14 Senators demand climate bill go easy on coal. You'll be very surprised by some of the names:

[beachmom]

Fourteen Senators have sent a letter to the leadership demanding that coal be given a break. As Brad Johnson states:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-12-fourteen-democratic-senators-stick-up-for-coal/

Thursday, 14 Democratic senators affirmed their allegiance to the profits of polluting industry at the expense of the health and jobs of their constituents. In a letter to Senate leaders, a bloc of senators with powerful coal interests in their states called for “fair emissions allowances in climate change legislation.” Their definition of “fair,” unfortunately, turns out to be full taxpayer subsidies for global warming polluters.

Now while some of the names aren't a surprise, there are several liberals who signed this letter. It really is sad that I have to condemn Al Franken and Russ Feingold among others for lacking the vision of understanding how global climate change will affect their states. Here is the letter:

November 12, 2009

Dear Senators Reid, Boxer, Baucus, and Kerry,

As the Senate formulates and debates energy and climate change legislation, it is clear that revamping our energy systems with alternative energy resources and technologies will be fundamental to our strategy for achieving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A transition of this magnitude will take years to accomplish and will incorporate major changes to the way we produce and use energy. Both the House-passed “American Clean Energy and Security Act” (H.R. 2454) and the recently introduced “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” (S. 1733) recognize the importance of helping individuals and firms by alleviating potential financial impacts as this transition takes place. This assistance, in the form of the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances, is an important tool for protecting consumers and businesses as we move to adopt new energy systems and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. To be fair and effective, any legislation must equitably allocate these allowances to individuals and across states and regions and economic sectors.

The House bill falls short of that equitable distribution goal with its formula for allocating allowances to local distribution companies based 50 percent on emissions and 50 percent on sales. Unfortunately, the Senate bill currently under consideration includes the same 50/50 allocation provision. Under the proposed 50/50 formula, utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase even more allowances than they would have if all allowances were allocated based on emissions, and those higher costs will be passed on to their customers. Meanwhile, many utilities with relatively lesser emissions will receive sufficient allowances to completely cover their initial requirements. Thus, their customers will experience no price increases resulting from the legislation.

We believe it is essential that we strive to formulate legislation that equitably distributes transition assistance across individuals, as well as states and regions and economic sectors. We urge you to ensure that emission allowances allocated to the electricity sector—and thus, electricity consumers—be fully based on emissions as the appropriate and equitable way to provide transition assistance in a greenhouse gas-regulated economy.

We thank you for your efforts to build consensus on the critical issue of energy and climate legislation. The change we recommend would contribute to a more balanced and equitable bill for the Senate’s consideration, and a better strategy for America.

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Al Franken
Senator Roland Burris
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Herb Kohl
Senator Russell Feingold
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Michael Bennet
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mark Udall
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Cark Levin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Sherrod Brown

[NickB79]

1. Gaaa, more embarrassment for MN

WTF, Franken and Klobuchar? They've been solidly left, and now they go sucking Big Coal's cock?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

9. This issue is not breaking just left/right

There is more possible support from Republicans than on healthcare, but far more Democrats who will be hard to win. The biggest problem is that they are not seeing the really huge impact that it will have.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Each person on the list has one of these two attributes:

1) They have coal mining in their state.
2) They are cold weather, northern states that are notoriously difficult to supply with fuel for heating.

Particularly for the Minnesota and Michigan Senators, access to affordable heating fuel is a very big issue for them. Going "easy on coal" is also making sure their constituents don't go broke in the winter.

I'm not agreeing with their stances, which I agree are short-sighted. I'm just explaining the thought process probably involved and that it's not with poor intentions.

[beachmom]

3. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

We need those northern liberals. As if we are going to get many Republican votes from the balmy South ....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Like I said, I don't agree with the stance.

I'm just explaining the thought behind it (and that they aren't sell-outs).

[Hekate]

6. Thank you for that insight. Northern states don't have another option right now, do they?

Apparently at least not an affordable option. That's why we need the gubmint involved in pushing alternative energies forward.

Hekate

[karynnj]

12. They could expand LIHEAP, the program that provides heating assistance dollars

to people who are below a certain income compared to the cost of heating. This makes more sense than giving the companies the green light to pollute. The difference here, is the money goes to people and they pay for heat. The companies though will see coal as more costly than other sources of energy compared to the time before the cap and trade. This lets the market work to bring down emissions.

[Kaleva]

16. Coal used for heating isn't common.

Coal used for electrical power plants is.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. I grew up in New England.

Coal stoves aren't exactly uncommon in cold weather places.

[Kaleva]

18. They are very rare in Michigan. Woodstoves are common though.

[zulchzulu]

22. Shouldn't woodstove emissions be carbon-taxed too?

I live in Wisconsin and you can bet there is plenty of fireplace pollution when it starts getting around 45 degrees F.

[kelly1mm]

29. No. Wood is a renewable resource. Planting trees to replace

those burned is great for the environment - net carbon negative.

[karynnj]

31. I doubt it woould be carbon neutral

They job down a big tree, that absorbs lots of carbon and produce a lot of carbon, then palnt a sapling. Ignoring the burning altogether, this is not neutral.

[kelly1mm]

33. But you are not counting in the years that sapling will absorb

lots of carbon - that is why it is a renewable resource. Plus many other environmental benefits - soil erosion control, water purification etc. Look at it this way, count up the carbon absorbed by the tree over its life and compare that with the amount of carbon released when burning said tree. More carbon is absorbed than released, hence carbon negative. Check it out - you will find I am right. Although if you use lots of fuel (chainsaws etc.) to cut it and more fuel (gas/diesel) to transport it you may go into carbon negative. But it is not carbon positive (adding carbon to the environment) from the get go like coal.

[karynnj]

43. I don't doubt that it is better than coal

I was looking at a shorter time horizon than you are speaking of.

[karynnj]

30. True, but at least 2 NE Senators are very committed to this - especially Kerry

[NickB79]

34. I've never seen coal stoves here in MN

Natural gas, wood, or propane are used almost exclusively, with electricity for supplemental heating.

[FailingParachute]

49. I live here

You couldn't find a coal stove with a search party.

Pellet stoves by the droves, and wood stoves by the thousands.

Maybe years ago perhaps (although I am a native New Englander and remember very few back in the 60's/70's) but when the back to the land movements and later "energy crisis" hit New England went to wood heat.

[dsc]

25. and electric heat is pretty common

even in the north.

[NickB79]

35. True, but you could replace coal with a mix of nat. gas and wind, with less CO2 emissons

Use nat. gas to supplement the wind when it stops blowing (and since MN is at the edge of the Plains, that doesn't happen often) to generate electricity, and you can still reduce coal consumption and the impact of global warming.

[Lyric]

37. Yes...but what do you think electric furnaces are powered with?

:shrug:

[amandabeech]

26. I grew up in Michigan and visit frequently.

No one heats with coal anymore. My grandmother went with oil in the '60s and she was one of the last to dump coal. More people heat with wood!

Most people use natural gas, propane (LPG) or heating oil. Heating with oil is becoming less common because oil is dirty and it is not as efficient as modern natgas/propane furnaces.

The issue in Michigan is electricity and perhaps steel making (if that is still done near Detroit). Few people heat with electricity because it is much more expensive than natural gas, but people sure do cool with the electricity.

I would expect that other Dems from coal using or mining states will have problems with the bill as well. Think about Bayh, Casey, Rockefeller and Byrd. Maybe Virginia's senators as well. Those will be tough votes to corral.

Perhaps if the economy in general and in certain states in particular were better, cap and trade would face less opposition. If Obama tried to get this passed once the job market picks up, some of those possible no votes might be convincible.

[Muttocracy]

41. I had the same thought about those names. nt

[sandnsea]

42. What about Canadian natural gas?

Particularly for MN, MI, WI, and those other northern states.

[niyad]

45. no surprise that my appointed idiot, bennett, is on that list. thankfully, i have his local number

on speed dial.

[WyLoochka]

5. Sherrod Brown?

And Franken? I am so disappointed.

[Doremus]

39. Balancing act.

Actually, I appreciate that Sherrod is trying to make sure the cost of heat doesn't outstrip our ability to pay for it.

We keep our furnace at 60 all winter. Our bills last year were 500-600/mo. It wasn't easy coming up with those payments and I can't imagine what would happen if they were higher than that!

Does every problem have to be solved on the backs of people who can barely get by??

[PVnRT]

7. ...and if Mongiardo wins Kentucky next year, it will be 15

And at least one Democrat in favor of mountaintop removal :grr:

[karynnj]

8. This is an amazingly bad idea that would completely make cap and trade useless

The whole point is to place a cost on carbon.

I understand that Senators are sometimes parochial, but here facing an environmental disaster that I assume they all believe in, they are worried about dollars. I hope Senator Kerry gets them to understand that this is not the time for that.

[DatManFromNawlins]

27. Cap and Trade is already useless

If the government were serious about limiting carbon emissions, they'd institute a carbon tax. Cap and trade is just a way to create an industry where vouchers are exchanged for money.

These Senators are doing what they're supposed to do: representing their constituents. Don't like it? Move to their state and vote them out.

[karynnj]

32. A carbon tax has absolutely no chance of being passed

It also is not as simple as you imply.

Cap and trade can work by putting a price on carbon emissions. The fact is that it worked to limit SO2 that caused acid rain.

[NickB79]

36. I don't know if SO2 emission controls are comparable to CO2 emission controls

It was relatively easy for utilities to reduce and capture their SO2 emissions, since these made up only a small component of the flue exhaust. CO2 emissions, on the other hand, are massive in comparison.

[karynnj]

44. It is not as easy and the fact is that they

will need to develop new technology that can reduce the emissions - or new sources of energy. The big difference is that because of that there will be real losers. At this point, coal companies and companies that use coal are clearly going to be losers - except in the very unlikely event that a clean coal technology actually works.

I'm sure that companies that used mercury incurred greater costs when they had to prevent it from entering the ground water.

[Hutzpa]

10. I'm not jumping to conclusion on this

there must be a reason why Al Franken chose to be against it.

[karynnj]

13. The reason is as others said - MN is cold and they have coal reserves

This is a case where he is ignoring the broader issue and is wrong.

[NickB79]

38. MN has very little coal reserves, but receives large shipments via rail lines

Large shipments come in from western states through the Dakotas.

[Bitwit1234]

14. These states use a lot of the so called clean coal

for electricity and such. That's why.

[Bitwit1234]

15. PS

Have to add that is why electricity is about half the price of it anywhere else. With all the coal we have in this country, it is a shame that there couldn't be some way that engineers and such could not find a way to make it burn with out all that pollution. It sure would make us less dependent on foreign oil and put the brakes on the oil companies in this country.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. IL is coal country. I'm not really that shocked.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, that's an economic and political reality

I tried to explain this to people when the bill was in the House but nobody believed me that the reason that so many voted against the bill was because people were representing their constituents. They argued that because it was mostly blue dogs they had to be serving their corporate masters.

Well, now you have some of the most liberal senators doing exactly what the blue dogs in the House were doing. Are people going to argue that Russ Feingold and Sherrod Brown are serving their corporate masters?

Don't get me wrong I'm not pro coal. It's horrible for the environment and this country would be much better off with cleaner energy sources. That being said we need to stop wishing that this can simply happen if we just stand up to the coal lobby. This is far bigger than the coal lobby. Millions of Americans are dependent on energy made from coal and until we find some way to deal with that, they will never allow their representatives to pass legislation that seriously regulates coal.

[zulchzulu]

21. Without looking, how many people know how much energy we get from coal in the US...

...it's over 50%.

We need to address sequestration of carbon gases from coal and actually have made some promising goals in getting to that stage where there actually is clean(er) coal technology.

The same people who diss coal-based energy don't mind biofuel-based energy, which is either just the same or worse. Natural gas-based energy technology also has its issues with emissions.

I'm totally for solar, wind, hydro and other alternative energy technologies, but merely shutting off coal-based energy is very short-sighted.

As for utilities having to deal with coal, many also use all kinds of energy technologies to put power on the grid that then have to fight the anti-transmission line folks, who generally don't even have a clue how the electricity that they completely depend on gets to their homes.

It's a very complicated science to how electricity becomes available and reliable. Whenever someone says to me that "we need to get rid of coal", I assume that they haven't the foggiest idea what they are talking about and would be the first to complain if there were blackouts, brownouts and outages due the not having a solid, reliable energy throughput.

[and-justice-for-all]

24. As much as I understand how bad coal is...

I do not think anyone is saying, lets turn off coal plants tomorrow.

But Coal needs its regulations and persuasion to find better means of burning until something comes along and takes it place. We would all use less coal energy if we could off set it with Solar power on our homes and other major utility users; there is not reason why Wal-Marts could not have a Solar collection system on the roofs of their stores and the same goes for malls and the like.

We can beat back coal usage with the implementation of solar on a bigger scale.

[zulchzulu]

28. The problem with putting a huge carbon tax on utilities that use coal is...

...that you and I will pay higher rates because they have to pay those fees.

I work with people in the energy sector with international clients. I know the deal about alternative energy (wind/solar/hydro/geothermal) and how it needs to come online quickly and how many if not all major utilities embrace it in at least a very favorable aspect.

It's not that penalizing coal-based utilities is going to turn their factories off any time soon. It's that they will simply raise the rates and perhaps spend less money on deploying new technologies. It's not as though if they are penalized that they will try to comply in getting newer alternative energy sources online, especially with a timeline that's 20 years away.

The goal should be to find ways to make coal-burning energy, as well as bio-fuel and gas energy, more in compliance with lower carbon emissions. "Clean coal" gets a snicker from people that frankly don't understand how it is indeed possible and how advances are being made toward a realistic goal of cleaner coal.

Face it. We are in love with reliable, strong and infinitely available electricity. For homes, for hospitals, for the high tech toys we have, for the business sector, having just solar, geothermal and wind energy and ignoring the massive stockpiles of coal in our country and in the North American energy grid would not only not be realistic in the near future, it would not have enough power generation to fulfill the needs we have at this point.

Solar, geothermal and wind energy energy sources was considered lower scale distributed energy resource systems that never get more than 10,000kV thoughput and are too small for the high power energy grid needs we have grown accustomed to. I love them, but it's not enough.

Notice how I'm not mentioning nuclear power. That is already a pretty large slice of our power needs already, but deploying new nuclear plants is essentially not cost effective for the amount of time/money/construction that is needed to make a new nuclear power plant online.

[depakid]

48. There's no such thing as "clean" coal

[and-justice-for-all]

23. Franken?? AL FRANKEN???!!! nt

[boppers]

40. How many of them would trade coal for nuke?

For solar?
For wind?

How many union miners are they willing to put out of work?

Coal is very deeply entrenched in some states.

[OhioBlue]

50. I wonder how many miners are Union anymore.

My Uncle in WV is Union... he's one of a handful left at his mine that is actually still Union. Massey is very anti-union, and from what I understand most of the big companies broke the Unions a long time ago.

His son is a coal miner - he actually worked at Sago and was on the crew that was killed - he was off work that day b/c his leg had been crushed in a previous mine accident. He works in a different mine now... all non-union.

[Kaleva]

46. The US has the largest coal reserves in the world.

I think it'd be wise to find more environmental friendly ways to use this vast reserve.

[Odin2005]

47. Unfortunately going after coal is political suicide.

Like another poster said, the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal, it's dirt cheap for powering electric heat in cold parts of the country (which is why the MN senators are involved).

[karynnj]

52. Kerry held at least one hearing on clean coal technology when

he chaired the Small Business Committee. He also covered it in a SFRC hearing. He was far more optimistic at the earlier hearing. The problem is that the results have not been promising. Kerry is driven by the scientists here, more than most.

I understand the problem that these states will face, but what is the alternative if you accept the science. For those Senators to close their eyes and stick their fingers in their ear and recite as a mantra "There is no such thing as global warming". The fact is that the bill might have to do things to insure the burden is minimized where it is highest. The problem is that if coal can not be cleaned sufficiently, there is no way to get carbon emissions low enough without forcing a change.

Ask yourself:

1) Do you believe the science? Now, the RW is hitting this hard because it is the place they need to hit to derail this.
2) If you believe the science, how can the limits be met making no real changes. Coal is the dirtiest fuel - even if it is what we have the most of.
3) Can we really be so short term oriented that we are willing to risk the future for a higher standard of living today. (Now, many have said that is not a necessary trade off, but as it is the worst case, it is worth considering and even then the better long term decision is to act wisely and cut emissions.

[beachmom]

51. Just so I understand this correctly:

If an unpopular Democrat does something that is against progressive values (and getting an effective global climate change bill through Congress IS a progressive value), that Democrat is:

A Conservocrat
A Traitor
Corporate Dem
Needs to be primaried and PURGED!!!

But, when it's Al Franken and Russ Feingold .... well, maybe they had a good reason for it.

Interesting.