Senators McCain & Obama: We Need Clean Energy, Not "Clean Coal"

Last night in the Vice Presidential debate, you heard both Senator Biden and Governor Palin touting their support for "clean coal".  Today, President Bush signed a $700 "bailout" bill passed by Congress that provides important tax credit extensions for renewable energy and energy efficiency measures--but also gives $25 billion in tax credits to the coal industry.

Both presidential campaigns and our Congress are missing the point:  Conventional coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of global warming pollution in the United States.

"Clean Coal" is a myth -- a contradiction in terms.  Coal companies claim they can develop coal plants at some point in the distant future that will capture and sequester carbon pollution.  But carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is unproven and exorbitantly expensive.  At best, the technology will not be commercially available until 2030, and installing carbon capture systems will almost double plant costs, which won't provide any relief to Americans' soaring utility bills. We need real solutions, not coal industry myths.  Send a message to both Presidential campaigns that we need clean, green energy now.

The recent firestorm of attention in the media on the "Clean Coal" red herring, which has been fanned by attacks and rebuttals from both Presidential campaigns, began two weeks ago when a 1Sky organizer in Ohio, Carolyn Auwaerter, asked Biden a simple question based on 1Sky's commitment to moving beyond coal. "Senator," she asked,  "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" Biden clearly and directly stated "We're not supporting 'clean coal'... No coal plants here in America!" 

But he went on to argue for exporting Clean Coal technology to export to China, claiming it was necessary because several new coal plants are being built each week in China, with pollution impacting us here in the United States.  You can see the Biden exchange here.  The McCain-Palin ticket has been an even more vocal advocate of coal as a solution to our energy crisis.

Both campaigns need to hear us loud and clear: the solution to our climate crisis and our staggering economy is not more business as usual.  It is a clean, green 21st century economy that provides jobs in the growing wind, solar, and geothermal industries. 

Thousands of Americans spanning every state in the country hosted over 675 events this past Saturday, September 27th demonstrating their support for Green Jobs Now!  But we need to make our message even louder.

Please, take a minute now to send a message to both Presidential campaigns that we need clean green energy now.

We need federal policy that will:

• Enact an immediate moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that emit global warming pollution;
• Repower America through smart, renewable energy such as solar, wind and geothermal;
• Set strong, science-based targets for the reduction of global warming emissions of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050;
• Create 5 million new green jobs and pathways out of poverty with a sweeping national mobilization for climate solutions and investment in a new energy economy.

Thank you for your commitment to real solutions!

Read more reactions to the Biden-Palin Vice Presidential debate from HuffPost bloggers

Comments

[lelandpalmer]

For an alternate view, check out this article from Scientific American -

Can We Bury Global Warming? http://www.climate-change.ir/en/CO2%20Capture%20and%20Storage.pdf

Carbon capture and storage technology, if applied to carbonized biomass (charcoal), can actually start scrubbing the air of CO2. Quoting from the above link: ".....But biomass power can do better: if carbon capture equipment were added to these facilities and the harvested biomass vegetation were replanted, the net result would be to scrub the air of CO2...."

There is enough agricultural and forest waste available in the U.S. to replace much of the coal we now burn: http://www.ahc.caf.wvu.edu/lit/billion_ton_vision.pdf

Carbon dioxide, instead of being compressed and deep injected, can also be sequestered as a carbonate, which mimics the current natural process the earth uses to sequester CO2: http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/carbonates.pdf

If we just stop producing CO2, by switching massively to solar and wind power, I don't think myself that this will be sufficient to stop runaway global warming: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/11/science.climatechange1

To stop global warming, we need to combine biomass with carbon sequestration, either by deep injection of CO2 or by mineral carbonation, and start putting carbon back into the ground.

[marcosweb]

here's a site that has a comprehensive look at both candidate views on the environment:
http://www.livinggreenmag.com/

[OrionGal]

Here is another link which shows McCain hasn't voted on Clean Energy:

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/20/john_mccain_environment/

[yammit]

fossil fuel is not the end of all evil...We need to use EVERYTHING at our disposal. coal ,oil ,nukes, wind ,water et al....we have the technology now..you mention the economy and green jobs and geothermal and wind and solar... has anyone noticed the economy has tanked SINCE the globalphobia of Al Gore started... We should not use food for fuel .. Water for fuel might prove as bad.. And wind? Ted Kennedy basically said in his elitist way "not in my back yard"

[mamacat]

I agree with what you have said about the NIMBY problem, but I think it is a stretch to try to blame concerns about global warming for the bursting of our latest economic bubble.

Using our national resources to rebuild America, and to develop renewable energy at the same time, makes a lot of sense to me. Put people back to work with important jobs here at home, and do something to get us off of imported fuels.

And while we're at it, how about we stop waging war against other countries just because it makes some old men feel all alpha-male because they have the power to send young men off to war.

[OrionGal]

I found this link which shows McCain did not show up for Senate votes on Clean Energy:

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080206/mccain-no-show-clean-energy-again

[NL207]

"Coal companies claim they can develop coal plants at some point in the distant future that will capture and sequester carbon pollution"

Then you claim that CO2 is a pollutant? Maybe you haven't heard this before, but CO2 is essential to the continuation of life on earth as we know it. All life on this planet derives from CO2. Labeling CO2 a pollutant is about as intelligent as labeling water or oxygen pollutants. Your entire argument here is the equivalent of labeling water a pollutant: absurd.

[Sumocat]

I wouldn't be so quick to point out absurdity if I was throwing around such inaccurate analogies. CO2 is a human waste product, same as urine or feces, not water or oxygen. By your logic, replacing more of our oxygen with CO2 is no more harmful than replacing more of our water with urine or food with feces. Urine and feces are also vital to the continuation of life, but you don't see people arguing we should continue to replace more of our water and food with them. Unless of course you're arguing that urine and feces are not pollutants either, in which case I respect your principles but I personally would not like to consume any more urine, feces, or CO2 than is unavoidable.

[degenerate1991]

Good luck growing you dinner without CO2. CO2 is a byproduct of aerobic respiration (the method used by practically every animal on the planet). Plants (aka food, pretty forests, etc.) require CO2 to live. During the Jurassic period, for example, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was much higher, mostly because of increased temperatures; this allowed a plant base to grow which supported the appetite of the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs wouldn't be viable as a species because they require a volume of forage attainable only in a mostly tropical climate.

[realpolitic]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. "Carbon Dioxide (co2) is the most important anthrpogenic GHG." (IPCC 2007 Synthesis Report, p. 5.) At too high levels, Co2 would displace oxygen and asphixiate you. And if you do not consider it a pollutant try walking through downtown Beijing without choking.


"Carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming, they're very much a pollutant In an article published in Geophysical Research Letters, climate expert Ken Caldeira and colleagues argue that CO2 emissions will soon oversaturate the oceans; within four decades, they write, oceans could become dangerously acidic, literally corroding the plankton foundations of oceanic food chains. "

Along the way, ocean water will no longer meet clean water standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/carbon-dioxide-.html

http://climate.atmos.uiuc.edu/atuljain/publications/2006GL028605.pdf

[Krikkit]

As much as all of us would like to wave a magic wand and make all the world's energy truly clean, alternative energy is going to take some time to come online in a meaningful way. Clean coal is not really clean due to the carbon dioxide emissions that need to be sequestered (an unproven technology), but at least it will help us get off foreign oil while we struggle to create alternative energy industries. Biofuels also fall into that category.

[SeenItBefore]

Burning carbon based fuel is not, and never will be, clean. Everything is a trade-off in one respect or another. Burning coal is bad for the environment, but a great way to get abundant, cheap electricity.

All available energy sources are finite because the Earth is a closed system. Less finite is the Sun and it's energy can be tapped less efficiently and in a less polluting way for a long time.

After the Sun craps out... well, you know how that works out.

[degenerate1991]

"All available energy sources are finite because the Earth is a closed system."

Ever heard of the law of conservation of energy?

This is why we need more physics education in America.

[harriscrl3]

The US is the Saudia Arabia of Coal. Maybe its a misnomer to say that clean coal. But why shouldnt we invest in the techonology to see if its possible.

Carol

[Saitia]

I'm with you, Gillian, you're on the right track. But if we just sit there, we'll still get run over!
We've got to have leadership with a vision of the future, not just investment in wind, solar, and geothermal industries, which may prove to be excellent transitional energy sources, but may never be able to be harnessed in the many ways we'll need.

I want to see a president Obama who says we need to be looking for an as yet undiscovered energy source; one that is clean, powerful, and say, infinitely renewable and-- drum roll please-- absolutely free!!

That's what I call thinking outside the box, and that's a goal for the new century.