Thanks for posting this.  The next time Vox Populi mentions this I'll point him or her here.

Also, I wonder if Obama is clarifying his position, or has changed it because of pressure from environmental groups.  I'd be open to evidence suggesting either.

He's been saying the same thing for months in the L.A. Times, Reuter, and New Republic.  The problem is that no one listens.  Why isn't anyone asking why Hillary Clinton votes against higher CAFE standards?

This is what many of his supporters have been saying for weeks but it gets drowned out with misinformation.  I've heard he's preparing a major speech outlining his environmental positions, but he covered a lot of the bases in his May 7th address to the Detroit Economic Club:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/05/07/re marks_of_senator_barack_obam_12.php

Boy people have been trying to run this issue to the ground.  I'm glad Obama clarified it for the zillonth time.

He always stated that his support for liquid coal was contingent upon a technological solution to curb or eliminate its carbon emissions.

Though I am very, very glad that Obama is changing his tune, this is laughable:

Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.

I'm glad Obama has come around to the fact that you cannot be pro-pollution and a Democratic darling, but the fact that he had to be pushed to do the right thing on such an immensely important issue says a lot about his lack of leadership.

Pennsylvania for Gore!!! Al Gore for President in 2008!!!

What people forget is that the bill expressly provides tax incentives for sequestration -- which is what lowers the carbon emission of coal to liquid.  He's been consistent all along -- just read the bill.

He's never said he supports coal to liquid under any circumstances -- there has to be sequestration.

That may be what he's saying, but the bill that he is co-sponsoring doesn't say that. Read the bill yourself and see how the Washington Post describes it.

Sounds like Senator Obama is trying to have it both ways.

And, by the way, even though Obama is not my first choice for president, he's definitely my second choice and I really like him a lot. I just think he's got the wrong position on this very important issue.

Not that hard to find it in the bill.  Just search for "sequestration":

`SEC. 43. ENHANCED OIL, NATURAL GAS, AND COALBED METHANE RECOVERY, AND CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION CREDIT.'.

(2) The item in the table of sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code relating to section 43 is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 43. Enhanced oil. natural gas, and coalbed methane recovery, and capture and sequestration credit.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to costs paid or incurred in taxable years ending after December 31, 2007.

SEC. 205. ALLOWANCE OF ENHANCED OIL, NATURAL GAS, AND COALBED METHANE RECOVERY, AND CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION CREDIT AGAINST THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

(a) In General- Subsection (c) of section 38 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation based on amount of tax) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:

`(4) SPECIAL RULES FOR ENHANCED OIL, NATURAL GAS, AND COALBED METHANE RECOVERY, AND CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION CREDIT- In the case of the enhanced oil, natural gas, and coalbed methane recovery, and capture and sequestration credit determined under section 43--

`(A) this section and section 39 shall be applied separately with respect to such credit, and

`(B) in applying paragraph (1) to such credit--

`(i) the tentative minimum tax shall be treated as being zero, and

`(ii) the limitation under paragraph (1) (as modified by clause (i)) shall be reduced by the credit allowed under subsection (a) for the taxable year (other than the enhanced oil, natural gas, and coalbed methane recovery, and capture and sequestration credit and the specified credits).'.

investing in technology that could make coal a clean burning source of energy

Research on CTL is underway in several countries, the results have so far come out the same - the amount of energy needed and the amount of emissions created in CTL far exceeds the savings from the offset in traditional petroleum use.  The amount of money being directed to "investing in technology" in this bill is nothing more than throwing money at the coal industry.

On April 3rd, 2006, Obama said this:

Any strategy for reducing carbon emissions must also deal with coal, which is actually the most abundant source of energy in this country. To keep using this fossil fuel, I believe we need to invest in the kind of advanced coal technology that will keep our air cleaner while still keeping our coal mines in business. Over the next two decades, power companies are expected to build dozens of new coal-fired power plants, and countries like India and China will build hundreds. If they use obsolete technology, these plants will emit over 60 billion tons of heat-trapping pollution into the atmosphere. We need to act now and make the United States a leader in puting in place the standards and incentives that will ensure that these plants use available technology to capture carbon dioxide and dispose of it safely underground.

This is part of an extensive speech entitled "Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet".

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060403-en ergy_independence_and_the_safety_of_our_ planet/index.html

Obama is also the co-sponsor of the The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007."  The bill will provide for a program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to support the deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and to ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances. (see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/22/ 20189/0648)

This bill is a tougher version of the 2003 Lieberman-McCain bill which was defeated in the Senate.  Edwards who was in the Senate at the time couldn't be bothered to vote.

Having done a bit of research, perhaps too fine a word given the quality of information available and  the spin of vested interests, on CTL and the various arguments for and against it strikes me that any CTL investment made by the US is an investment in energy independence not carbon emissions reduction.

These are both problems facing us today.  From a global perspective CTL may be, as Al says, a horrible mistake.  From the perspective of the leadership and people of the US, now and in the next decades, the energy independence of the US may be an even more compelling problem.  Tough choices.

We shouldn't take lightly the potential harm the globe is facing from coal fired powered plants in China and India as they seek to fuel their exploding energy needs.  If we can replace our foreign oil dependence with home based CTL plants which are carbon neutral to the oil it replaces and at the same time dramatically reduce the carbon emissions in China and India the advantages to the Globe will be enormous.  We could then gradually phase out or greatly  reduce CTL production in the states as the technology of renewables creates more efficient production plants.

By the way, what does John Edwards have to say about coal.  It's part of his 13 billion a year New Energy Economy plan:

Coal will be an important source of U.S. and global electricity for decades, but it is responsible for more than 30 percent of America's carbon dioxide emissions. Edwards will invest $1 billion a year to research ways to burn coal cleanly and recycle its carbon underground permanently. He will also strengthen mine safety laws to ensure it is mined safely. Two large power companies, TXU and American Electric Power, recently announced plans to build experimental plants to capture carbon. [NYT, 3/15/2007 and 3/17/2007; McFarland, Herzog, and Jacoby, 2007]

He pretty much sums it up in this recent post. There's no reason we should spend billions extra for this stuff.

I do not however think that it is possible currently to produce liquid coal in such a fashion that the life-cycle CO2 released into the atmosphere is lower than that for regular gasoline, because of this bar chart.

Therefore, I would like to see reconciliation of these facts with the wording of the CTL bill. Perhaps Barack could offer a modified version, or put forth suitable amendments (spelled out on his senate page, perhaps, since I don't know if official amendments can be submitted before the debate on the bill gets underway). In the mean time, it may help to withdraw his co-sponsorship of the current bill.

I like and applaud the principle Obama has stated: "However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels." Thank you, Senator Obama.

From the chart, that would mean that CTL would need to get at least as effective as liquefied petroleum gas which is at the 20% mark. It seems that we are quite far from that at this point, and hence my impression is that some serious research needs to go into this, before any thing put into production.

Thank you for posting this. I think it's important that if we are going to discuss this issue, we should at the very least , have all the facts. Great post.

If Senator Obama would like to really clarify his position he would remove his name as a co-sponsor of the bill. The title of the bill is:To promote coal-to-liquid fuel activities. There are no clarifications within it that bill that demonstrate Obama's now clarified position. At a minimium Obama should seek an amendment to support his position and if defeated, withdraw his name as a co-sponsor.

We are all for energy independence and lowering greenhouse emissions but burning or converting coal to fuel is NOT the answer. We need to invest in cellulosic biofuels technology. This uses (largely) waste products to create fuel, thus not wasting precious food sources to make fuel for energy. It will of course require a significant investment but it is an investment in our freedom and our future. Kind of what America is all about, or at least... it sure used to be.

Either kill or change this dangerous bill before we are slick talked into allowing it to become law.

He either needs to remove himself as a co-sponsor, put a hold on it, or put in standards in the bill.  The bill does not currently have them.

The bill is not finished, it is not final.  Putting aside our individual choices for President, if the final language in the bill makes it an incentive to produce commercialy viable CTL at a 20% reduction in carbon emmisions it has got to be viewed as a very positive thing - for getting us off foreign oil, for keeping jobs in some of the most economically depressed parts of our country, and for export of technology to China and India.

Lol, yeah and I support the War in Iraq but only if when people die there they magically reappear ten minutes laters. Also, Maliki has to start shitting us diamonds.

Setting aside the "merits" and obvious DEMERITS of CTL for a moment...if Al Gore, and all the environmental organizations are against Obama's bill...politically, in the race for the nomination, it makes very little sense for Obama to sponsor and/or vote for this bill. He needs to make this one go away.

IMHO, if Obama persists in his efforts to finesse his support for this bill with nuanced explanations...and Hillary Clinton with her sizable war chest, decides she wants to seriously defeat Obama in California...she will have the option, if she so chooses, to put together an ad buy in California highlighting the fact that Candidate Obama pushed for, and voted for, a bill opposed by ALL environmental organizations AND Al Gore.  

Depending upon its timing and nature, such an ad buy could shave as much as 30% from Obama's California totals, cost him a victory in that state...and ultimately...cost him the nomination.

Bottom line:  pushing this bill is an unnecessary political risk for Obama.  He would best be advised to wake up, smell the coffee, and jettison his support.

The clarifaction/statement raises a number of questions. First, could someone please help me find the statement on Obama's websites.

Second, does Obama believe the industrial processes supported by his bill guarantee 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels (perhaps he's including emissions from the US military in the conventional fuel life-cycle as well as the emissions that would have been reduced if we had spent less on war and more on transforming markets for renewable energy), or is he planning on withdrawing support for the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007?

What needs to be clarified is his position regarding his own bill.

Perspective:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ nation/la-na-energypol13jun13,0,2863260. story?coll=la-home-nation