, and two of illinois' biggest businesses are corn and coal. he wouldnt be a senator if he didnt pander in their direction. hillary can be miraculously clean on ehtanol, etc. because new york doesnt produce corn or coal. once hes president, obama will be less beholden to those interests.

golob's post on carbon sequestration makes the right point: no matter how "green" we get, we wont stop burning tons and tons of coal. if anyone has a political interest in seeing that done in a more earth friendly way (and believe me, i know how depressing that phrase sounds, but we have no choice), its obama. carbon sequestration research money would lead to big development opportunities for people in coal states today.

Posted by tired | May 13, 2008 1:29 PM

Why is 'clean coal' such a far fetched idea yet bio-fuels, solar & wind are preached like they are some kind of panacea.

We had a huge protest up here about a 'run of river' hydro proposal because they need to run a transmission line though a little visited provincial park.

I'm really getting sick of these knee jerk 'environmentalists' who protest ever and offer nothing in return.

The 'solution' to our energy problems is going to come from refining our existing technology. 'Elecetric cars' are not a realistic solution - but getting much better mileage out of the ones we have is a very realistic goal.

Solar & Wind are nice for peak power but they depend too much on mother nature. You need something like nuclear power or 'clean coal' for base generation.

Obama has proven time & time again that he's willing to listen to all sides. Sure the energy companies are 'evil' but they are not fools - they may actually have good solutions and just need to be 'coaxed' into action.

Posted by DavidC | May 13, 2008 1:32 PM

Um, what? Clean coal will encourage the use of coal for fuel, which will secure US coal jobs (a dubious distinction considering how crappy coal mining is as a job), which will otherwise become less popular in an age where environmentalism is increasingly important.

There's no lies here. The commercial cites Senate Amendment 599, penned by Obama, viz:

S.AMDT.599 to S.CON.RES.21 To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration technology by the Department of Energy. Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack [IL] (introduced 3/22/2007) Cosponsors (4) Latest Major Action: 3/23/2007 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 599 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.

Obama supports clean coal. Clean coal is currently the most important goal in the coal industry.

No, there aren't clean coal facilities in Kentucky. Not today. Without action now, there won't ever be. Obama took that action.

Erica, I have a bunch of straws in my glove compartment in case you need anything else to grasp at.

Posted by K | May 13, 2008 1:33 PM

I guess the way I look at it is that we all know that Hillary's word on coal and gas taxes and ethanol is worth nothing. Of course she will forget her campaign promises instead go ahead and do whatever she wants in the end. And what she will want to do will be some combination of poll triangulation and political power games with industry interests.

Whereas, Obama is probably serious about carbon sequestration and developing clean coal. It may or may not be the very best choice among a several alternative paths, but it is a valid choice and we can trust he means it. It's not just a political game he's playing.

Posted by elenchos | May 13, 2008 1:35 PM

hillary supporters giving advice to obama...

Posted by Bellevue Ave | May 13, 2008 2:35 PM

Alga hydrogen production from sunlight. Bet on it. They already know the DNA sequence.

Posted by Vince | May 13, 2008 3:45 PM

@10 not true. Recent scientific papers from Canada show that wind-based power plants (H2 compressed) are the most efficient method of transportation for rail and trucks. At lower scales, the size of the power plant becomes important, so plug-in hybrids make more sense (cars, SUVs, light trucks).

Peer reviewed, and backed up by numerous studies from other countries, FWIW.

Not on wikipedia, but not much that is useful is.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 13, 2008 3:47 PM

I'll go to the library and look up the scientific papers and read them, Will. Which scientific journal? What are the authors names? Title? Date?

Posted by elenchos | May 13, 2008 4:00 PM

Many journals. You can do a search at most of the UW Libraries, and there are portals at the SPL to use that.

They always have really long, fairly useless titles, quite frankly. Fairly recent though, think it was pubbed in the March to May 2008 cycle (online you can see the journals in draft and review mode).

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 13, 2008 4:45 PM

Nobody's buying it, Will. If you're going to make up facts, at least be funny.

Posted by elenchos | May 13, 2008 5:17 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).