« Sign the McCain/Obama Petition for Carbon Neutrality Now | crumbrye's Blog | President Obama's Environmental Policies »
Obama & Coal
I know this post is going to attract vitriol from Obama supporters. I just want to assure them that within a liberal blog like this one, it is fair and necessary for like-minded people to criticize the policies and votes of our candidates so they bring our concerns with them to elected office. The biggest complaint among liberals is that the Clintons triangulated away our core beliefs in exchange for higher approval ratings and small legislative gains. I don't want to see this happen again, hence this post.
In 2005, Dick Cheney met in secret with several oil, coal, and agricultural lobbyists to craft an Energy Bill that essentially handed them our environment. The list of those involved in the 2005 Energy Bill negotiations is still largely confidential. Dick Cheney has used his executive privilege to keep it that way.
It was highly publicized at the time that this bill was one of the worst corporate giveaways in history. As a matter of fact, this bill lifted environmental protections that were in place to slow global climate change and actually resulted in greater release of carbon emissions. How? The 160-acre cap that restricted expansion of coal power plants was lifted so that more coal power plants could be constructed. The bill also opened up federal lands for inventory checks of possible coal supplies.
Over $2.5 billion in tax exemptions were provided in the bill for fossil fuel producers, including the coal industry. This is in addition to the $1.6 billion given for development of "clean coal" facilities, an Orwellian use of words that attempts to equate the filthy, environmentally degrading source of electricity with 21st Century green technology.
Some might argue that the bill also provided support for creation of renewable energy sources. As a matter of fact, the new funding for "alternative energy" expansion (which included natural gas and ethanol) was almost half that which was provided for development of fossil fuel and coal power. Any gains provided by the bill for renewable energy was dominated by the losses from expansion of fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, Obama voted for this bill. McCain didn't. Incidentally, Hillary didn't either, but as I feel Obama will be the nominee, its important to emphasize his vote. Why is it important to point out Obama's vote when he has strong support from the League of Conservation Voters and other environmental organizations, and McCain doesn't? Because long after the election is over, I want to be assured Obama won't compromise away our environment again.
In the past, commenters on TPM have explained that it would have been political suicide for Obama to vote against the 2005 Energy Bill because of its support for ethanol expansion and coal. Illinois has an economy largely reliant on these two energy sources. However, my impression is that Obama places principle above politics. His strongest argument is that he will tell Americans the truth, even when it is inconvenient. How then does he explain this vote?
The purpose of this post is to ensure that we have a President who will not pay lip service to the environment. We cannot use 20th century tactics to confront 21st century challenges. Obama has to be the President he says he will be. He cannot betray his supporters by enacting legislation that stands in complete contradiction to the campaign promises he made. That is old politics.
The damage has been done from Obama's 2005 Energy Bill support. If you have any doubt that there are direct, permanent ramifications from his vote, read THIS ARTICLE about coal companies blowing the tops off of mountains to obtain coal as cheaply as possible, ignoring the horrendous effects on the health of the surrounding people, animals and environment.
I understand the impulse to get behind our candidate and loyally turn a blind eye to votes like this to ensure his victory. We can all support our candidate while emphasizing a platform that stays true to fundamental Democratic ideals. Perfect is often the enemy of good, but this bill was pitiful. Obama should have never voted for it and its up to us to make sure he never supports something like this again.
Please take a moment and urge McCain & Obama to sign a carbon neutrality pledge to make their campaigns environmentally friendly.
www.greenpieceblog.com
In 2005, Dick Cheney met in secret with several oil, coal, and agricultural lobbyists to craft an Energy Bill that essentially handed them our environment. The list of those involved in the 2005 Energy Bill negotiations is still largely confidential. Dick Cheney has used his executive privilege to keep it that way.
It was highly publicized at the time that this bill was one of the worst corporate giveaways in history. As a matter of fact, this bill lifted environmental protections that were in place to slow global climate change and actually resulted in greater release of carbon emissions. How? The 160-acre cap that restricted expansion of coal power plants was lifted so that more coal power plants could be constructed. The bill also opened up federal lands for inventory checks of possible coal supplies.
Over $2.5 billion in tax exemptions were provided in the bill for fossil fuel producers, including the coal industry. This is in addition to the $1.6 billion given for development of "clean coal" facilities, an Orwellian use of words that attempts to equate the filthy, environmentally degrading source of electricity with 21st Century green technology.
Some might argue that the bill also provided support for creation of renewable energy sources. As a matter of fact, the new funding for "alternative energy" expansion (which included natural gas and ethanol) was almost half that which was provided for development of fossil fuel and coal power. Any gains provided by the bill for renewable energy was dominated by the losses from expansion of fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, Obama voted for this bill. McCain didn't. Incidentally, Hillary didn't either, but as I feel Obama will be the nominee, its important to emphasize his vote. Why is it important to point out Obama's vote when he has strong support from the League of Conservation Voters and other environmental organizations, and McCain doesn't? Because long after the election is over, I want to be assured Obama won't compromise away our environment again.
In the past, commenters on TPM have explained that it would have been political suicide for Obama to vote against the 2005 Energy Bill because of its support for ethanol expansion and coal. Illinois has an economy largely reliant on these two energy sources. However, my impression is that Obama places principle above politics. His strongest argument is that he will tell Americans the truth, even when it is inconvenient. How then does he explain this vote?
The purpose of this post is to ensure that we have a President who will not pay lip service to the environment. We cannot use 20th century tactics to confront 21st century challenges. Obama has to be the President he says he will be. He cannot betray his supporters by enacting legislation that stands in complete contradiction to the campaign promises he made. That is old politics.
The damage has been done from Obama's 2005 Energy Bill support. If you have any doubt that there are direct, permanent ramifications from his vote, read THIS ARTICLE about coal companies blowing the tops off of mountains to obtain coal as cheaply as possible, ignoring the horrendous effects on the health of the surrounding people, animals and environment.
I understand the impulse to get behind our candidate and loyally turn a blind eye to votes like this to ensure his victory. We can all support our candidate while emphasizing a platform that stays true to fundamental Democratic ideals. Perfect is often the enemy of good, but this bill was pitiful. Obama should have never voted for it and its up to us to make sure he never supports something like this again.
Please take a moment and urge McCain & Obama to sign a carbon neutrality pledge to make their campaigns environmentally friendly.
www.greenpieceblog.com
Advertisement
We will be holding any new president's feet to the fire. Do remember that 2005 was Obama's first Senate season.
But look at the fact that Congress is finally moving with confidence on energy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022702635.html
The House has eliminated tax breaks for oil companies in this bill.
February 28, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank goodness they are doing something. Is it me, or does it feel like every compromise ends up benefiting the oil industry more than it does Democratic beliefs?
February 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's absolutely valid to take whoever ends up being the nominee to task on this. Hell, even if it ends up being McCain it needs to be done.
February 28, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, what a kidder. Exactly how are you going to be holding Obama's "feet to the fire ..."? You already voted for him, effectively sending the message that his previous vote didn't matter to you.
If this is one of your "hot button" issues, you'd have to be pretty much of a dumbkopf to ignore the track record on the grounds that "we'll hold his feet to the fire next time." Uh ... sure.
Also, an added note is that ethanol is not a free ride, either in the realm of pollution nor in the economic realm. Go google "ethanol pollution" for a list of links regarding the first item.
A typical leader reads,
Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised, the government says.
On the economic side, you can find this lead in article from last year on cnn.com:
Corn: The inflation crop
The U.S. is set to report a jump in acreage planted as farmers feed the ethanol machine. One byproduct: rising food prices.
Thanks.
mp
February 28, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, yourself. Ever notice that presidents and their party apparatus keep trying to get policy achieved even in their last years? Not to mention that a first-term president always wants a second go unless the first is a disaster.
It's like saying the only way to put pressure on a new president is to have made sure he is not president.
We do have to keep control of ethanol subsidies. The economics of ethanol are easy to corrupt with large players in the mix. The virtue of accepting the risk of corn ethanol as a starting point is that it helps develop both distribution and vehicles to use it. This helps to make more attractive the more difficult but more worthwhile cellulosic ethanol.
February 29, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Similarly, Clinton voted for off-shore oil drilling. If you want to look at their entire environmental record, look at their scorecards on the league of conservation voters. Both candidates do quite well, but Obama does slightly better than Clinton. (Both do significantly better than McCain, who in turn does better than most Republicans.)
February 28, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said in the post, I'm focusing on Obama at this point. Should Hillary pull an upset next Tuesday, I'll be happy to put the same pressure on her record.
As stated in the post, minimizing one candidate's mistakes by emphasizing his opponent's poor record isn't going to get things done for the environment. This campaign will eventually end and it will be important that Obama takes with him an understanding that promises must be kept.
Looking to Obama's entire record is important, so is looking at ratings given by organizations. This particular bill, above all others, was especially bad. Ben, what your comment does is exactly what I'm afraid of. If we let candidates off the hook for votes like these by assuming that they will support other environmental legislation, then we end up with a cumulative loss. This bill was very very bad.
Also, I detect a defensive tone to your comment. I'm not Obama's opposition. I'm a member of his Party. As a member, its my responsibility to ensure he represents the views of myself and my peers. Environmental protection and a move toward clean, renewable energy sources is a fundamental position of the Democratic Party.
February 28, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben,
First, this post had nothing to do with Hillary. Second, Obama voted for offshore drilling, too. In this disastrous bill:
Provides incentives to companies drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
I agree with crumbrye, if he's our nominee, we need to hold him to the high standards he espouses.
February 28, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barak also supports coal to oil which uses something like six gallons of oil for every ten gallons of gas it produces. It is a problem, but he has to represent his constituents, who benefit from dirty coal and wasteful, expensive corn to ethanol. The importance of this post is that it brings out the complexity of a run for the presidency by a candidate who uses the KISS principal. That's not a criticism of Obama-- he's doing what any successful candidate has to.
February 28, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Coal the leftover space pollution from a previous Space Alien occupation?
See this post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/defense-from-outerspace-aliens.php
February 29, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
No need to be wary, crumbrye, this is a perfectly valid point of discussion. Being an apologist is never good on any side. I have included a few links at the bottom. The Grist ones are particularly illuminating (Grist is the largest and most respected online green issues magazine.)
For those not interested in a longer read, my election strategy would simply be to acknowledge again that the bill was not very good but that it did have some good components (details below) and then counter with the fact that Obama's environmental record is very good (96% vs. McCain's 24% with League of Conservation Voters) and that of all the presidential candidates, his energy and environment plans are widely lauded as the most progressive as well as the best step towards achieving energy independence.
I am not terribly happy with Obama's voting history on energy issues myself, mainly for his inexplicable ethanol championing. More on that in just a bit. Fortunately, his independent energy and environment plans for the presidency[1][2] look quite a bit better although he still supports ethanol for who-knows-what reason. It is, by far, the best of the plans offered by the four still in the running (not according to just me but LCV, Grist et al. as well.)
McCain (who has a really nice Senate website, by the way) voted against the bill because of the various subsidies etc. and what he termed as unnecessary benefits for oil companies (although the example he cites is strangely about ethanol--and the lack of ethanol production in Arizona)[3].
Clinton actually voted for the Senate bill, by the way. She did vote against the combined bill in the end.
There were some not-bad things about the energy bill as well:
* Net tax increase on the oil industry
* Billions for renewable research, development
* Subsidies for conservation and efficiency
* Clean coal etc.
Notably, Obama had also attached a CAFE standards increase amendment but it was defeated. He had this to say about the bill[4]:
"So, I vote for this bill reluctantly today, disappointed that we have missed our opportunity to do something bolder that would have put us on the path to energy independence. This bill should be the first step, not the last, in our journey towards energy independence."
The argument of representing one's constituents is valid to a degree. With Obama, I would expect that he certainly tries to do right by his state but at the same time it should always be the long-term wellbeing that is in question so it cannot be used as an excuse for encouraging spurious pollution (not that Obama has done so.)
Ultimately, the 2005 bill is not much of a conversation piece, certainly. The only way to really look at it would be to assess the two questions of which benefits it had to outweigh the negatives and whether it was the best possible bill at the time (which may be close to the truth.)
Folks on the green do have good things to say about Obama, too: "According to Jack Darin, who, as director of the Sierra Club's Illinois chapter, has worked with Obama closely on these issues, 'He's an incredibly quick study. He's not a scientist, but remarkably adept at analyzing the details of complex environmental issues, asking the right questions, and ultimately making the right policy decision for public interest.'"[5][6]
Links:
[1]Obama's Energy Plan
[2]Obama's Environment Plan
[3]McCain's Senate page
[4]Obama's statement about the 2005 bill (There are other related on the site too.)
[5] Obama's Environmental Record in IL Senate (Grist)
[6]Grist's Obama Factsheet (Updated 2008)
February 29, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I think I may have had too many links in my previous attempt. Either way, if my comment does not pop up, I posted it on "my" blog here.
Short version, full take has quite a bit more analysis:
This is a perfectly valid point and being just another bunch of apologists would do Obama no good. I am not terribly happy with Obama's voting history on energy issues myself, there are some smudges there--mainly his inexplicable ethanol fascination.
My election strategy would simply be to acknowledge again that the bill was not very good but that it did have some good components (details in the longer post) and then counter with the fact that Obama's environmental record is very good (96% vs. McCain's 24% with League of Conservation Voters) and that of all the presidential candidates, his energy and environment plans are widely lauded as the most progressive as well as the best step towards achieving energy independence.
February 29, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
His fascination with ethanol is a direct consequence of being a Senator from Illinois. Ethanol is injecting huge amounts of money into the rural economy at the moment (through the construction of plants, their operation, the services for the people who work there and, of course, to the farmers). He would have faced incredible political pressure to vote for it, and as a freshman Senator I imagine he experienced a great deal of pressure to keep his head down and go along for awhile.
That said, I wish he hadn't voted for it - he is, as many other people have said, meant to be the principled candidate. But since he's been greener than the vast majority of politicians for quite a long time, I'm willing to give him a mulligan on that one.
February 29, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully expected this to be another veiled racial attack ... ;)
But seriously, this is bad news, kinda. I am maybe foolishly hoping that Obama will surprise us all and really be more liberal than Nader and Susan Sarandon love child.
But for now, he seems like Douglass Dilman in Irving Wallace's novel The Man, always towing the partyline, trying not to upset everyone.
I wholeheartedly agree that he should be held to his image of the big Green Candidate. The problem might be that he never voted really green, so that he can always say: "I never promised you a rose garden?! (pun intended)"
February 29, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still looking for that vitriol....
Nope... not over there....
Maybe it's with the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
March 2, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progressives need to do 4 things:
1) Elect Obama, warts and all.
2) Elect progressive Democrats (like Donna Edwards) to Congress, while booting reactionary Democrats (like Al Wynn) from it.
3) Once these folks are elected: pressure, hound, cajole, lobby, and browbeat them into doing the right thing.
4) Never let up. Especially on (3).
Not too complicated. Not easy, but not complicated.
March 2, 2008 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink