Nothing is worse for the climate than large scale coal-to-liquids. Not even the tar sands. In September, the Chinese news agency said it would rein in liquid coal plants. A Guardian story yesterday puts the lie to that claim:

A Chinese energy company is poised to open a chemical plant to make liquid fuels for cars and aircraft from coal, a move that has alarmed environmental campaigners who say it will increase carbon emissions and worsen global warming.

The plant, in Inner Mongolia, will use technology developed by Germany during the second world war to convert coal directly into synthetic diesel, dubbed “Nazi fuel”.

Nazi fuel. Has such an inviting ring to it.

The Chinese facility, operated by Shenhua Corporation, will be the first of its type in the world….

A study last year by the Chinese Academy of Sciences said: “Production of liquid fuels from coal is practically the most feasible route to cope with the dilemma in oil supply.”

I agree — if by feasible you mean, “will just about guarantee the end of the planet’s livability by 2100.”

Shame on the schizophrenic Chinese Academy, which in 2005 signed the Academies statement (along with the U.S., Russia, India, Brazil, and major European countries) that called for “substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions” — something that would be quite impossible with widespread use of Nazi fuel liquid coal.

At least two more commercial scale coal-to-liquids plants are under construction in China, although the Chinese government has expressed concern about the possible environmental impact of uncontrolled expansion, and has taken steps to limit the number of smaller facilities.

Oh, why didn’t you say that to begin with: The Chinese government “expressed concern” about environmental impacts and is limiting the number of “smaller” facilities. That almost restores my faith in the wisdom of their leaders. Almost. Significant production of liquid coal would officially make their climate policy as immoral as ours. I fear that the figurative “U.S.-China Suicide Pact on Climate” I describe in my book is starting to become a literal one.

Capturing the carbon dioxide from liquid coal would reduce the negative consequences, though “would still produce at least 20% more carbon dioxide than petrol and diesel made from oil.” But, in any case, the Chinese plants are not designed for capture, even if they had some large, certified repository to put the carbon dioxide in, which they don’t. So the life cycle emissions will be “almost twice the carbon pollution as using conventional diesel.”

And putting this in dry Inner Mongolia doesn’t strike me as a terrific idea given that “the energy-intensive conversion plants also require massive amounts of cooling water to stop them overheating.”

I thought the Chinese were supposed to be wise and holistic, what with Confucius and Tai Chi and the I Ching and yin & yang and acupuncture, and inventing paper, movable type, the compass, silk, and porcelain, and all that. Turns out they are as dumb as us. Or maybe dumber. I mean, we would never go for something dubbed Nazi fuel … would we?

Related Posts:

• Coal-to-Liquid Is a Dead End
• New Years Resolution #47: Get the real facts out on liquid coal
• Liquid coal means liquid problems
• Memo to Air Force: Stop misleading the public on liquid coal
• Congress should say NO to coal-to-diesel
• The WSJ (and Climate Progress) on Liquid Coal
• Liquid Coal Hearing Report
• China reins in liquid coal
• Liquid Coal Goes Down In Flames In Senate
• The Post Gets Coal-Liquids Story Mostly Right
• Plug-in Hybrids Beat Coal-to-Liquids (Duh!)
• Coal State Newspapers Attack Liquid-Coal Plans
• Some Thoughts on Coal to Diesel

That would be the title of An Inconvenient Truth, if it had been produced by the Coen brothers — since young men (and women) are poised to suffer through the worst consequences of our immoral short-sightedness. (This is not such an odd pairing of movies, considering that No Country star Tommy Lee Jones was the Harvard roommate of Al Gore).

I do think No Country for Old Men deserves the Oscar this Sunday for best movie of the year because it is brilliantly constructed and acted — and delivers a powerful, coherent message to all of us from the Coen brothers and Cormac McCarthy.

Yet this is easily one of the most depressing and nihilistic major movies ever made. On the nihilistic/life-affirming story scale, where Hamlet is a 1 and It’s a Wonderful Life is a 10, No Country is easily a zero, and perhaps deserves negative numbers.

Normally I do not like movies with an unhappy ending, and this movie arguably has about the unhappiest ending a movie of its kind could possibly have — but the movie did seem to me a perfect metaphor for modern American politics and global warming.

[You can read the basic plotline here. Since Wikipedia is untroubled by spoilers, with nary a warning, why should I be? Note to people who haven't seen the movie 1) I'm assuming you have figured out that when a film is titled No Country for Old Men, you can be sure it does not end well, and 2) this post will not make much sense to you.]

Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin, in a career-relaunching role) stumbles upon a drug-deal gone bad and walks away with a case containing $2 million (and a transmitter). Let’s say he represents humanity, taking and burning the fossil fuel resources of the world. He is more ingenious than he at first seems, like humanity, but over the course of the movie he slowly realizes just what a terrible mistake he has made, how he has set himself on a path toward destroying himself and everyone he loves.

Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem in a chilling Oscar-nominated performance) is the relentless, consciousless killer who pursues him. Let’s say he represents both modern American politics and the consequences of global warming, both of which respect neither person nor place.

The local sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones, another terrific performance), though jaded by the mystery of modern evil, seems to be as smart as Chigurh, and the only one who can save Moss. Now I bet you’re thinking I’m going to say he represents Al Gore [don't worry, I know you're really thinking Joe has gone off his meds -- again]. But no!

Al Gore is, in fact, symbolically represented by Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) a bounty hunter who shows up briefly in the middle of the movie. Like Gore, he explains to Moss/humanity that Chigurh/warming is relentless and will prove fatal if Moss/humanity stays on its current path. Like Gore, Wells offers M/h a way out. And like Gore (so far), M/h chooses to ignore Wells until it is too late. [Okay, Gore hasn't been killed heartlessly by warming, but he is (or was) metaphorically killed by modern American politics -- if you're still with me and not, say, filing papers to have me committed.]

So who — or what — does Sheriff Bell represent? Here is where things get interesting….

Read more

Seven votes short of over-riding a veto, the Kansas House has passed legislation allowing two new coal-fired power plants in western Kansas. This is quite possibly the latest answer to that whiny question I usually hate – “What’s the matter with Kansas?”

What’s the matter is that bloody Kansas has again become a battleground between those looking forward and those stuck in the past – those who see an inevitable cap on greenhouse gas emissions and the possibility of a clean energy future versus those tangled up in dirty habits with deep pockets.

So deep in fact that the plants developers have cut a deal with Kansas State University for a 10-year, $2.5 million energy research program if the coal plants are built. (I can already imagine the Peabody Coal Co. blimps floating over the Bill Snyder Family Football Stadium the day of the big game. Oh wait, no, I can’t… there’s something dirty in the air obstructing my view and my breath, and oddly, I had to cut the sleeves off my favorite KSU sweatshirt – it just got unusually warm for this time of year…)

Shameless yet shameful, to even bribe education. Now if you ask me, that’s a hefty insult to the Midwestern values I grew up to pride.

The bottom line is, these plants are no good for Kansas. At this point, it almost seems symbolic that coal and anti-coal advocates continue this fight. For Kansans, it’s not difficult to see that there are better options for energy, job creation, economic development, etc.

First of all, the energy demand is simply not there – not in Kansas, and while Kansas would house these plants, Colorado would receive 85 percent of their generated electricity. (It’s also worth noting that Colorado has adopted a renewable electricity standard, meaning even the consumer of these coal plants is ahead of the curve in terms of cleaning their energy sources and dampening demand for dirty coal.)

Plus, the job creation potential of coal is dwarfed by the wind and solar industries‘ economic stimulation potential.

On top of that:

The Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment rejects the plants.

The Kansas Governor cannot back them.

Kansas is not alone.

Wall Street is not even certain it can justify financial support for coal plants.

The only people behind the proposed coal-plants are the utilities and industry reps who would make money off of them. Nothing about this legislation and nothing about these plants is in the best interest of Kansans, and most know that intuitively, despite the propaganda being thrown at them and other voters.

Next, the Kansas House and Senate will try to conference legislation to win those additional seven votes. Not to say they would have worthwhile legislation afterwards. So I am stuck here desperately convincing myself that something about a ‘Lucky 7‘ will keep Kansas clean…