Will the Energy Bill Get Dirty?

Both the New York Times [1] and Washington Post [2] report today that there is a move to include in the Senate energy bill $10 billion of federal loans for liquid coal fuel, raising concerns that the bill will set us back in the fight against global warming.

The Post characterizes the proposal as loans "to pay for capturing and storing greenhouse gases produced by plants that would turn coal into liquid transportation fuels or chemicals."

That's sounds green, but it's misleading.

As the Natural Resources Defense Council found (PDF file [3]) even if you sequester emissions from the plants, liquid coal will still produce more greenhouse gases than petroleum gas, largely because you're not capturing anything once the liquid coal is burned in your car.

However there was another development yesterday, as Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., scaled back his prior support for liquid coal.

While he co-sponsored pro-liquid coal legislation earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times [4] and The Heat is On [5] blog report his Senate office sent an email to environmental groups yesterday, which said:

Senator Obama supports ... investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy. 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.

If an amendment is offered on the Senate floor that would provide incentives for - or mandate the use of - coal-to-liquid fuels without these environmental safeguards, Senator Obama will oppose the amendment."

That certainly puts his support for any immediate liquid coal proposal in doubt. (Though Grist's David Roberts [6] notes that a relatively cleaner-burning liquid coal is far from a cost-effective path to a clean energy future.)

Last month, another coal-state Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, cast the deciding vote against a liquid coal amendment [7] when the Senate energy bill was in committee. Roberts praised [7] the move:

Tester isn't against coal. He supports it; he's from a coal state. But as his spokesflack says, Tester believes "we must first pave the way for a sustainable and responsible future in coal development by ensuring the capture and storage of carbon emissions."

He realizes that blundering ahead with coal before addressing its emissions is tantamount to collective suicide, and he's not willing to sign on with that for the sake of a big-money industry in his state.

When it was crunch time, Tester did the responsible thing. Obama's statement indicates he may do the same.

But with the liquid coal forces on the offensive, more public pressure may be needed to ensure enough senators act responsibly and keep the bill clean.