Well, it’s a good strategy if you don’t think you’re getting the attention you want: Pick a fight. Dick Howe tells us that Jamie Eldridge directly challenged Barry Finegold’s supposed former support of ethanol and coal-to-liquid. (I’d love to get some documentation of that, if it’s true.)
“Barry, I’m surprised to hear you say you oppose liquefied coal and ethanol because up until tonight you’ve always said you’re in favor of them.”
Finegold didn’t respond in the course of the debate. Anyway, as I’ve said, coal-to-liquid is just about one of the worst ideas ever. If Finegold has ditched his support for it, good for him; in any event, a clarification of his history on this issue would be most useful.
Anyway, I’m just going to point to Dick’s site, where he’s got YouTubes of the candidates’ closing statements. Go look.
I hope readers of this post who support Eldridge will follow Charley’s lead on support for Obama:
<
p>
Obama dropped the coal-to-liquids plan days after he first proposed it because progressives absolutely howled.
<
p>
Did it show bad judgment on his part? Yup. Does it mean he’s not worth supporting because of that one instance of going for energy security instead of [energy security + environmentalism]? That’s up to you of course.
A new kind of politics!
<
p>
ZZZzzzzzzzZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz
The truth is anyone of these candidates would be an effective voice for changes in our environmental policies. However, it is clear that Eldridge has the most progressive position and I hope all the excitement that is building for him from groups like Democracy for America, Progressive Democrats of Somerville, and the netroots will generate into an electoral victory.
<
p>
I’m just not so sure he can beat the name recognition and nostalgia of Niki Tsongas.
Re: Finegold
<
p>
Honestly I think Barry has the best record and most relevant experience out of the “anti-Niki” candidates. Miceli is a DINO, I like Eileen but municipal government seems like a weak foundation for political experience at least compared to Beacon Hill, and as for Eldridge I agree with most of his positions but he isn’t going to win so it makes sense for him to drop out and let Finegold be the anti-Nikki candidate or else in a race decided by a plurality her name recognition will carry her through.
<
p>
Re: Coal-Liquid
<
p>
I am surprised that the lefties who love Jon Tester and Brian Schwietzer and other Midwest-Great Plains Dems are attacking Northeast liberals for supporting the same goals. Coal-Liquid takes about as much energy as regular oil refining, but at least the oil will come from here and not another nation we will be compelled to invade. I care about C02 emissions as much as the next guy but if this is a viable short term solution that will keep us out of the next war so be it.
What do you define as short term? Once someone invests in a capital-intensive CTL plant, I am quite sure that they are not interested in just the short term (10-20 years).
<
p>
CTL is exactly the opposite direction of where we need to be going. The only scenario under which CTL is not completely wrongheaded is if the CTL emissions are captured and sequestered, which would leave us at roughly status quo regarding emissions (the liquid fuel would subsequently produce basically the same emissions as gas when burned). But of course sequestering throws off the economics even more.
<
p>
I personally am willing to cut Tester et al. a little slack because they come from coal states where there is at least a legitimate pro-coal economic constituency. The dynamics are different for presidential candidates and politicians from non-coal states. It makes no sense for them to support CTL; the greater good just isn’t there. There are better ways to reduce emissions and reduce imports.
<
p>
For example, a smarter scenario is promoting plug-in hybrids. Even with a coal-heavy energy mix, you can move away from oil imports (oil is a minor fuel for electricity generation) and achieve pretty good emissions. As you move away from the current energy mix (through coal CO2 sequestration, nat. gas, wind, solar, new nukes, etc.), emissions go down more.
<
p>
As for this race, I have seen most of the candidates speak in small group settings and I support Niki Tsongas. It’s not just the name. Just the same, I think most of the candidates are pretty good.
<
p>
He should drop out if he no longer wants the job. He should drop out if he honestly believes that another candidate running will do a better job than him. He should drop out because he’s really a spy for North Korea.
<
p>
Short of that, there’s absolutely no frickin’ reason for him to drop out. He’s got some institutional support, he’s got grassroots support, and he’s raising the issues he thinks are important.
<
p>
Keep workin’ it Mr. Eldridge!
About 90 seconds in, she states that she served on the board of a “small non-profit health plan” – since when is Fallon either small or non-profit? Am I missing something here?
Fallon is a non-profit (IRS designation). Always has been.
<
p>
And small? By comparison to, say, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, Aetna, CIGNA or Tufts, it’s probably small.
around here are non-profits as well (not sure about CIGNA and Aetna, but Blue Cross, HPHC, and Tufts are). That’s the hook that periodically leads Bill Galvin to threaten them with revoking their non-profit status if they don’t reduce premiums or something. It’s unclear that he could actually do it, but it doesn’t stop him from talking about it!
[blockquote]I personally am willing to cut Tester et al. a little slack because they come from coal states where there is at least a legitimate pro-coal economic constituency. The dynamics are different for presidential candidates and politicians from non-coal states. [/blockquote]
<
p>
Okay then cut Obama some slack, Southern IL has a lot of coal producing areas, more importantly it still has a lot of steel mills and other industries that require coal so indirectly the benefit stands from subsidizing coal to some extent. Also don’t we want to win some purple coal states?
<
p>
Why not promise CTL to actually win MT, WV, CO, KT, VA, OH, and certainly hold on to PA. I also think Obama was looking towards the general election with that standpoint.
<
p>
Personally I favor the end of most subsidization for coal proper and the use of alternative energy sources to get off of coal power, especially in MA. (Its despicable we arent a wind powered state).
<
p>
In terms of this research though funding to get research on more efficient methods of CTL could make us energy independent a lot faster, while also funding alternative energy sources like solar, wind, etc. I am just saying in the short term we have cars on oil and making coal into oil is more economical than completely changing our infrastructure to have hydrogen.
<
p>
Think about it if we significantly decreased our coal usage when it comes to power we could offset the emissions generated by widespread CTL, but the benefit is we keep coal miners and American workers employed and we dont need to keep losing good people in the Middle East. If lefties weren’t so afraid of nuclear power we could be completely greenhouse free very rapidly.
Obama isn’t running for President of Illinois. If he feels a need to represent his patch, fine — but that’s the role of s Senator.
First they said Ill cut Tester slack hes from a coal state, I explain that so is Obama, then they said oh but hes not running for President of IL, then I mentioned that he needs to win electoral swing votes in states that have coal, i.e WV, OH, PA, KT, VA, and CO which +Gore states=victory!
<
p>
So sabutai re-read my previous post you’ve already been refuted.
<
p>
Also it releases as much C02 as existing refining methods, I challenge anyone to tell me why going completely to a domestically produced energy is a bad thing. Especially if we start using nuclear power, wind power, and solar power for power generation to decrease emissions even further?
1. You assume that the non-coal states’ Democrats won’t change their behavior. You assume that if BO supports coal, that folks like me will continue to give him money, knock on doors in NH and ME, write letters to the editor, etc.
<
p>
There are plenty of us who won’t.
<
p>
By leaving part of the base to kowtow to the “middle” within certain states, he may lose more than he gains.
2. CTL total process is estimated to release twice the amount of greenhouse gas as conventional petroleum. Twice. Certainly twice is more than “as much CO2 as existing refining methods”. Here’s a slide show on the topic: Assessment of Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Fischer-Tropsch Diesel (pdf). Note that the consumption of FTD is a bit lower in GHG emissions than petrol, but the manufacturing of FTD is much higher. Also, the theoretical efficiency barriers on FTD mean it will never beat petroleum in terms of energy efficiency.
<
p>
So, unless you’ve got a solar powered coal sequestering CTL plant, it emits more GHGs. If you’ve got that much solar power, just get plug in cars — it’ll be far more efficient and less polluting!
<
p>
Are you really gonna vote for Nader or another loser simply over the one issue of CTL?
<
p>
As for CTL I was arguing it would be more efficient if we offset the CTL processing by getting rid of fossil fuel based power plants which in fact will be a lot easier and cheaper than getting rid of fossil fuel based cars.
<
p>
What are the alternatives? Hydrolyizing water to get the H for fuel cells is just as inefficient as refining, granted the end result is zero emissions out of the car. Electric cars require electric power plants that emit no grennhouse gases and so far only nuclear power is viably a major powersource and greenhouse free and I am assuming you don’t like that.
<
p>
I am saying if we pushed for 60mpg as the average MPG by 2020 like BO is proposing, if we push for half the domestic auto fleet to be hybrids by 2020 like BO is proposing, if we push for lots of alternative fuels for cars (maybe make hydrolysis more efficient), and wind, solar, and yes nuclear power which again BO is doing than CTL aint so bad. We could have a 100% domestic fuel source and not have to waste American blood in the sands of the Middle East again.
<
p>
Also the specific bill he supported would have in about five years made CTL just as efficient as regular refining by requiring buffers, sifters, and research money to make it more efficient.