As Democratic candidates head into a primary schedule heavy with coal-mining states, they have been talking about coal in a way that draws dangerously close to industry talking points on the single biggest air polluter in the U.S. and the fossil fuel with the worst greenhouse gas output rate.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) told an NPR affiliate in West Virginia Wednesday that we need to “make sure that coal plays a major role” in the future and when asked about mountaintop removal, said “maybe there is a way to recover once they have been stripped of the coal.” Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) told a crowd in West Virginia Thursday that “clean coal jobs” are “green jobs.”

Here’s a rundown of some of the issues at play:

Mountaintop Removal:

Sen. Clinton, when asked her position on mountaintop removal, said “it’s a difficult question because of the conflict between the economic and environmental trade-off” and continued, “You know, I think we’ve got to look at this from a practical perspective.”

In the words of Appalachian Voices spokesman J.W. Randolph, “Mountaintop removal does the same thing to our economy as it does to our mountains.” Since 1950, coal-mining jobs in West Virginia have plummeted from over 120,000 to less than 20,000, even as the wasteful and mechanized process of flattening entire mountains for seams of coal has allowed production to increase. Appalachian activist Denise Giardina explained that “it is deep mining that provides jobs,” not mountaintop removal: “To destroy the mountains is to spit in the face of God Almighty.”

Coal-to-Liquids:

Sen. Clinton praised “subsidies for coal-to-liquids projects” and said “I don’t understand” why the Bush administration canceled the FutureGen coal-to-liquids coal-gasification demonstration plant when the $900 million project ballooned to $1.8 billion, with further overruns in sight.

Coal-to-liquids technology, which uses the Fischer-Tropsch process to convert coal into vehicular fuel, “creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for every barrel of liquid fuel.” The Natural Resources Defense Council explains that many “economic, social, and environmental drawbacks of coal-derived liquid fuel preclude it from being a sound option to move America beyond oil.”

“Clean Coal”:

Sen. Obama told his audience:

We could be investing in renewable sources of energy, and in clean coal technology, and creating up to 5 million new green jobs in the bargain, including new clean coal jobs.

“Clean coal” is a shorthand term for “technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use.” This includes established technologies used to capture methane emitted during coal mining and to “wash” coal before it is burned to separate toxic impurities, as well as technologies to capture and geologically store its greenhouse emissions (CCS) that are “expensive, experimental and not in commercial use.”

The coal industry, with the assistance of the current administration, has been fighting regulations to establish or enforce the use of existing technologies to reduce traditional air pollutants produced by coal-burning like mercury and sulfur dioxide. In climate scientist James Hansen’s analysis, the only way to avoid climate catastrophe is to establish “an immediate moratorium on additional coal-fired power plants without CCS.”

Van Jones, head of Green For All, defines “a green-collar job” as “a vocational job in an ecologically responsible trade.”

No matter how advanced coal technology becomes, a coal-industry job is simply not in the same class of ecological responsibility as one that involves renewable energy or actually restores carbon and health to the soil.

These issues are complicated and need to be talked about responsibly, especially when the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) is running a $35 million campaign across the nation with the slogan “Clean Coal. America’s Power.”

UPDATE: CORRECTION: The FutureGen project in Mattoon, Illinois was to be a demonstration coal-gasification and carbon-sequestration power plant, not a “coal-to-liquids plant.” Although the synthesis gas (syngas) generated by coal gasification is a step in the coal-to-liquids process and can be “used in a fuel cell to produce clean [sic] electricity, or it could be fed to a refinery to help upgrade petroleum products,” it is not a liquid fuel.

If want to reduce your carbon footprint, what should you do about your air travel until we have carbon-free jetfuel?

The Stockholm Environment Institute and the Tufts Climate Initiative has a good handout on the subject, “Flying Green.” They note

… the average American is responsible for the emissions of about 20 tons of CO2 annually…. If you fly to Europe and back from the US, you’ll add about 3-4 tons to your (already large) carbon footprint. With one flight you will have caused more emissions than 20 Bangladeshi will cause in a whole year. Unfortunately they are the ones who will lose their homes and livelihood once sea level rise inundates their low lying country.

Personally, I have cut back air travel a great deal to reduce emissions, to spend time with my daughter, to spend more time blogging, and, of course, to spend less time flying, which just isn’t very pleasant anymore.

The handout has a number of good suggestions and factoids — why should flying economy be considered better for the environment than flying business class?

Also, while I’m not a big fan of carbon offsets, the handout offers some good principles for such purchases and then recommends a few offsets companies.

If you want to learn more about the controversial issue of just how much damage to the climate air travel does, you might read this. If you want to know more about offsetting air travel emissions, read this.

Last October, the Kansas Department of Health denied air quality permits to a proposed coal plant expansion near Holcomb, KS, because of the danger greenhouse gas emissions pose to the climate. Ever since, coal’s proponents have waged an aggressive, fear-centered campaign against Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ (D) administration.

Today, Sebelius issued a long-expected veto of the legislature’s plan to not only approve the plant but also strip the Department of Health of its regulatory capacity. From her veto statement:

This decision not only preserves Kansans’ health and upholds our moral obligation to be good stewards of this beautiful land, but will also enhance our prospects for strong and sustainable economic growth throughout our state. Instead of building two new coal plants, which would produce 11 million new tons of carbon dioxide each year, I support pursuing other, more promising energy and economic development alternatives.

Big Coal’s allies had pulled out all the stops to pressure Sebelius into approving the drastic bill. Following the air permit denial, Peabody Energy, one of the largest coal companies in the world, funded newspaper ads comparing the governor to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladmir Putin, and Hugo Chavez. When that failed, Sunflower Electric — the company making the bid for the new plants — offered a quid pro quo to Kansas State University, promising millions of dollars to fund energy research if the coal plants were approved.

Just this week, coal’s allies in the state legislature insisted that the state “lost a chance to win a $10 billion [oil] refinery because of the recent rejection” of the coal project. As a spokeswoman for Sebelius pointed out that the company’s first choice has been South Dakota “since June 2007 — which was well before the Sunflower decision.”

UPDATE: ClimateProgress points out that Sebelius has offered compromise legislation that would allow for a coal plant to be built with carbon sequestration technology.

UPDATE: WarmingLaw contrasts the record of Kansas Secretary of Health and the Environment, Roderick Bremby, who made the landmark decision, to that of United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

Today Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius took her turn in vetoing the two coal-fired power plants proposed in western Kansas, whose permits Sec. Bremby controversially rejected in October 2007.

Read her full statement here. She has offered to compromise on legislation that would:

* Build one new plant similar in size to the Sand Sage permit previously approved (660 MW);
* Kansas base load power needs must receive top priority;
* Plant must be able to implement carbon sequestration technology;
* Commitment for 20% wind power (132 MW)
* Commitment for 100 MW of energy efficiency
* Net metering allowed in the Sunflower service area

Otherwise, legislators have 30 days to override her veto, and luckily, the House appears a few votes short.

Also worth noting is that the Gov. signed an Executive Order to establish a Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group:

Sebelius has named Jack Pelton, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Cessna Aircraft Company, to lead this group.

“I am so pleased that one of our most prominent business leaders has agreed to serve as chair,” said Sebelius. “Jack understands the balance between continuing to grow our economy and making sure that we protect our environment and maximize our natural assets for future generations.

“The Advisory Group will explore opportunities in all sectors of our economy to accomplish the goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions; and, at the same time, continue to take advantage of the economic prosperity provided by job growth throughout Kansas.”

Better yet – the EO says:

The Advisory Group will first produce a comprehensive inventory and forecast of greenhouse gas emissions in Kansas from 1990 to 2020. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment shall produce an annual report to the Governor at the end of each fiscal year tracking statewide greenhouse gas emissions in Kansas and forecasted trends, and tracking progress toward the reduction goals that are established.

– Kari Manlove

Reprinted below is an article from Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. I found it to be an honest, objective piece worth reading for details on the coal fight in Kansas I had never run across before – like the letter from six other states’ attorneys general to Secretary Bremby leading up to his decision (encouraging him to reject the permit).

There are a handful of ‘takeaways’ from the article that lay down some of the big picture context for this debate:

First, this is about more than two coal plants in Kansas. This isn’t about how one state or region gets its electricity – it’s about how an entire industrialized, wealthy country continues to prosper in the face of a globally and locally changing market.

Second, like the California EPA waiver case, these are the first traces of a state versus federal-level battle. (It may not have to be a battle, time will tell, but with the current federal Administration, it’s sure turning into one.) Were I more versed in American history, I could pull some states’ rights case out of my head for a perfect comparison.

It also raises larger political and ethical questions. Should an appointed position be able to make such a large decision (in truth, this one has been made much larger by the political context and attention)? (There’s no way we could elect every powerful position, and there’s no way elected bodies could achieve the same efficiency in decision-making as appointees.)

Is there value in making decisions for future generations? How effective is a small decision like this when compared to a problem the size of China and its population+development? Does that make the effort futile, or can its actual impact plus the message it sends overcome its size?

On this last point, I have to confess, I think the answers are Yes, and Effective because Yes, there are a lot of forces that can overcome size (not to discount how crucial federal global warming legislation is). That’s why I am a progressive – I think policy decisions should be about more than yourself and that you have to tastefully adjust to change and new knowledge (like the fact of man-made global warming).

No one said progress would be easy, but that’s the essence of human civilization. The wind won’t always blow at your back, but so long as you step up and show the sort of leadership Secretary Bremby has, there’s hope yet. It was Ayn Rand who wrote that “man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress.” Anti-environmentalism, anti-altruism – I find that philosophical pillar of hers quite ironic in this case.

The article follows [unindented]:

Kansan Stokes Energy Squabble With Coal Ruling Official Cites Warming In Blocking Two Plants; ‘Ground Zero’ in Fight

Read more