|
Sen. Obama seizes on Live Earth in bid to woo environmentalists |
|
By Alexander Bolton
|
|
Posted: 07/10/07 07:29 PM [ET] |
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) used Saturday’s Live Earth music extravaganza to make amends with liberal environmentalists he angered earlier this year by introducing a bill subsidizing liquefied coal, a fuel activists say would accelerate global warming.
Obama linked a new page to his campaign website featuring the “O Live Earth” logo, intertwining his campaign’s signature letter with a collage of rippling water, floating clouds and sprouting leaves. Obama also launched a video lauding former Vice President Al Gore, the organizer of Live Earth, as a “bold, prescient leader on climate change” and calling on Americans to help solve the crisis of global warming “once and for all.”
Obama also unveiled a bold proposal to reduce air pollution during a virtual town hall meeting that the liberal group MoveOn sponsored to complement the Live Earth concerts. Obama called for carbon auctions, which would require businesses that pollute to fund research on alternative energy sources.
Some activists pronounced themselves delighted with Obama’s words aired over the weekend.
The president of Clean Air Watch, Frank O’Donnell, said Obama’s support of carbon auctions “shows a terrifically enlightened attitude.” O’Donnell noted that a recent Congressional Budget Office study found that buying and selling emissions allowances would produce long-term economic benefits.
While Obama scored green points over the weekend, his stance on liquefied coal remains a sticking point with many environmentalists such as Erich Pica, spokesman for Friends of the Earth.
“I don’t think you can be serious about global warming and support technologies like liquid coal,” Pica said.
Obama drew the wrath of many environmental groups, an important constituency of the Democratic Party, when he and Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) introduced legislation earlier this year that would provide loans to build large-scale coal-to-liquid plants and allow for them to use federal land.
Obama’s sponsorship of the proposal and the criticism he received for it was a classic example of a presidential candidate torn between the needs of his home state and the demands of influential national interest groups.
The development and spread of coal-to-liquid fuel processing plants could revive the domestic coal industry, which is an important part of the economy of southern Illinois. National environmental groups, however, say the fuel would accelerate global warming dramatically.
As the Senate prepared to vote on comprehensive energy legislation last month, MoveOn organized a petition opposing liquid coal technology, labeling it “the single greatest threat to solving the climate crisis in a decade.”
The U.S. Climate Emergency Council targeted Obama in a petition it organized.
“Your website states: ‘We need to take steps to stop catastrophic, manmade climate change. If we do not act, the consequences will be devastating for future generations, especially for the poorest global populations,’” stated the petition.
“Despite this claim, however, your push for coal-to-liquid technology is a giant leap in the wrong direction. Better, cleaner options already exist to reduce America’s dependence on oil: efficiency, smart growth and renewable fuels.”
Ted Glick, the national coordinator for the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, said Obama has moderated his support for technology that would manufacture liquid fuel from coal. But Glick said he is not satisfied with Obama’s position and that
it contradicts his statements on global warming.
“We don’t think anyone who ‘gets it’ on global warming should be supporting any money going into coal-to-liquid research,” he said. “We do think it is inconsistent.”
Obama’s spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said his boss still supports the legislation he introduced with Bunning in January. But LeBolt said that Obama only would support coal-to-liquid fuel programs that produce less pollution than regular gasoline.
“Sen. Obama believes that America should both pursue energy independence and fight climate change,” LeBolt said. “He supports research into all potential sources of energy, including solar, wind and coal. But his support for coal-to-liquid fuels is dependent on whether we can capture and sequester enough carbon that [we can] produce fuels that have 20 percent lower emissions than gasoline.”
In a statement released before the Senate energy debate, Obama announced that he would only support the development of coal-to-liquid fuels if they emitted less global warming-linked carbon than conventional fuels.
Obama also voted against an amendment sponsored by Bunning that would have mandated the use of coal-to-liquid fuels.
Pica, of Friends of the Earth, said Obama’s decision to moderate his position on liquefied coal shows he is moving closer to environmental interest groups on global warming.
“I think he’s realizing the enormity of the global warming crisis,” Pica said.
O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch said Obama’s “coal-to-liquid position has been something of a blemish on his record, but I think he’s edging away from [his] initial position.”
Obama seems to have realized that, on global warming, trying to please home-state industries and the powerbrokers of the Democratic primary is a recipe for political trouble.
“I think Obama was trying to straddle the issue and he is now trying to maneuver into a more positive position,” O’Donnell said.
|
