There were a number of fantastic responses to a post I put up yesterday on my support for Obama. Many of them revolved around his position on coal – so in this post, I want to focus in on that discussion.
It’s 2 AM, the night (morning) after the New Hampshire primary. Hillary had a surge and Obama came up short. For Obama supporters, that’s a bit of a disappointment, but we’re looking to South Carolina with high hopes. For climate organizers, it’s an incredible opportunity for us.
The number one reason not to support Obama commenters are leveling is on Coal. That’s good, coal is the enemy of the human race – and you’re right, he sucks on coal right now. But let’s think strategically about this. Why does he have that position? I think it’s important to understand this not to justify it, but to think strategically about how we change it.
As a progressive, black candidate running for Senate in Illinois, Obama made some concessions – we may want him to take a stand at every moment, but that’s not the way politics work. I think none of us think it’s easy to get elected to Senate as a black man in this country. White, southern Illinois is dominated by coal interests and Obama, as a Chicago liberal, pandered to them in order to get the vote.
This is bad, plain and simple. It doesn’t mean, however, that Obama has some deep, personal connection to the coal industry or really wants it to be a part of his vision for the country. I doubt he was walking around the South Side of Chicago saying to people, “I know social justice may be important to you, but here’s the real thing I want to talk to you about, coal-to-liquid technologies!” I haven’t seen a single stump speech or interview where he’s advocated for it without prompting. As a national candidate, he simply doesn’t have to compromise with the coal industry in Illinois as much.
So let’s shift his position. Now it comes down to strategy – railing against him is one way. For those of you who want to do it, more power to you, we need that. That work is phenomenally important, whether its lobbying in DC, fighting incinerators, or stopping mountaintop removal (see the powerful post below on Maria Gunnoe). Those tactics worked effectively on the coal-to-liquids issue.
Here’s what I think we can be doing as well, though – ramming home the idea of a clean energy economy. In our messaging, in the media, but most importantly with our actions. Obama is heading to South Carolina, a state he thought he was secure in, but with the results in New Hampshire, he’ll be fighting hard there. South Carolina is also a state where coal is a major force. What about getting students to do an action at a coal plant, dressed in T-shirts of all the political campaigns? How about bringing lumps of coal to Obama events and asking questions about his position? Or, getting tens of students in front of national media outlets with green hard hats on. This kind of thing, especially in the open primarily, can move this issue, move Obama, and most importantly, move it fast.
If being in New Hampshire has shown me one thing, it’s that a fairly scrappy bunch of students can make a huge impact. So let’s do it in South Carolina. I’m going to be heading down soon with Jon Warnow and Kelly Blynn who I worked on Step It Up with. We’ll be arriving hopefully soon and taking a lead from people on the ground there. And we’d love to have as many of you join us (live or helping spread the word online) as possible.
Look, if we don’t like a candidate’s position, let’s change it not just shut ourselves out of the process. Some may think it’s impossible, we’re going to give it a shot and could use all the help you can give – we certainly can’t get it done alone, but then, none of these problems will be solved without all of us plugging in. Millions of people are excited about Obama, let’s work our asses off to make him change his position, not shut down this phenomenon that is inspiring people to believe in fundamental changes to our society. Now isn’t the time to sit back and point fingers, it’s time to go create the world (and candidates) we want.
I’d love to hear people’s thoughts – - as I said, it’s 2:55 AM by now that I’m wrapping up and you all are probably thinking straighter. Let’s here em . . .
lets remember hillary DID NOT BEAT OBAMA IN NH.
the BOTH got 9 delegates.
!
Voting for a person on the premise that you can change their position after they are elected is a dangerous path to follow. I’m not willing to go down that path. People who are not living with mountaintop removal on a daily basis don’t seem to understand how fast the coal industry is moving. The damage that is done while we’re eating dinner is incomprehensible. This damage can never be undone – or repaired in any way. Even if, I say even if, a person in power changes their mind – they can’t change what happened while they were being convinced.
Mr. Obama spoke again last night about “sitting down at the table” and working things out. Only the moneyed interests will ever have a place at the table. We have a 100-year history here in West Virginia proving that our grandmothers were right: “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks!” I truly believe that you’re either for coal or your against coal. There’s no compromise!
[Editor's Note: We welcome David's disclosure in stating that he is from Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. ABEC’s outreach efforts come from America’s coal-based electricity providers. source]
You sound like you’ve made your mind up with respect to using coal to generate electricity. But technology has already made coal a cleaner energy resource – overall our plants are 70 percent cleaner based on regulated emissions per unit of energy produced. Department of Energy figures show that.
And with new advances in technology, we’re looking at a future where coal will meet America’s growing electricity needs with little to no emissions of the pollutants regulated by federal and state clean air laws.
As a nation, we cannot ignore coal as a source of energy. (It accounts for 50 percent of the electricity generated today.) We cannot be left worrying about how we meet our future energy needs without becoming more reliant on imported forms of energy. We have to invest in our energy future by recognizing that coal is a fuel for America’s future.
With regard to the previous commenter. Yes, thinking you can change a candidate is a dangerous road to go down, but so is single-issue voting. Albeit a somewhat short record, Obama’s record with the League of Conservation Voters is leaps and bounds better than Edwards, and even a few points stronger than Clinton’s. ( http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/ ) I’m not saying he’s perfect, but I’d really hate to see another 2000 situation. If the green party would have voted with the Democrat, gore probably would have won, and the world and environment would be a lot less Bush’ed up.
It seems to me that Obama has been the candidate most open to participation. Perhaps if many emails were sent through his website making clear that he has to be the transition president from fossil fuels and oilmen presidents to alternative energies with positive ideas of how to institute that sort of change it might become included in his platform of change. It needs to be made clear to him that he has to be not just the American president but the leader of the world to a green and sustainable future. That’s how democracy is supposed to work isn’t it?
My voice is gone and I haven’t slept much in days, but I’ve learned a lot from being a part of the primary process here in New Hampshire for the past 6 months.
The first thing is that now is the time when the candidates can be moved (and they have moved). We’ve been going to candidate events, Republican and Democrat, since May, holding signs, engaging voters, and most importantly, birddogging the candidates. We’ve seen McCain move so far that he now talks about capping carbon emissions without prompting in his stump speech. The top three democratic front runners will talk about 80% reductions and explain the concept of green-collar jobs both in stump speeches and in response to questions. After Powershift, Hillary began parroting the 5 million green jobs line. Once we get to the general election, these campaigns will be a lot more inaccessible and difficult to influence. Now is the time, if you’re in or near an early primary state, to get to events and ask them the tough questions.
The second thing is that none of the candidates actually completely take a hard line on coal. We need to work on all of them to get them where they ought to be. Even Edwards still leaves the door open (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/10/172519/037) and Hillary dances around the issue with confusing rhetoric as well. They’ll listen if we show up and make our voices loud enough.
I thought for a while that I would just vote for whoever had the best policies, but when it comes down to it, the democratic frontrunners’ policies are nearly identical, and therefore not as important as who they are as people. Hillary is clearly the safe, establishment candidate. I love Edwards’ populist message, but it doesn’t totally fit with his huge home and history with working for hedge funds and his $400 haircuts. When it comes down to it, I feel Obama is truly different than anyone I’ve seen in politics for a long time. Simply because of who he is, and the heart and soul that is so evident in seeing him in person, I’ve never once doubted that he is anything other than what he says he is – someone who stands for hope, change, unity – something entirely different than Washington has seen in a long time.
B.J., I entirely agree – that’s why it’s imperative that we work right now to change Obama (and all the candidates’) position on coal. They are never more open, more attentive, then they are during the primary season. With the media desperate for any development and the public engaged in looking at the issues, I can’t think of a more captive audience to get our message out there. That’s why I think we need to turn out in force in South Carolina, not waving candidate signs – but “no coal” and “green jobs” signs.
In poll after poll, people are saying they want to hear more about basic economic issues. I think talking to people about the dirty coal industry that has never provided for people but just torn them and the mountains down and giving a vision for new, dignified green jobs is a good direction to try (and thank you for everyone who is already doing exactly this!).
Finally, I agree with what you’re grandmother to: “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks!” That’s one of the reasons I think we have a chance with Obama. The real risk is thinking that we can rely on the old Washington insiders to bring about any change. Obama is by no means outside the system, but he’s less locked in than most. And getting back to my original point – no politician is ever going to make the changes we need, to end MTR mining and cut down on coal. The only chance we have is a public surge of demand, a movement, that will pressure these weak-kneed politicians to go our way. I think Obama’s message of change is helping us get to that point.
It’s going to be a fight – but I think there’s an opening here that we should be taking advantage of instead of slamming the door on.
I do not necessarily think it is fair to charactarize Obama’s position as blindly pro-coal, or especially blindly coal-to-liquids.
Although he co-sponsored the Coal To Liquids support act of 2007, he ultimately voted against the bill when it became apparent to him that there were potentially substantial negative consequenses from a carbon emissions standpoint if that industry were to develop without proper emissions controls.
He has since very publically stated that he is only supportive of coal-derived synthetic fuels if the carbon emissions from the manufacutring of those fuels are captured and sequestered, and if the fuels can be produced with a substantial reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions relative to conventional petro-diesel.
The industry has the proven technical capability to do that.
In fact, with biomass blending, synthetic fuels manufacturing using a blend of biomass, coal, and carbon capture and sequestration, is the only commercial scale technically proven and economically viable combination that we currently have that is capable of producing fuels with a lifecycle neutral greenhouse gas footprint.
I do not know that Obama has stated a position on mountaintop removal. That is a major issue, but his support for clean climate-friendly synthetic fuels manufacturing should not be tied to mountaintop removal. They are seperate issues.
- Stephen
jesus christ! if persons can only get into positions of political power by pandering to earth-killing interests (coal industry, oil industry, etc.), then the system of politics is, by definition, unsustainable. this so-called “democracy” we live in is no longer a democracy (was it ever… i don’t think so). if i go up to a tiger and ask her to be a bulldozer, that tiger will laugh at me or perhaps maul me for the insult. likewise, if i ask a bulldozer to be a tiger, that bulldozer will not change. the political system we have now is a bulldozer which is destroying the planet. we can exert a lot of energy trying to make that bulldozer something else, but it just can’t be anything else.
Jamie has made the best case I’ve heard yet for why we – the members of the youth climate movement – should support Obama: because he’s creating the environment for our movement to grow, and we all have a pretty strong interest in that.
I’ve been a strong Edwards supporter. He seems to me to be both the most progressive, populist candidate on just about all fronts and yet also seems to find a way to talk to independents, moderates and conservatives without immediately turning them off. Despite being strongly progressive, he matches up very well against all the Rs in a general and is highly “electable.” Most importantly to me, he has shown the most leadership on climate and energy issues, coming out with a strong climate/energy plan very early on and he should be credited with driving Obama and Clinton to take stronger stands. More than that, he seems to “get it” better than anyone else: climate is clearly a top priority for him, and he’s convinced me early on that he understands both the scale of the problem and the commitment required of the response.
Clinton seems to get it now, or at least she has done her homework and has smart people around her. She’s also taken whole stock the green jobs platform from 1 Sky/Power Shift/Step it Up, which is excellent, and she’s got the economic opportunity messaging down pat. But to me, it seems like climate is just another of six or so policy issues for Clinton, not one of her top one or two priorities, and she seems the least likely to unite broad-based support for strong climate policy and a clean energy future.
Obama has a good solid climate/energy plan now too (about six months after Edwards’ plan and a week or so after Clinton’s if I remember correctly), and he sprinkles it into his stump speeches. But he has yet to convince me that he is really committed to the issue, or that he isn’t just saying it because he has to, because Edwards and groups like LCV – and us – have made it clear he has to talk about climate.
All that being said, Jamie’s case to support Obama is a good one – not for his policies, or for his personal commitment to climate, but because of his apparent ability to spark a “movement mentality” in this country, and to empower every day citizens – and young people – with a feeling that they can collectively change the world. That would be a huge boon in our efforts to create a movement for a sustainable, just, and prosperous future, and may trump a candidates’ policy positions, as long as we’re convinced Obama will be receptive to our movement – to the movement he will help spark, even if unintentionally – once elected.
We can’t rely on a president – any candidate – to change the world for us. It’s our future at stake, and it’s foolish to put that future in the hands of any candidate or President, no matter how good they are. We’re going to have to create the change we want to see, and we can! If Obama helps convince millions more young people that they can indeed create the change they want to see – forget what Obama wants to see – then he could be our most effective ally on the campaign trail, and in the White House.
We should continue our already highly successful efforts to drive the candidates to take stronger and stronger positions during the elections. And at the same time, we should start preparing to push climate into the top of the priority list for whichever candidate moves into the White House in January 2009. Our work will not be over in November 2008, but through diligent efforts over the next 10 months, we’ll be in the right position in 2009 to capitalize and make the critical push for strong federal action (finally!).
Eye on the prize folks…
(Great posts Jamie)
Obama has come out against MTR, http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/frontporch/blogposts/obama_says_that_we_must_find_a_way_around_mtr/
but Coal Use and Mountain Top Removal aren’t separate. We will never stop MTR till we stop using coal. In VA, underground seams are already basically exhausted, FYI, it’s no coal or MTR. There’s no clean coal, and coal is not “alternative fuel” no matter how many billions of dollars you charge rate payers to build a fancy new power plant. They all deplete ground water, release mercury, and require mountains to be blown up.
Dana, thanks for the reference to Obama’s position on MTR. That is new and encouraging information for me.
I do beg to differ on one point. Coal use and MTR are indeed separate issues. It is absolutely 100% possible to mine coal without creating any lasting disturbance to the surface. Perhaps not in appalacia, but that basin is at a point of terminal production decline. There are many more coal basins in the US that do not require such extreme measures to access. Particularly in Illinois. There are a whole lot of coal basins in the US, and most do not require MTR to access economically.
There IS such a thing as clean coal, we CAN deal with the carbon issue with deployment of the right technology, and those technologies should be encouraged. Gasification based plants can capture over 95% of all mercury and other heavy metals in the coal, and those elements can be disposed of safely. Even better, those same clean coal technologies can be used as a commercial scale bridge to accelerate development of high-efficiency second-generation renewables, as cellulosic/biomass feedstocks can be processed into diesel in the exact same plant, with almost the exact same process technology, at the same time coal is being used.
No energy is free. There is some lasting environmental impact with any energy source, including, and sometimes especially, renewables. We will not go back to living naked in trees eating nuts, so it is all about minimizing footprint, and developing responsibly.
I think you will find yourself changing your position on whether or not coal-derived synfuels can or cannot constitute “alternative fuel” the first day you find yourself sitting in a mile-long gas line because we ran out of available oil. That is coming in the next 10 years if we do not ramp all clean available alternatives. Right now, cellulosic ethanol is a technological pipedream that exists in a lab and in one small-scale noncomercial pilot plant. If you would like to learn more, do some research on Peak Oil. It will expand your perspective considerably.
Some interesting new numbers on how candidate’s supporters in NH looked at global warming – all very close, but more voters for Obama saw it as a serious problem, while more for Hillary said it needed more study. Follow the link, then scroll down:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/vote-polls/NH.html
@ Stephen – clean coal is myth. Even the coal industry is realizing this as “clean” coal plants continue to be scrapped amid fears of global warming and environmental legislation. See – http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080102/OPINION/801020440/1030
On the other hand, efficiency and renewables are available and ACTUALLY clean.
I do agree with Jamie on changing the concept of all the candidates position on coal. Obama has said,” He will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.
Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels.
I believe he can make a change into the right direction.
Is anyone going to S.C.?
Sorry Jamie, but I find this a bit hard to believe.
There is *already* a powerful movement against coal in this country. Our allies have been on TV, Radio, Time magazine calling for an end to MTR for gods sakes…do you think Obama hasn’t heard of this movement?
Even if you think he somehow make the case he hasn’t heard (enough) yet, how about his pro-nuclear power position?
The anti-nukes movement is one of the most longstanding, enduring environmental movements in history. Has he never heard of Greenpeace? Why is he on the wrong side of this issue too?
If it takes getting 1 million people in the streets (as the civil rights and anti-war movement has) I’m sorry but we’re still (unfortunately) a long way from being there despite the day-to-day life and death struggles of coal-field residents and climate change effected communitiies: I don’t think the planet has time to wait for Obama to wake up and see the movement.
Being a great speaker and movement builder is right, but having ideals — from the beginning — is more important. To be honest, I don’t see how a real progressive movement builder that doesn’t have a broad-ranging, encompassing set of ideals about environmental justice can exist.
My point, Obama is a great, convincing speaker with some marginally liberal politics, but his commitment to a just energy future is weak at best.
I can more easily imagine his charisma rallying the country around clean coal, ethanol and nukes then a just energy future.
plus, many candidates who are elected take this as being some kind of mandate to the people to carry out the platform they campaigned for… if obama favors clean coal as a platform, then when you elect him you should not be surprised when that’s what we see
Sen. Obama has put nuclear at the bottom of his list, just like Sen. Clinton. Everything I have heard him say recently is that nuclear would play a role AFTER renewables and efficiency have had their shot. He is not a nuclear advocate like Gov. Huckabee. Rather he seems to be giving himself a political out if the renewables don’t pan out or need more transition time.
Here’s another voice for Obama; I can’t add any more reasons right now.
What I do want to add is that this is the type of discussion we need more of on this blog. Too often posts on IGHIH are things we all agree with, not intended to draw out differing opinions. When ideas are brought up that don’t really jive with our thinking they tend to be ignored or shot down. We need to be very clear that this isn’t just an echo chamber, so I like this thread.
This is a thread about obama, not about “clean” coal…but for what it’s worth, Stephen Johnson [whose weblink is to an coal industry site, which, incidentally has a hilarious logo of a coal sunflower] is both diverting the subject of this thread and spueing industry lies on the site.
Are we to ignore it and risk that newer readers eat up the propaganda?
Stephen, i’m curious, are you part of the youth climate and green energy movement? What brought you to this site?
I would strongly encourage other seasoned readers and editors for this site to not just sit back and let [would be?] dirty energy industry spokespeople run wild here.
Newer readers may have missed the dozen odd articles posted here in the past debunking “clean” coal scam.
The youth climate movement and the more principled groups within the rest of the environmental movement have come out against clean coal.
This movement is about reducing energy consumption, increasing efficieny, and promoting low-impact wind and solar…Not one step backward…
Clean Coal is a lie:
- http://www.desmogblog.com/the-expensive-myth-of-clean-coal
- http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/asia-energy-revolution/dirty-energy/clean-coal-myth/clean-coal-myths-and-facts
- http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/igcc/
- http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3948
- http://theprlab.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/dr-karl-debunks-clean-coal-pr-myth/
Another aspect of the Coal-bama debate, see in it what you will:
Obama: New Mining Bill too Tough on Companies
Reno Gazette Journal, 11/7/2007
The recent mining reform billed passed by the U.S. House is “not optimal” and should be rewritten to reduce the economic burden on mining companies, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday.
During a conference call with Nevada reporters to present his rural agenda, Obama said he would seek a better compromise on the bill now that it is in the U.S. Senate.
“What’s clear to me is that the legislation that has been proposed places a significant burden on the mining industry and could have a significant impact on jobs,” he said. “We are going to have to keep on working to find the kind of legislation that is going to provide fair compensation for these federal lands and also enhances environmental protection (and) cleans up abandoned mines.”
Read the entire article by following the link below:
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071107/NEWS19/711070420
Hey guys, I have been keeping up with your blogs and feel we need to stay together on the concerns about the Obama’s coal issue. A lot of you have expressed your opinions and facts on this matter. Environmentalists has said, that “focusing on coal does nothing to arrest climate change. Instead, they say, lawmakers should back cleaner alternative fuels and stricter automobile and industrial emissions standards”.
I would like to hear more on your views and would be interested on any plans or information of joining together in South Carolina to view our opinions.