As I predicted this looks to me like a very solid climate change plan from the frontrunner, albeit marred by the expected flaws of overenthusiasm for biofuel and carbon sequestration subsidies. As with the health care plans, however, though Hillary Clinton was last out of the gate, it's at least as sound as anything else on offer. And perhaps more to the point, on domestic issues the "big three" have all actually staked out extremely similar -- and quite exciting -- positions on the major issues of the day.
« Everything is Bad (or at least "Risky") for Democrats | Main | The Golden Wingnut »
Clinton's Climate Plan
06 Nov 2007 09:11 am
Comments (21)
My quick impression: biofuel subsidies = very very very bad. Carbon sequestration subsidies = very very very good ( I mean, it would solve a lot of problems if we could ever figure out how to safely burn coal).
"And perhaps more to the point, on domestic issues the "big three" have all actually staked out extremely similar -- and quite exciting -- positions on the major issues of the day."
Are you not paying attention to the debate over trade, or do you not consider trade a "major issue of the day"? In fact, there are few issues more major.
Edwards opposes all the four trade deals negogiated in secret agreeements between Bush and Congress, including the one coming up for debate, the Peru trade deal. That is, he doesn't think the NAFTA approach should be broadened. Obama, by contrast, supports the Peru deal, putting himself in the position of defending the NAFTA model. Clinton is waiting for Unionbuster to finish his polls. In she votes nay, then you know she's very scared of Edwards.
Edwards's fair trade stance wil help him win Iowa and the presidency (a majority of Republicans opposes our corporate trade policies.)
Yeah, biofuel subsidies are a really, really bad idea. Driving up food costs for the poor, no real potential to take up a signficant part of the load, quite possibly worse than coal from a greenhouse standpoint... Really, unless you're in hock to ADM, there's no good reason to like them.
Carbon sequestration at least has the potential to work, without making things worse. (Well, unless you like your mountains not flattened, anyway...)
I'm sure it's better to have a President who supports good policies than not (see also: the last 7 years), but whatever plans the current candidates have will have to get past all the lobbyists and the feckless Democratic members of Congress who won't even defend the Constitution vs the out of control Bush administration. It's far from clear that any of the big 3 Democratic candidates has the political skills or courage to push those policies through Congress and end up with even half of what they are currently proposing.
Some of the follow-up from e.g. Brian Beutler suggests that it is less sound than the Edwards/Obama proposals. But getting something done is all that matters here.
Carbon sequestration subsidies = very very very good ( I mean, it would solve a lot of problems if we could ever figure out how to safely burn coal).
No. Subsidies for technology development to figure out if it can ever actually be done with zero leaks or groundwater contamination (since it's never been accomplished in real life, and even a 1% leak would make the technology useless against global warming) = fine, as long as those technology development subsidies are spread around fairly to other energy prospects too (and I don't believe they would be, but leave that).
Subsidies to make it economically feasible = what the hell would be the point? Why pick one nonexistent technology over another? Short-term investments should be in efficiency; that's where the short-term carbon reductions can be found. Long term, we need a market that includes the societal costs of carbon emissions (as the auction cap-and-trade Clinton proposes would do), and let the coal industry sink or swim.
Perhaps a little less incoherently: carbon sequestration can't make economic sense without government subsidies. At this point, neither can solar cells. Why subsidize one and not the other? What's the point?
Perhaps a little less incoherently: carbon sequestration can't make economic sense without government subsidies...
Antid: I was referring mainly to research dollars; I might also be convinced of the desirability of using government money (as part of a research effort) to get the very first plant up and running if the research looks promising. I agree that government has no business using taxpayer cash to fool markets into thinking a given energy source makes economic sense. Still, I have a notion that, if the kinks could be worked out, carbon sequestration might some day make economic sense, if, through natural market pricing or through proper government pricing of externalities, we're paying $12 for a gallon of gasoline.
Carbon sequestration subsidies = very very very good
No, no, no, no, no. Subsidizing carbon sequestration means committing ourselves to "clean coal" for the next several decades, whether or not "clean coal" is possible or feasible - and there's no evidence that it is, or that it won't create the same problems that regular dirty coal does. Take that money and use it to subsidize solar instead - it's not doable at present, either, but only because it's underdeveloped, not because it isn't clean.
As for the Clinton plan, you can't just look at the policy papers these people are putting out - you have to look at their records and the records of their advisers. The Clinton team in general has never given much more than lip service to the environmental movement, with Clinton herself taking millions from corporate lobbyists and voting against increases in CAFE standards. This points towards someone who just isn't interested in getting much done on the environment, and isn't going to make it a priority. Putting out a paper is easy; pissing off the people who bankrolled your campaign by putting your political capital behind policies that are going to cost them billions of dollars in the long run is another thing entirely.
No. Subsidies for technology development to figure out if it can ever actually be done with zero leaks or groundwater contamination (since it's never been accomplished in real life, and even a 1% leak would make the technology useless against global warming) = fine, as long as those technology development subsidies are spread around fairly to other energy prospects too (and I don't believe they would be, but leave that).
================================================
Uh, no. It has been accomplished in real life.
Carbon dioxide injection for enhanced oil recovery is a common practice that has been going on for decades and the technology and geology involved is quite well known. Oil companies have been drilling to get CO2 from underground formations and piping it to oil fields.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050110091718.htm
Are you not paying attention to the debate over trade, or do you not consider trade a "major issue of the day"? In fact, there are few issues more major.
I guess I think of trade policy as a foreign policy issue. At any rate, I agree that Edwards differs from Clinton and Obama on this, but I think Edwards is wrong on the merits.
No, no, no, no, no. Subsidizing carbon sequestration means committing ourselves to "clean coal" for the next several decades, whether or not "clean coal" is possible or feasible - and there's no evidence that it is, or that it won't create the same problems that regular dirty coal does.
=================================================
No evidence that it's possible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle
An Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, is a power plant using synthetic gas (syngas).
The gasification process can produce syngas from high-sulfur coal, heavy petroleum residues and biomass.
The plant is called "integrated" because its syngas is produced in a gasification unit in the plant which has been optimized for the plant's combined cycle. The gasification process produces heat, and this is reclaimed by steam "waste heat boilers". The steam is utilized in steam turbines.
There are currently (2007) only two IGCC plants generating power in the U.S.; however, several new IGCC plants are expected to come online in the U.S. in the 2012-2020 time frame
New IGCC plants based on these demonstration projects can achieve low NOx emissions, greater than 90-95% mercury removal, and greater than 99% sulfur dioxide (SO2) removal.
IGCC is now touted as "capture ready" and could capture and store carbon dioxide. IGCC's can be outfitted for carbon capture much more easily and cheaply than conventional and supercritical pulverized coal plants because the carbon can be removed in the gasifier, before the fuel is combusted. Even without carbon capture, the high thermal efficiency of IGCC plants means that IGCC plants release less carbon while producing the same amount of energy.
Yeah, biofuel subsidies are a really, really bad idea.
=================================================
I would qualify that to say "biofuel based on food crops."
Biofuel based on biodegradable waste like manure, cellulose, rice hulls, organic waste we now put in landfills, etc is a very good idea.
Campesino: Neither of your links mentions leakage or groundwater. Of course we can inject CO2 underground. The question is, can we keep it there permanently and near-perfectly? If so, great. A cap-and-trade system should provide an incentive for coal companies to do it. Doesn't mean we should pay them for it, and if we already have the technology, we don't need to spend any more money on developing it.
Campesino: Neither of your links mentions leakage or groundwater. Of course we can inject CO2 underground. The question is, can we keep it there permanently and near-perfectly? If so, great. A cap-and-trade system should provide an incentive for coal companies to do it. Doesn't mean we should pay them for it, and if we already have the technology, we don't need to spend any more money on developing it.
Posted by Antid Oto | November 6, 2007 1:49 PM
=================================================
Move those goalposts! That's a little different from "it's never been accomplished in real life" isn't it?
My company has performed feasibility studies for sequestration and actually most of the target formations are far below groundwater level and so deep that there's very little chance of escape. At least within human concepts of time.
Hm, I believe I did mention zero leakage or groundwater contamination in my first comment...checking...yes, I did. And if you've figured out that it can be done, that's awesome. You have the technology already and obviously don't need any government subsidies.
Why should anyone other than insurance companies get excited over the health care plans, which involves massive transfers of taxpayer monies to pay insurance companies rather than to pay for care?
You have the technology already and obviously don't need any government subsidies.
Posted by Antid Oto | November 6, 2007 2:11 PM
=================================================
I suppose I should be amused when MY, you and other commenters pop off with these gems:
"flaws of overenthusiasm for biofuel and carbon sequestration subsidies"
"since it's never been accomplished in real life"
"Subsidizing carbon sequestration means committing ourselves to "clean coal" for the next several decades, whether or not "clean coal" is possible or feasible - and there's no evidence that it is, or that it won't create the same problems that regular dirty coal does"
All these when there are IGCC plants here and in Europe that are currently running on pet coke and coal and when we have been injecting CO2 into deep geologic formations for decades.
Also all while I am working with a client today who is spending millions of dollars to design and build one of these plants, subsidy or no subsidy.
I'm just glad you guys don't have any real say in energy policy as you plainly need to catch up on your reading.
Campesino, I mean this with absolute sincerity: if it works, and if you can do it without subsidies, then god bless you.
Comments closed November 20, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"And perhaps more to the point, on domestic issues the "big three" have all actually staked out extremely similar -- and quite exciting -- positions on the major issues of the day."
This is quite true, if you only care about position papers, rather than what will actually happen in 2009 - 2013.
Posted by Petey | November 6, 2007 9:31 AM