West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Good work everyone! We can breathe a sigh of relief (for now). Two competing amendments were both voted down in the Senate yesterday. Ken Ward, Jr. has the news in Senate rejects liquefied coal:
Controversial proposals to boost the conversion of coal into liquid fuel were rejected in the U.S. Senate Tuesday, after lawmakers and groups that support the idea broke ranks on how to get the job done.
[snip]
Liquid coal could still emerge somewhere as lawmakers finalize the Senate’s version of the energy bill. A Senate Finance Committee package could add liquid coal provisions to the energy bill later this week. Liquid coal could be inserted into the measure during a conference committee.
There are many issues that Sen. Jay Rockefeller and I agree on. It just happens, this is not one of them.
Coal--even potentially cleaner Liquid Coal--is part of the problem of global climate change, not part of the solution. Coal mining practices like mountain top removal that pollute West Virginia water and foul our air need reform before we open up new markets for coal. Billions of dollars of government funding would be better spent developing new economic opportunities for West Virginians instead of reinforcing a trickle-down coal economy that benefits only a lucky few.
I note with irony what the headline states Rockefeller is fighting for in the Energy Bill: "West Virginia Coal." I wish he (and the rest of the West Virginia delegation) were fighting for the people of West Virginia instead of "our" coal.
ROCKEFELLER FIGHTS FOR WEST VIRGINIA COAL IN ENERGY BILL
--Pushes for Significant Investment in Coal-to-Liquid Technology--
Washington, D.C. – Today Senator Jay Rockefeller joined with Senators Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) and John Tester (D-MT) in offering an amendment to the energy bill that would increase investment in innovative coal technologies, specifically coal-to-liquids.
The amendment would create a $10 billion loan program to promote coal-to-liquid facilities. Additionally, it will offer $200 million in grants for the planning, permitting and construction of an eligible project, with no more than $20 million allocated to each facility. The program will give priority to the cleanest facilities in terms of carbon emissions and to those with the greatest carbon sequestration capability. Finally, the amendment calls on the Secretary of Defense to conduct a feasibility study of maintaining coal-to-liquid fuel in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The following is Senator Rockefeller’s statement on the importance of the amendment:
“I believe that investment in coal is important to our future. Many of us have come to understand that we need to harness all of our abundant natural resources, including coal, ethanol, solar, and hydro. This is the key to a responsible energy policy, and coal-to-liquids conversion can be a big part in achieving energy independence that is so critical to our national security.
“Coal-to-liquids technology is proven and already provides other countries with much-needed motor and aviation fuels. However, the technology can and must be cleaner.
“Lessening our dependence on foreign oil is a national security imperative. The challenge we face is how to protect the environment while meeting our growing energy needs.
“Even without converting coal to transportation fuels, it will remain a huge part of our economic and energy future. Coal already produces 50 percent of our nation’s electricity, and no one believes that coal will be any less important in years to come.
“I think the greater risk is to do nothing and continue to watch the price of gasoline, natural gas, and home-heating oil skyrocket out of control.
“We can’t take that chance. We can’t take the chance that the science is wrong about climate change. We can’t take the chance that only one alternative fuel will provide the solution. America needs choices, and we need to invest in every possible alternative fuel source we can.”
Just so y'all know what we're up against, Brian Kelley, Advocacy Campaign Team Director of the National Mining Association just wrote me yesterday to say it needed my voice. I should "ACT now and urge your Senators Warner and Webb to support coal-to-liquid fuels." (I live in Virginia)
You, too, can subscribe to the ACT mailing list, if you send your request to Kelley (bkelley@nma.org).
"The Senate this week is debating a comprehensive energy bill and will soon consider an amendment designed to jumpstart the domestic production of ultra-clean coal-to-liquid (CTL) transportation fuels.
"Thank you for your support,
"PS - Remember to take action today! Doing your part NOW means more security, more jobs and cleaner burning domestic fuel for our country."
Today there was another letter from Mr. Kelley in my email box.
Peak Oil: Have you heard of Peak Oil? Watch the video for an brief introduciton. It's one of those crazy ideas that just happens to be, well, looking (unfortunately), not so crazy. The video is of King Hubbert (yes, that's his name) who correctly predicted (within one year) Peak Oil for US48 before it occurred. Well, this week Business Week (of all places) has the news. With a hat-tip to Jerome a Paris, here's what we learn in Business Week:
Peak oil refers to the point at which world oil production plateaus before beginning to decline as depletion of the world's remaining reserves offsets ever-increased drilling. Some experts argue that we're already there, and that we won't exceed by much the daily production high of 84.5 million barrels first reached in 2005. If so, global production will bump along near these levels for years before beginning an inexorable decline.
What would that mean? Alternatives are still a decade away from meeting incremental demand for oil. With nothing to fill the gap, global economic growth would slow, stop, and then reverse; international tensions would soar as nations seek access to diminishing supplies, enriching autocratic rulers in unstable oil states; and, unless other sources of energy could be ramped up with extreme haste, the world could plunge into a new Dark Age. Even as faltering economies burned less oil, carbon loading of the atmosphere might accelerate as countries turn to vastly dirtier coal.
What does the author recommend?
The reality is that it will be here much sooner for the U.S.—in the form of peak oil exports. Since we import nearly two-thirds of the oil we consume, global oil available for export should be our bigger concern. Fast-growing domestic consumption in oil-exporting nations and increasing appetites by big importers such as China portend tighter supplies available to the U.S., unless world production rises rapidly. But output has stalled. Call it de facto peak oil or peak oil lite. It means the U.S. is entering an age when it will have to scramble to maintain existing import levels.
[snip]
There are many things we in the U.S. can do (and should have been doing) other than the present policy of crossing our fingers. If an oil tax makes sense from a climate change perspective, it seems doubly worthy if it extends supplies. Boosting efficiency and scaling up alternatives must also be a priority. And, recognizing that nations will turn to cheap coal (recently, 80% of growth in coal use has come from China), more work is needed to defang this fuel, which produces more carbon dioxide per ton than any other energy source.
Coal: Ken Ward, Jr. has the news, Lori at Truth & Progress has the analysis: "Coal operators cannot evade the Clean Water Act by building sediment-treatment ponds just downstream from strip mine valley fills, a federal judge ruled Wednesday."
Liquid Coal: Lots of people are learning about West Virginia's coal mining problems as part of the current Energy Bill debate. Thank you shadiawood for highlighting Marsh Fork Elementary School during yesterday's press conference. Congratulations on your press coverage: Washington Post (great pictures!), CNS (great article), UPI (ditto).
Coal: How long until we reach Peak Coal, the point at which over half of the world's coal supply has been mined? One recent estimate is 2025.
CTL is too costly and wasteful; grain ethanol competes with people for grain
At a meeting on renewable energy on June 7, the State Council decided that China will halt coal liquefaction and grain ethanol projects currently in progress; under the principles of "not taking up arable land," "not using grain," and "not damaging the environment," China will continue to develop non-grain ethanol.
Update (By Clem Guttata):
This would be a huge setback for Liquid Coal advocates. One of their major talking points is pointing to China as evidence Liquid Coal is proven technology. (The unspoken part of their argument is feeding into US nationalist pride. After all, we have to compete with the Chinese, don't we?)
Now we learn an inconvenient truth. The Chinese have tried it out with their own massive investments. They've announced they are stopping all new investments--including a half-built billion-dollar plant--because Liquid Coal is just not economically and environmentally viable.
The problem with Liquid Coal has nothing to do with market pressures or lack of government support--those just aren't issues in China. The problem with Liquid Coal is it creates too many dirty byproducts and does not produce enough net energy.
(Welcome to West Virginia Blue, Beth! Thank you for sharing this news on Liquid Coal. - promoted by Clem Guttata)
"Senator Obama supports research into all technologies to help solve our climate change and energy dependence problems, including shifting our energy use to renewable fuels and investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy," the e-mail said. "However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels."
Obama quietly released this email statement late yesterday to environmental advocacy groups but did not mention the issue during an appearance at a Brentwood gas station, described in a new L.A. Times blog, designed to shore up his green bona fides with a renewed call to nationalize California's ambitious goals for reducing carbon levels in fuel.
Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Assn. called the senator's new statement the result of a "jihad" waged by some environmentalists against the coal industry.
"Clearly they are trying to intimidate Obama from doing something sensible."
Depending on how long the Alberto Gonzales no-confidence takes today, the Senate may take up the Energy Bill as early as this evening. That means there's no time to waste to make our voices heard on the Liquid Coal legislation.
The massive subsidies for coal were defeated in committee. Unfortunately, they could easily get snuck back in again as an amendment before the final vote.
Call your Senator today! Tell them to vote against Liquid Coal if it comes up again as an amendment. For those of us in West Virginia, call Sen. Byrd and Sen. Rockefeller. Here are their numbers:
Sen. Jay Rockefeller - 202-224-6472
Sen. Robert Byrd - 202-224-3954
The Coal to Liquid Fuel bill is a bad piece of legislation. It will increase, not decrease carbon emissions. It will increase, not decrease destruction Mountain Top Removal coal mining. It will increase, not decrease the transfer of wealth to corporate energy owners. It is bad energy policy, bad social policy, and bad environmental policy.
This is a critical time for action. Your voice can make a difference.
The Coal to Liquid Fuel bill is a bad piece of legislation. It will increase, not decrease carbon emissions. It will increase, not decrease destructive Mountain Top Removal coal mining. It will increase, not decrease the transfer of wealth to corporate energy owners. This bill is bad energy policy, bad social policy, and bad environmental policy.
Our friends at Blue Mass. Group were kind enough to front-page a story on this issue today. In the comments, raj pointed out this amazing article now available only from the May 2006 issue Vanity Fair: Michael Shnayerson's, "The Rape of Appalachia".
Today dozens of cyclists paid a surprise visit to Bank of America to protest their financial backing of coal companies as a part of the International Day of Action Against Climate Change and G8. After tying up downtown traffic, the 30-strong bike ride descended on the downtown Asheville headquarters of Bank of America. Once there, a number of people dumped coal in front of the main entrance, while another person spontaneously sacrificed their bike lock and locked the front doors shut.
[snip]
Bank of America plays a major role in perpetuating climate change by its massive investments in the coal industry. Pound for pound, burning coal releases more C02 emissions then any other fossil fuel. Bank of America has facilitated nearly $1 billion in loans to Massey Energy and Arch Coal, two of the largest companies involved in the environmentally devastating process of mountaintop removal coal mining. Mountaintop removal mining has already reduced 500 square miles of mountains to rubble and buried over 1,200 miles of streams in Southern Appalachia.
Bank of America has also made loans and facilitated stock offerings for Peabody Energy to the tune of several billion dollars. Peabody is infamous for its human rights violations against Native Americans. Since 1975, over 14,000 indigenous people, mostly Dine’, have been forcibly relocated off of their ancestral lands to make way for Peabody’s Black Mesa strip mine in northeastern Arizona. This strip mine, the largest in the US, has devastated thousands of acres of indigenous land and drained local aquifers that are essential for sustaining life in this desert climate. In addition to these abuses, Peabody Energy, along with a number of other companies funded by Bank of America, are pursuing the construction of a new wave of dirty coal plants.
Wow, this is pretty amazing. You know a piece of coal-related legislation is a real stinker when even coal-mining region researchers and newspapers start speaking out against it. Here's a taste from the states neighboring West Virginia.
"A major program to subsidize coal-to-liquids makes no sense, since the goals of energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved at lower cost through plug-in hybrid vehicles charged with electricity from reduced carbon sources," according to an Issue Brief by the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center.
Next, (via gristmill) we've got newspapers editorials in Kentucky and Roanoke, Virginia chiming in:
Billion-dollar boondoggle: Coal-to-liquid technology is expensive, harmful to the environment and inefficient. The federal government should take no part in subsidizing it.
Wisdom in the media on these issues is rare. Kudos to both papers for putting the long-term national interest above short-term local interests.
(Bumped... this story is just as apt today as it was six-plus months ago. - promoted by Clem Guttata)
Erik Reece, Credit: The Courier-Journal.com
I agree with Erik Reece of Lexington, KY. It's time for a 'new deal' for Appalachia(h/t to va dare for the link):
A form of strip mining called mountaintop removal has ripped apart all of the ridgelines that surround this forest, leaving miles of lifeless gray plateaus, lunar wastelands. Mountaintop removal entails the blasting of entire summits to rubble in an effort to reach, as quickly and inexpensively as possible, thin seams of bituminous coal. Trees, topsoil and sandstone are dumped into the valleys below. More than 1,000 miles of streams have been buried in this way, and an Environmental Protection Agency study found that 95 percent of headwater streams near mines have been contaminated by heavy metals leeching from the sites.
When it comes to mountaintop removal, a certain fatalism seems to take hold in Appalachia -- the coal companies are too powerful, some politicians are corrupt, the regulators won't regulate and the news media don't care. But we cannot give up on rehabilitating Appalachia.
Erik Reece continues outlining not only the problems we face, but a hopeful future for new solutions as well.
Appalachia's land is dying. Its fractured communities show the typical symptoms of hopelessness, including OxyContin abuse rates higher than anywhere in the country. Meanwhile, 22 states power houses and businesses with Kentucky coal. The people of central and southern Appalachia have relinquished much of their natural wealth to the rest of the country and have received next to nothing in return.
To right these wrongs, first we need federal legislation that will halt the decapitation of mountains and bring accountability to an industry that is out of control. Then we need a New Deal for Appalachia that would expand the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, or create a similar program, to finally return some of the region's lost wealth in the form of jobs and trees, rebuilt topsoil and resuscitated communities.
Financing should come from a carbon tax on Appalachian coal bought and burned by utility companies across the country -- a tax that would also discourage the wasteful emissions of greenhouse gases. Such a project would educate and employ an entire generation of foresters and forest managers, who would be followed by locally owned wood-product industries and craftsmen like Patrick Angel's brother Mike, who makes much sought-after hardwood chairs just like ones his grandfather fashioned.
We know that our species, and most other species, will survive only in a future that burns no coal or oil. The question now is whether we have the nerve to get there before the world's oldest mountains are gone.
I couldn't agree more. Let's start investing financial resources in sustainable development. The extraction economy has been a disaster for this region--liquid coal is not the answer. Sustainable energy solutions are sustainable economic solutions.
We're tickled every shade of pink that Moveon.Org is helping us stop the Liquid Coal Fuel legislation! Act now. Sign the petition.
In the next few weeks, Congress could vote to DOUBLE the amount of greenhouse gases America produces from our cars and planes.1
It's the greatest single threat to solving the climate crisis in a decade.
It sounds crazy. But Congress is rushing through a package that could lock us into liquid coal as our country's new energy source for transportation. For every mile driven, coal-based fuels produce as much as twice as many greenhouse gases as petroleum.2 That means even a Prius would drive like a Hummer.
The coal industry has been lobbying for this break for years, and many in Congress don't understand the facts. Can you sign on to our petition opposing liquid coal right now—and then please alert your friends?
"Liquid coal would be a disaster in our fight against the climate crisis. Congress should vote against tax breaks and subsidies for coal."
The legislation would take billions in taxpayer dollars to build up to 10 more dirty coal plants, provide taxpayer subsidies when the fuel can't compete on the open market, and guarantee that the government will buy this fuel no matter what.3
First of all, a big shout out to our fiends at Future Majority ("blogging progressive youth politics") for linking to our CTL coverage. This well written diary (and informed comments) speaks well of their community.
Speaking of well informed comments, there are two lengthy comments here at West Virginia Blue that could easily be their own diaries. First, lifelong resident of Appalachian Virginia va dare shares her valuable perspective in "[http://www.wvablue.c... Repeating my e-mail from last night". Welcome, va dare!
Question. I'm looking for a membership list of the House and Senate CTL Fuel Caucus. Has anyone seen one?
Finally, our dailyKos diary on CTL/MTR has clocked in with over 500 comments! There's the usual chaff with the wheat, but the process of engaging with commenters there (plus commenters here!) really helped distill the key message. Below the break, a first draft:
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
