I agree with Matt — this is just damn depressing:
WASHINGTON, May 28 ? Even as Congressional leaders draft legislation to reduce greenhouse gases linked to global warming, a powerful roster of Democrats and Republicans is pushing to subsidize coal as the king of alternative fuels.
… Environmental groups are adamantly opposed, warning that coal-based diesel fuels would at best do little to slow global warming and at worst would produce almost twice as much of the greenhouse gases tied to global warming as petroleum. [Nifty graph.]
Coal companies are hardly alone in asking taxpayers to underwrite alternative fuels in the name of energy independence and reduced global warming. But the scale of proposed subsidies for coal could exceed those for any alternative fuel, including corn-based ethanol.
Let’s just be clear: subsidies for coal-to-liquid and corn-based ethanol are taxpayer boondoggles — your tax dollars for more CO2 emissions. That’s profoundly wasteful, short-sighted and immoral. Barack Obama thinks it’s just fine. Again, for me, that’s plenty reason to vote for someone else — if there were anyone willing to stand up and do the right thing.
Again, if you hear “coal” and “stopping global warming” in the same sentence, run screaming.
The energy density of hydrocarbons is just too high for there to be a wholesale switch immediately. From an economic standpoint the nation would go through a pretty big recession if not depression if our ability to access liquid hydrocarbon fuel dried up in the short term.
<
p>
From a national security and economic prospective this is a good thing.
Can be found here
Fascinating that the below comment makes fun of the supposed “sky is falling” attitude of those who are paying attention to global warming. I think the shoe’s on the other foot.
<
p>
How immediate a switch are we talking about to create your “crisis”, EaBo? What’s the “short term?” How do you know there would be a “recession, if not a depression”? You have jumped to a number of totally unnecessary conclusions.
<
p>
No one’s talking about not having any fuel at all, or even not having enough fuel. We’re talking about using different fuels, and not needing as much of them. The problem is that the alternative fuels favored by our political establishment don’t fix the problem of CO2 emissions, and in fact exacerbate the problem.
<
p>
I’m waiting for the iron fist of the switchgrass lobby to come down on some folks on Capitol Hill … :4a7d3d609129a9296bf7ac0608c2097
I humbly submit an old diary:
<
p>
Coal’s Stranglehold on Congress
There seem to be three issues conflated in th post:
<
p>
(i) the possibility of at least some energy independence, that may come via coal liquefaction;
<
p>
(ii) the likelihood that process of liquifying coal, and the subsequent combustion of the liquified coal, will actually result in the production of higher levels of CO_2; and
<
p>
(iii) taxpayer subsidies for coal liquefaction.
<
p>
The first two have been dealth with on previous posts. Regarding (iii), it seems to me that, if coal liquefaction, the coal companies themselves, or perhaps partnered with petroleum refiners, could build liquefaction plants themselves, and wouldn’t need taxpayer subsidies. I’m not sure where the tipping point is at which the cost of mining and liquefaction of coal would at least correspond to the cost of pumping and refining oil, but I seem to remember reading that it is on the order of US$60/barrel of oil, which is about the current price.
Why not start by using less themselves?
<
p>
<
p>
This means ethanol for flex-fuel vehicles, biodiesel for diesel engines (and hence the $100/vehicle changeover costs, necessary to change some hoses to prevent degradation).
<
p>
<
p>
This is obvious, given PP1.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
The Feds have lots of vehicles. The sum of 50 states’ vehicles is lots, too.
What’s elegant about this is that the gov’t is sending a signal that there’s measurable, dependable future demand increase in these alternative fuels, and businesses could even calculate (using public records) just where there is untapped demand — locations where, if they opened a fuel depot, there’d be instant demand of x units/week.
<
p>
Once you see alternative fuel depots becoming more commonplace, it stimulates demand — which helps more alternative fuel depots spring up.
<
p>
Of course, this extra demand should come with an increase in CAFE standards, since otherwise the requirements won’t be binding, and will hence be neutered.
P.S. Creating more mass transit options for local, commute, and long distance travel reduces demand on gasoline!
Now that even Christie Todd Whitman is an “environmentalist,” every energy company’s PR department is retooling to board the Green Energy Express.
<
p>
At the same time those who take climate change seriously have been trying to assemble the broadest possible coalition in favor of taking the issue seriously, lest the entire cause founder on destructive partisanship. Consequently the conventional wisdom is heavily salted with broad consensus statements about the need for renewables and efficiency, but also industry heavy hitters like nuclear and “clean coal” as part of a comprehensive blah blah blah.
<
p>
(In Ohio, there was legislation that would have allowed coal to satisfy the state’s Reneweable Portfolio Standard, though I don’t know the final outcome of that.)
<
p>
At this point I think it is important for the political language to change. All energy sources are not created equal and their vitues do not corelate well to their political clout; some are innimical to resolving climate change.
<
p>
The good news, if there is any, is that the astonishing cost of these boondogles means they are far from a done deal and that as they go forward opposition will grow. Let’s hope sooner rather than later.
Haven’t we shown in the past that the government isn’t very good at picking the best technology for solving problems? Isn’t the whole idea of capitalism based on the claim that markets find the best solution?
<
p>
The government should not be subsidizing specific solutions. For technology development, the government should be funding research into new, untested ideas. Once an idea has been shown to be good, companies will take care of developing it.
<
p>
The best market-based solution to global warming is to directly tax CO2 production. This will produce a good mix of reducing demand and switching over to better technologies. The easiest way to tax CO2 production is to tax the fuels when they are either imported or pulled out of the ground on the basis of how much CO2 will be produced when they are burned. Cap and trade systems worked for reducing acid rain; they will also work for reducing greenhouse gasses.
<
p>
Taxing pollution has the added advantage that it increases government revenues, rather than increasing government spending. Why spend millions or billions of dollars on one method which may or may not turn out to be a good idea when you can instead collect money in proportion to usage and let everyone their consumption in the most efficient way they can find?
It seems as if the whole state of Illinois is involved in the coal/ethanol boondoggles. They decided to swoop down on some “cheap energy” enthusiast a couple months ago. Nobody likes competition. I assumed then that the other states would follow suit. (Anyone know if Mass DOR is following?) I’d love to know the whole story, but will have to wait to get a glimpse on the news when the scandal breaks, some years from now.
The same people that bring you Katrina Relief, Savings and Loan Collapse, Nine Billion dollars in Cash “lost” in Iraq, Deepwater Scandal, etc., now will save us from global warming and energy depletion. I believe it. I keep the promises right next to my deed for the Lost Dutchman Mine.
<
p>
Didn’t some congressional candidate recently propose $100,000,000,000 for his energy program? I’m sure he had a business plan…
<
p>
This would all be funny if Will Rogers were still around. Now, all we can do is sigh and vote for the lesser evil, if there is one.
<
p>
Does anyone else think that the politicians use the same writers as the Three Stooges?