McCain Seemingly Agrees With Glenn Beck That Solutions To Climate Change Can Be Delayed»

On his radio show this week, climate change denier Glenn Beck asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if “a new peer reviewed study,” which he says shows that global warming “looks like it’s going to be on hold for ten years,” gives America “time to not spend the money on global warming and maybe concentrate on things like Social Security.” “Yes,” replied McCain:

BECK: You know, there’s a new peer reviewed study out today that says global warming now looks like it’s going to be on hold for ten years. Does that buy us any time to not spend the money on global warming and maybe concentrate on things like Social Security and fix some of those things that are right around the corner?

SENATOR McCAIN: Yes, Glenn, but where we may have a disagreement, I believe that the development of green technologies such as General Electric, the world’s largest corporation, has dedicated to the development of nuclear energy as the French are able to generate 80% of their electricity with nuclear power. There’s no reason why America shouldn’t.

Listen here:

UPDATE: As Joe Romm explains at Climate Progress, Glenn Beck is misinterpreting a new paper in Nature that modeled the effects of interdecadal oceanic cycles on global surface temperature. In one sentence, the authors used the phrase “next decade” to refer to the period from 2005-2015 versus 2000-2010, instead of the common-sense definition of 2010-2020. The study in fact provides evidence to support that the next decade — 2010-2020 — will be the warmest on record and “is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.”

UPDATE II: Joe Romm also calculates what McCain’s nuclear goal means:

To satisfy McCain’s odd desire to be like the French and get 80% of our electricity from nuclear power in the coming decades would require building more than 700 (GW-sized) nuclear power plants by midcentury — more than one a month.

Ali Velshi Hosts Glenn Beck To Promote Liquid Coal»

Recently, CNN’s senior business correspondent Ali Velshi has been promoting coal-based liquid fuel as a response to high oil prices, even though it leads to climate disaster. Yesterday, the Wonk Room noted that Velshi has even implied coal is cleaner than himself. This afternoon, Velshi continued his obsession with liquid coal in a discussion with CNN’s Glenn Beck. Beck is a self-described “big dumb rodeo clown” who believes the United States is a “suicidal superpower” for not turning coil into gasoline:

This can be done — coal to oil — at $55 a barrel. That’s about half of what we are paying right now for oil. We can have cheap oil that is actually good for the nation because it is all home grown. We’re sitting … just Montana is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Montana does indeed have vast coal reserves. But coal-based fuel is in fact a dangerous and expensive prospect once the high costs of its pollution are factored in — especially its carbon dioxide global warming emissions.

Velshi then noted that his “clean coal” boosterism has raised questions about his journalistic integrity:

Well you know, South Africa, most of the gasoline it uses is produced from coal. I did something on this the other day and the number of e-mails and comments I got about how I’m shilling for the coal industry . . .

After Beck scoffed, “Oh please,” Velshi then made his most accurate pronouncement about coal to date:

I don’t think it’s clean. It’s not cleaner. It just happens to not be oil.

Glenn Beck — whose response to the threat of climate change is to complain that polar bears eat people — was terribly alarmed by Velshi’s moment of truth:

Now hang on just a second. We can sequester the CO2 now. We can make it cleaner than it has been.

In fact, there is not a single coal plant producing electricity or fuel that sequesters carbon dioxide anywhere on the planet. Although we definitely can make coal cleaner, the coal industry is doing everything it can to ensure that the American taxpayer foots the bill. If Velshi were truly interested in the economics of coal, he would host financial analysts that discuss the economic risks of coal power, not global-warming deniers like Glenn Beck.

Watch it:

Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »

CNN’s Velshi Promotes Coal: I’m Not Even As ‘Clean’ As Coal When I ‘Get Out Of The Shower’»

Previewing his interview with the CEO of Sasol, a South African company that produces coal-based liquid fuels, chief business correspondent Ali Velshi admitted on CNN’s American Morning on Friday that “There are issues with coal,” but minimized its problems:

There are issues with coal. It’s not the cleanest thing in the world. You see the signs for clean coal, 99 percent clean. I’m not 99 percent clean when I get out of the shower. . . I just look clean.

Watch it:

Velshi’s hygiene is his own business, but it’s no secret that coal is a dirty fuel and Velshi’s “99 percent clean” is false:

– The misleading “clean coal” ads from the coal-industry front group ACCCE only claim that “today’s coal-based generating fleet is already 70 percent cleaner based upon regulated emissions per unit of energy produced.”

– The “70 percent” baseline is from 1970 and only refers to air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, not water and land pollution or greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

– Because coal use has more than tripled since 1970, total pollution from coal plants has increased. In fact, in 2004 the Clean Air Task Force found coal-plant pollution “cuts short the lives of nearly 24,000 people each year.”

Velshi has now used his position to repeatedly promote coal-to-liquids technology and minimize its problems. Perhaps he wasn’t kidding when he said, “I only look clean.”

Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »

CNN’s Ali Velshi Promotes False Coal-Based ‘Solution’ To Gas Prices»

This weekend, CNN’s senior business correspondent Ali Velshi devoted his “Your Money” show to rising gas prices. In one segment, he introduced an interview with Pat Davies, the CEO of the South African energy company Sasol:

Any way you slice it, prices at the pump are high, even if you stick with the regular gas. One innovative energy company based in South Africa thinks it has a workable solution. For decades it’s been turning coal and natural gas into gasoline.

In reality, Sasol’s coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology is neither “workable” nor a “solution” to high gas prices. In the interview, Davies modestly admitted that there’s a global warming problem, saying “We need to do some more work.” The truth is liquid coal is a climate killer. The energy required to convert coal to liquid fuel doubles the amount of carbon dioxide released compared to petroleum-based gasoline, producing a ton of carbon dioxide for each barrel of liquid fuel. The New York Times shows how liquid coal is the worst of all possible alternative fuels:

Furthermore, Velshi concludes his piece by debunking the claim that CTL is a “workable solution” to the rising cost of gasoline:

This is not about lowering the cost necessarily of gasoline, it is about creating alternatives and particularly coal is something you don’t eat, unlike corn, which makes ethanol. Sasol is looking to open some facilities here in the United States and it’s conducting feasibility studies. So it would take years before the first coal-to-gasoline fuel could possibly enter the U.S. market.

Watch it:

In fact, the only benefits would accrue to the coal industry, who paid CNN millions to sponsor their presidential debates, and companies like Sasol, who paid lobbyists $400,000 last year to promote their technologies.

Will The Real Jim Rogers Please Step Forward?»

Our guest blogger is Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

Jim Rogers, President and CEO of Duke Energy, has become one of the most prominent industry voices calling for the regulation of global warming pollution from power plants and other sectors of the economy. Not only does Rogers advocate a cap-and-trade system, like that adopted in Europe, but he also proposes a “surcharge” on all electricity use to fund low carbon technology research and development.

However, as one of the largest producers of global warming pollution, Rogers’’ policy prescriptions warrant special scrutiny. In making his case for action, Rogers includes a very important caveat: regulate greenhouse gases, but regulate in a way that ensures that the American taxpayer foots the bill for cleaning up the company’’s aging and high-emitting power plants. In 2007, Duke’’s coal-heavy fleet released 108,500,000 tons of CO₂ to the atmosphere, the equivalent of about 18 million cars. This climate two-step is not new for Rogers:

Rogers’’s sleight-of-hand lies in his proposal for distributing the emissions permits (allowances) under a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. According to Rogers, Congress should stick to the grandfathering approach that was used more than two decades ago when it established the Acid Rain program, by which he means giving allowances away for free to companies based on their proportional share of historic CO₂ emissions.

What he neglects to mention is that Duke Energy would receive an allocation valued at more than $2.0 billion annually (equivalent to 10% of the North Carolina state budget), which the company’’s unregulated generating assets will use to drive up company profits while at the same time raising consumer electricity costs — precisely the issue that lead to criticism, and ultimately modification, of the European Union’’s cap-and-trade system.

Rogers argues that cap-and-trade based regulation is “not about punishing people for making decisions 40 years ago”. However, nor should it be about rewarding the biggest polluters and preserving the status quo. If companies want free allowances, they should earn them by investing in renewable energy technologies, carbon capture and storage technology, and energy efficiency.

Read more here.

Coal’s Front Group Gets A New Name: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)»

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), the $40 million coal-propaganda front group founded in 2000, is no more. In recent months, youth, environment, and health activists have exposed the dirty secrets of ABEC’s astroturf efforts to attack green-collar jobs and propagandize coal. ABEC and the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) — the trade organization that started the front group — have now become the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE).

That acronym just happens to be remarkably similar to:

ACEEE — the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, opposing coal plant construction in Kansas

GPACE — the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, also leading the fight against coal plant construction in Kansas

SACE — the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, opposing coal plant construction in Florida

ACE NY — the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, promoting renewable technologies like wind over coal

At the Switchboard blog of the National Resources Defense Council — who make the case that “there is no such thing as ‘clean coal’” — Rob Perks notes, “They say a leopard can’t change its spots. That goes double for the sooty paw prints of the coal industry’s well-fed pet.”

H/T Gristmill, who found ACCCE’s “creepy new 60-second ad.”

Coal-Sponsored CNN Promotes Climate Killer Coal Technology»

On CNN this morning, senior business correspondent Ali Velshi discussed the new record high oil prices reached today. American Morning co-host Kiran Chetry asked Velshi about ways to conserve, such as hybrids. His response:

I just spoke to the CEO of Sasol, the old South African oil company. They make gasoline out of coal. If oil is not $50 or higher, it doesn’t make it worth doing that. But at 112 bucks, 113 bucks, why not?

Watch it:

Why not convert coal into gasoline using coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology? After all, the United States does have abundant coal reserves, and CTL is a well-established technology, having been developed by scientists in Nazi Germany:

Liquid coal increases our addiction to fossil fuels. The way to break an addiction to fossil fuels is to figure out how to use less, not consume more. To replace ten percent of our oil consumption would require an increase in coal mining by 40%.

Liquid coal is a climate killer. The energy required to convert coal to liquid fuel doubles the amount of carbon dioxide released compared to petroleum-based gasoline, producing a “ton of carbon dioxide for each barrel of liquid fuel.”

I hope CNN’s Velshi is promoting coal-to-liquid technology unwittingly, and not because his network has been receiving millions of dollars from the coal industry to run their debates — debates where questions about global warming are rarely if ever asked.

Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »

REPORT: Nevada Power Company Making Risky Bet On Coal»

In January 2006, the Nevada utility company Sierra Pacific Resources announced plans to build a 1500 MW coal-fired power plant in Ely, Nevada. A report released yesterday by Innovest Strategic Value Advisers finds that Sierra Pacific, like Sunflower Electric in Kansas, is exposing its shareholders and ratepayers to “significant financial and environmental risk” by banking its future on coal. The $5 billion project, already the subject of cost overruns and delays, would nearly triple Sierra Pacific’s coal use and double its greenhouse gas output.

Even as other utilities join coalitions calling for mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, the report explains:

Sierra Pacific continues to focus its resource planning on new coal-fired generation has yet to develop a voluntary greenhouse gas reduction policy, and does not account for the potential price of carbon in its resource planning. The company’s failure to incorporate climate related risks and opportunities into its strategy will create significant financial risks for shareholders and ratepayers.

Sierra’s coal plans, the report says, fit into “a historical trend in which Sierra Pacific has relied on shifting risk between investors and ratepayers.”

Nevada, with its rapidly-growing population and a surfeit of both fossil and renewable energy resources, is choosing now between competing visions of America’s energy future. Last year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called for an immediate moratorium on coal-fired power plants in Nevada and introduced the Clean Renewable Energy and Economic Development Incentives Act (S. 1531), which would grant an additional $10 billion in Federal financing of high-voltage transmission lines, but only to those that carry at least 75 percent renewable electricity. This legislation would effectively block new coal plant projects like the Ely plant while offering major support to renewable electricity development.

Report Vindicates Sebelius: Coal’s Cost Puts Kansans ‘At Significant Risk’»

In October of last year, the administration of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) denied permits for two new coal-fired plants in her state because the greenhouse gases such coal plants would emit constitute a threat to the environment and public health. Last Friday, she also vetoed a legislative attempt to reverse the decision. Opponents of the veto claimed “the decision is costing the state jobs and economic investment” and warned of “higher electric bills for Western Kansas,” where the plants were proposed.

But a landmark report released yesterday by an esteemed financial research firm finds that, in fact, Sebelius has been acting in her state’s best economic interests.

Innovest Strategic Value Advisors finds that Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, the company whose proposal was denied, failed to account for the effects of the likely regulation of carbon dioxide on the cost of coal-fired electricity when it sought to build two 700 MW coal plants in Holcomb, Kansas:

Innovest examined the economics of the transaction and determined that under the most plausible regulatory scenarios the decision to build new coal generating capacity will put Sunflower Electric’s ratepayers – who in this particular case are the actual owners – at significant risk. The report concludes that Sunflower’s management has not adequately addressed the competitive and financial risks associated with climate change in deciding to pursue the expansion of its Holcomb Station power plant.

Sunflower was remiss in not considering that federal legislation that places a price on carbon emissions is extremely likely, considering the bipartisan support and strong international pressure for such action.

The report compares the economics of coal plants versus natural gas plants, which have a considerably smaller carbon footprint, and concludes:

In general, this analysis demonstrate that gas is the more financially sound choice for the construction of baseload generating capacity in all scenarios except 100% free allocation [to power companies] of carbon allowances.

The report also notes that western Kansas has “among the nation’s most abundant wind resources” and that the cost of wind power has plummeted 80% in the last 20 years.

The Center for American Progress plan for a low-carbon economy explains how a carbon-cap system with full auctioning of permits and broad investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency is the right choice.

(HT: David Sassoon at SolveClimate)