Obama's own pander

Direct mailers from Obama campaign hail 'clean Kentucky coal'

Posted by Kate Sheppard at 4:32 AM on 06 May 2008

Hillary Clinton has been pilloried for pandering to working class voters with her gas-tax holiday proposal. But she's not the only one telling working-class voters what they want to hear.

"Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal." So reads a direct mailer being distributed in Kentucky ahead of the state's May 20 primary. (Click the image to the right for a larger version.)

Clark Stevens, press secretary for the Obama campaign in Kentucky, confirmed that the mailer came from the campaign. "Yes, it is an official mailer," he said.

Does Obama really believe in "clean Kentucky coal"?

"Clean coal" typically refers to coal burned in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants with operational carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities to bury the plant's greenhouse-gas emissions underground. There are no IGCC plants in Kentucky, and no operational CCS facilities. Technically, there is no "clean Kentucky coal."

There is one IGCC plant proposed for the state, but it hasn't yet broken ground. Most experts predict that widescale carbon sequestration is still a decade away (PDF).

The Obama campaign has made it clear that they want no new coal plants in the meantime. Jason Grumet, a top Obama energy adviser, told Grist that "the policies we have already articulated make [coal plants without CCS] economically unrealistic." He went further on a recent panel sponsored by the Society of Environmental Journalists:

[Obama] is confident ... that his carbon cap program ... will make it absolutely ludicrous to even contemplate any type of coal, new coal, that is not 100 percent sequestered. ... if he is unable to get that carbon policy in place quickly, that he will do whatever is necessary to prevent the siting of a new generation of pulverized coal facilities, including setting [emission] standards that would be essentially a moratorium ...

Given that CCS is a decade away, it follows that Obama's policies would amount to a suspension of commercial coal-plant construction for the duration of his term, whether it's four or eight years, excluding publicly funded demonstration projects like FutureGen. That would allow for little growth in Kentucky coal, unless it started shipping its coal overseas (as of 2006, 80 percent -- $2 billion worth -- was exported [clarification: "exported" to other states, not overseas]).

Barack Obama.

Photo: Michael Fajardo

Meanwhile, Obama may believe in clean Kentucky coal, but many residents of the state are more familiar with the dirty kind. According to activists on the ground, strip-mining "is turning Eastern Kentucky into a despicable latrine." Hundreds of mountains have been leveled, leaving poverty and unemployment in their wake. The number of jobs created in Kentucky by coal has dropped by 60 percent in the last 15 years.

As Kentucky resident Erik Reese reported in Grist, studies in the state have found that children there suffer from "an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and shortness of breath -- symptoms of something called blue baby syndrome -- that can all be traced back to sedimentation and dissolved minerals that have drained from mine sites into nearby streams. Long-term effects may include liver, kidney, and spleen failure, bone damage, and cancers of the digestive tract."

There's a difficult conversation to be had with voters in coal states like Kentucky about the fate of coal and the steps political leaders can take to help coal communities through the coming transition. For the moment, at least, Obama seems unwilling to have that conversation.

Obama for clean Kentucky coal

For story: Obama's own pander
21 Comments | Post a Comment

Unfortunately both Democratic candidates have been

touting "clean coal," even though there's no such thing.

by Nick Berning at 7:16 AM on 06 May 2008

president is one person

The president is just one person. The only way to oppose the carbon-auto lobby is with a mass movement. To the extent we do that, our "leaders" can seek real solutions. The difference between Obama and Clinton is that Obama is at least trying to motivate people to get involved, while Clinton is relying totally on corporate support and cynicism.

by socialscientist at 7:22 AM on 06 May 2008

Delusion

Unfortunately Barack has exhibited as much delusion in this area as the standard DC inhabitants.

But he is more likely to listen to reason than the others. That's the real "hope".

As we see from DR's excellent interview with Barack's energy advisor, he is not getting well informed opinion on energy at the present time.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:53 AM on 06 May 2008

You make it sound

You make it sound like Hillary and McCain aren't also doing the same pander.

As if this is unique to Barack.

Which it's not.

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/03/19/hillary-clinton ...
http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/mccain-endorses-future-clea ...

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 8:20 AM on 06 May 2008

same old same old

Barack Obama...

The Candidate for change.

The Candidate not backed by corporate interests.

The Candidate willing to tell Americans the truth rather than pander.

The Candidate willing to protect our environment, even if it means people won't vote for Him.

Hah!

Looks like business as usual. He believes coal has a future. He's interested in convincing corporations that He's not a threat to their bottom line. He's prepared to perpetuate the fairy tale suggesting we don't have to conserve energy or change our driving habits... plenty of coal under those mountain tops. He's not going to bother making the hard decisions that will create a better environment and better jobs in the long run.

Maybe He should have mentioned His support for coal before other key primaries... oh... might not have won in the liberal states then. What else is He omitting from His campaign speeches? What else is He stretching the truth about? What's next? Will He switch gears and decide we have to attack Iran just to show He's more of a hawk than McCain? What does Obama really stand for? Guess we won't know for sure until He's actually President.

It is sad that there is not a single honest candidate for President of the United States.

by wiscidea at 10:18 AM on 06 May 2008

Yabbit

Hard to see where bush-lite (mccain, bomb bom bomb iran) or mccain-lite (Hill, nuke nuke nuke iran) would ever listen to reason. Barack just might!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 10:20 AM on 06 May 2008

Vote

It is sad that there is not a single honest candidate for President of the United States.
I wonder if there has ever been an honest candidate of president of this country.
I will probably have to vote for Oboma,only because he is the lesser of two evils.Strike that,the lesser of three evils.McCain is exactly the same as bush.Clinton is a long time crook from as far back as "Whitewater" and is a true lieing politician,Obama is a neophite political liar.He is telling the people in Kentucky what they want to hear to get the votes.This is what politicians do.
I would just as soon have Mike Gravel,look it up,than any of the politicians running currently.

Why not ask why!?

by usandthem at 12:55 PM on 06 May 2008

The liquid fuel problem

Sadly (for I am an Obama supporter), he has also sponsored a bill on producing liquid fuel from coal as part of the general pandering to motorists. The devastation involved in getting coal by "mountaintop removal" can never be termed "clean".

America (and the rest of the world) must be weaned from this destructive and addictive hypermobility, which is behind the present war and probably more to come, unless we recognise that there is NO WAY we can carry on as usual!
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/hypermobility.html
and
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/20-80.gif

xx
ed

知者不言。言者不知。

by tipiglen at 12:56 PM on 06 May 2008

Always Another Choice

For those of us who think people like Obama are merely not as despicable as those like Clinton or McCain, we can always vote Green or for another "third party" candidate. I haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since George McGovern, nor will I again until and unless the Democrats start nominating people like Dennis Kucinich.

The decision one needs to make is this: Would you rather continue business as usual with a Democratic president who's merely not as bad as the Republican candidate, or would you rather make some sacrifices now in order to build a movement and whatever else is needed in order to have a realistic chance of electing someone like Kucinich or Nader who would make significant changes for the better? As they say, ya gotta break eggs to make an omelet, and without abandoning the Democratic Party for something much better, significant, meaningful changes will never take place.

by Wolverine at 3:11 PM on 06 May 2008

That sounds delusional to me

The way to build a third party is up from the grassroots. Field some candidates for local elections and get the Green Party known that way. Build an organization. Spread it throughout your state.

Don't vote third party for president. You're not party-building. You're just flushing your vote down the toilet. Worse, you're siphoning your vote away from the Democrat and thus helping the Republican.

by GreenMom at 10:12 PM on 06 May 2008

Coal

I am personally an Obama fan, thus quite puzzled by this mailer. It would appear to me that the residents of Kentucky would prefer a candidate who does not believe in coal rather than one who does. Nonetheless, I do seriously believe that Obama is the only candidate who may bring about change but we won't know until he becomes president. Nader is great but in my opinion voting for him would be like taking votes from Obama (if he is the democratic nominee). Counterproductive to say the least!

I have been living abroad for nearly 8 years now, in Italy, and can assure everyone that the status of our Country in the world opinion has drastically changed over the Bush era. Obama has a huge following abroad and is seen as hope for the future not only by Americans but also by Europeans.

But I repeat the only way we will know whether or not he can walk the walk will be by voting for him now and hopefully in November!!

Ciao

by rwkenn at 1:17 AM on 07 May 2008

Again

Sadly (for I am an Obama supporter), he has also sponsored a bill on producing liquid fuel from coal as part of the general pandering to motorists.

As I keep mentioning.
Why do you think that's unique to Barack?

If anything, Hillary says it's okay to build new conventional coal plants. Barack says he would ban them.

http://greyfalcon.net/electionchart.png
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=358 ...

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 4:15 AM on 07 May 2008

Not really...

For those of us who think people like Obama are merely not as despicable as those like Clinton or McCain, we can always vote Green or for another "third party" candidate.

Not if you admit results are more important than principle.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 4:17 AM on 07 May 2008

Barack will take a wakeup call

The others certainly will not do anything other than what industry lobbyists tell them to do.

With Barack there really is "hope" for a better energy/agriculture policy.

The others? Completely hopeless.

Nader, whitewater? Even mentioning mass delusional buzzwords like that shows zero understanding of the harsh reality of GHG disaster and economic decline from soaring energy prices.

Barack is running very successfully on becoming the change he wants to see in the world, no diversion, just solutions to our many serious problems. He will be able to see through the nonsense being pushed by lobbyists for clean coal, nuclear power, and agribizz gas guzzling.

At least we can all "hope"?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 6:29 AM on 07 May 2008

Clinton has the best clean energy advisors

in the world, per Grist: at The Center For American Progress.

A senior fellow from there - Joseph Romm even posts here. She cared enough to come to the Grist Climate Debate and showed us in a fluid and detailed eco policy discussion how she can and will get us to a carbon free future.

Obama has slipped too many times for this to be a mistake that "we" can somehow correct him on.

John McCain already vetoes every eco bill

by dotcommodity at 6:49 AM on 07 May 2008

Opposing Mountain Top Removal even polls well

So it's actually a political winner to take it on, at least among a majority of voters.

Obama's honesty is his trademark. It helped him win on the gas tax. I think he should do it here.

Author of Soul of a Citizen & The Impossible Will Take a Little While. See www.paulloeb.org

by PaulLoeb at 12:38 AM on 12 May 2008

Pandering

I'm a newcomer to this site, couldn't help commenting.

There is another choice, Ron Paul, who isn't pandering to anyone. Maybe that's why the press seems to be so unfriendly to him.

He isn't pandering,unless one considers working to restore our republic pandering.

Leanna

by Leanna at 9:43 PM on 12 May 2008

Ron Paul...

...got a 15% approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

That less than half of McCain's rating and almost a sixth (1/6) of the rating that Clinton and Obama have.

Ron Paul doesn't pander alright...he doesn't pander to Earth and he also doesn't pander to the theory of global warming.

Be glad he isn't in the race, he'd be just 'bout as bad as Huckabee, if not worse.

by Tasermons Partner at 9:58 PM on 12 May 2008

FYI

One of Barack's closet advisors is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, Denis McDonough.

by WKB at 6:47 AM on 13 May 2008
[ Parent ]

Two choices left now

Might as well get behind Barack. Heal the party and hope for better GHG policy from an Obama administration.

It will be vital to minimize the effect of old energy economy lobbyists from the process of crafting energy policy. Can that be done?

That is probably the best course for environmentalists now. Expose the lobbyist scamming during the bushco regime to try and marginalize corporate lobbyists. And get our lobbyists to stop touting clean coal, nukes, and fuel farming. As many enviro groups like NRDC still do. Did they dump nuclear power yet?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:49 AM on 13 May 2008

Ron: Corporate libertarian

He seems likeable, as does Huckleberry, but check his stance on the rights of corporate citizens.

He would contract everything government is supposed to do out to corporations. We see how that worked out with the bushco regime. Exxonmob rules the world. They name a tanker after duuhbya's Condi.

Your social security funds would be spent on contracting. Turned into a private investment deal that could go bankrupt, complete with golden parachutes for CEOs. Not very secure.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 8:10 AM on 13 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.