Barack Obama's energy/environment plans are by and large respectable -- he would establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard, invest in renewable fuels such as corn and cellulose ethanol, reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180 million metric tons by 2020, and has led a bipartisan effort to raise CAFE standards.
All this would be well and good if it weren't for one dirty little component of his energy plan: his support for implementation of coal-to-liquid technology in Southern Illinois. Understandably, Obama is concerned about high rates of unemployment in this mining region. But his stance on coal-liquefication has alternately baffled the local industry and environmentalists. His votes on coal-related legislation seem to back industry interests one day, "green" causes the next. It would seem the Presidential hopeful is caught between a rock and a hard place.
So what's the bottom line for Mr Obama? As noted above, virtually all his other energy proposals have the health of the planet at heart, though energy independence for its own sake is right alongside (not that this is a bad thing). His enthusiasm for corn ethanol may be a point of concern if you worry about the effect the biofuel industry may soon have on the global food market (more corn for fuel means less to eat, and at higher prices), but he claims to also support investment in cellulose-based fuel technologies, something that is already huge in South America (namely Brazil).
And, as coal-to-liquid proponents point out, coal-to-liquid would produce hardly more greenhouse gases than oil -- BUT that is only if the emissions produced during the process were trapped and contained underground, which at this stage is much easier said than done. And besides -- don't people concerned about global warming want less greenhouse gas, not "hardly more"?
This is surely a quandary for Mr Obama -- I for one will be interested to see where he goes from here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment