Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Gas Tax Holiday? Clean Coal? Who's pandering to whom?
Hillary caught a good deal of (well-deserved) static for her "pandering" to the working class by calling for a summer-long 'gas-tax holiday,' which virtually everyone but she and McStain recognized as fundamentally no more than a gigantic, off-the-books give-away to Big Oil.
Will Obama collect the same obloquy, the same scorn, for pandering to the Kentucky coal-mining constituency for supporting an equally stupid, equally damagaing fantasy: "Clean" Coal? He should, on the basis of a Kate Shepard piece up now on Grist:
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"?
We report; you decide.
Comments (19)
Hillary was touting clean coal as well, so she's still ahead on the pandering front.
May 7, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but it actually disappoints me when he does it. :(
May 7, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There may not be such a thing as clean coal technology yet, but it seems to be a worthy goal. Coal plants release about 36 percent of the US carbon emissions which plays a part in global warming. Investing in clean coal technology seems to be a good idea because it'll provide energy, jobs, and there will be fewer deaths due to dirty coal.
May 7, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If clean coal were actually clean, you'd have a point. The problem is that there's something already called clean coal that's not.
May 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question you have to ask is: Do you want power to run your gadgets, or do you like riding horses.
After that you can jump into the energy discussion other than the trivial "clean coal" conversation. Beware - it gets deep.
May 7, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take nuclear over supposedly clean coal any day—especially if it's going to be built in my back yard.
May 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as they bury the nuclear waste under your house...
May 7, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's better than releasing the equivalent nuclear waste into the atmosphere, right? I'm not sure—what happens to all the uranium in coal when it's burned "clean"? Where do we store that?
I'm not saying nuclear is perfect—I'm just saying it's better than coal, "clean" or otherwise.
May 7, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, where are we going to bury the sequestered carbon dioxide? Lake Nyos, anyone?
May 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting you should point to a natural cause of catastrophic CO2 release... All our efforts to contain CO2 are probably futile compared to the potential natural causes.
May 7, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, all of the natural causes combined pale in comparison to the human contribution to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. It's true that there will be a natural feedback that increases the amount of carbon dioxide even further, but it will be small change compared to our own contributions.
It's only locally (such as in Lake Nyos) where nature occasionally beats us.
May 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there is going to be enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to raise the temperature to levels that render the Earth unihabitable it hardly matters whether the source is natural or manmade: the only relevant question is whether it is possible to reduce the carbon dioxide to levels where the plante is not in peril.
The first step is to reduce the lavish use of energy by the United States.
Obama has no core prinicples and says whatever he thinks will get him elected.
May 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is going to take a number of technologies to keep things going at the rate they are now. The next tech break through is not guaranteed.
May 7, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an avid Obama supporter, and as one who consciously "votes the environment", if this is indeed true, it disturbs me.
May 7, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couple it with the fact that server farms are major contributors to energy consumption/pollution, me thinks your blogging days may be behind you.
Or not. I am guessing you can comfortably return to your daily routines and pretend nothing is happening.
The blue pill is on your nightstand waiting for you.
May 7, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily.
May 7, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no. I am quite aware of my own ecological footprint . . . and beat myself up over it plenty without the help of someone like you making snide and disingenuous comments. Save your criticims for someone else . . . jerk.
May 7, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two quick points:
a) Expect Obama to be sympathetic to coal... Illinois has coal deposits.
b) "Clean coal" is one of those "alternative energy" bullet points that is on soft ground. Like the rest of them. However, we as a nation have to grow up. We have to:
- admit that our new fuels won't be green (because they won't be)
- admit that the oil age (e.g. cheap energy) is over and our lifestyle will be declining.
Our only choice is how we want to manage that decline -- guide the plane down gently, or crash and burn.
No candidate will get serious about the real energy issues until after they are elected. See my blog on Jimmy Carter from yesterday. However, Obama touting coal is more honest than a tax holiday that will actually increase oil consumption -- and not even address serious problems like how to heat homes in the winter.
May 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Issues aside, the compact and powerful phrase "Clean Coal" is a marketing masterstroke. Similar to BP's simple ads with the black text highlighted yellow. Makes the whole pollution issue seem like a thing of the past.
May 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment