THE VINE JUNE 27, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Economist warns us this week
that coal is going to become an increasingly tempting energy substitute as oil
prices continue to hit new records. Why? Because the alternatives to
coal--natural gas, fuel oil, and diesel--are all tied to oil. Coal remains America’s
most abundant energy resource, and the growing call for the country to assert
its energy independence
only stands to strengthen the coal lobby.
While McCain touted
the development of “clean” coal technology this week, others are s
keptical
about our ability to mitigate the filthy outputs of coal-burning, worrying that
the science will lag behind the rally to increase coal exploration and
consumption. With rare exceptions,
the Democrats also haven’t done much to stand down Big Coal. In 2006, Obama
helped re-introduce
a controversial plan to promote liquefied coal as an alternative fuel
for motor vehicles--a fuel that would be far dirtier burning oil. Though he has
since qualified his stance, Obama has continued to make coal-friendly appeals
while campaigning in King Coal states.
In the meantime, other leading Dems have continued to
green-light projects that have yet to meet any kind of rigorous “clean coal”
standards. Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine has thrown his support behind
a new coal-fired electrical plant, which is set to advance after being approved
by the state’s Air Pollution Control Board on Wednesday. Despite a 2007 Supreme Court ruling
that ordered the EPA to treat the gas as a pollutant, the regulatory board
declined to place any limits on carbon dioxide emissions. (The plant is
expected to emit 5.3 million tons of CO2 per year.) In addition to meeting Virginia’s energy needs,
officials hope
that the plant will revitalize the remote, economically depressed region,
adding some 800 jobs in the area.
But if this is the kind of project that’s supposed to amp up
our ailing economy, what’s next? A throwback to the good ole days of the
Industrial Revolution, when coal-powered manufacturing plants didn’t have to
deal with pesky regulatory standards? With folks already hyping the potential
return of American manufacturing, I worry about the reactionary,
pollutant-enabling policies that might accompany such nostalgic pipe dreams. As
Brad describes,
the country’s growing ranks of anti-coal activists are already preparing for
the fight.
--Suzy Khimm
5 comments
Welcome, Suzy Khimm. I just Googled you and see that you've been out in the big wide world getting the stories in Cambodia and Brazil. Cool. I just hope you can resist the temptation to kick back in the TNR offices--I assume you're writing from DC and not Phnom Pen--and do it all by trolling the internet. This blog post, fer instance, why not make the 90 minute trip down to Richmond and talk to Tim Kaine himself or at least a few legislators? And why not run out to the VA coal fields in the southwest of the state and report on the attitudes there? Hell, talk to TNR golden-boy Jim Webb and see what he thinks about coal. This could be good stuff.
One point, I wasn't sure if you were saying the power plant would help the place where it's to be built or VA's coal producing regions. It almost sounded as if you were saying the entire state is economically depressed, though I'm sure you didn't intend that.
Second question, do you have to have a degree from Yale to work at TNR? Just saying...
- aeromonas
June 28, 2008 at 9:49am
As Democrats you must stand firm against the energy firms that would dare sell the working man cheap fuel. The working man deserves clean expensive fuel for his prius as he drives to the whole food market to feed his family.
- cthulhu2008
June 28, 2008 at 2:26pm
Hear, hear, cthulhu! Global warming is all a lot of pseudoscientific rot trumped up by the the Trilateral commission to keep the working man down. Coal doesn't emit twice as much CO2 per kilowatt hour as petroleum, and CO2 doesn't trap infrared radiation. And even if it does, a 10C increase in average global temperature won't make any difference to anyone! We can give the Suadis the finger and run our F150s on coal oil from here to kingdom come, and we'll all be just fine.
- aeromonas
June 28, 2008 at 6:30pm
Coal is only a problem insofar as Democrats are unable to practice strategic compromise. Outside of your-earmark/my-earmark, unfortunately, that does seem to be a lost art in Washington.
In the short term will will burn carbon-based fuels drilled or mined here or there and that is bad, but unavoidable, at the level of damage-to-the-earth-as-a-whole, it's a zero-sum game. The question is what we will do in the long run.
Standing in the path of a future free of carbon-based energy supplies stands the GOP. There are plenty of technologies, the litany grows: wind, solar, ocean-current, algae-oil, switch-grass ethanol, replaceable electric (need NOT be hydrogen) fuel cells ... but all of these require investment to create economies of scale and become the staple energy sources of the future.
Give the GOP coal. Heck, give them ANWR and offshore. All of these ... every one of them, will be replaced, burnt out, or both and will eventually be "returned to the earth". No exceptions. We burn no more whether the raw material comes from the US or elsewhere.
However, if we keep importing it from overseas, funding our adversaries and failing to build our own infrastructures and alternatives, then down the line we are a weaker country in a still dangerous world which is no less poluted than if we had sourced our carbon supplies ourselves. Worse, we will not be in a position to replace those supplies with clean alternatives, prolonging ecological damage.
- dcwood10
June 30, 2008 at 11:08am
Big caveat on that Virginia coal plant job figure. The 800 jobs are temporary construction jobs. There would only be 75 full-time permanent jobs, quite a paltry return on a nearly $2 billion investment by Virginia ratepayers.
- thegreenmiles
June 30, 2008 at 7:54pm