Get Rid of All of Them

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 18:03


I'm very down about Ed Markey recently.  He was championed as a real leader for progressives in Congress on telecom issues like net neutrality, but he's done nothing on it since the Democrats took Congress.  This is intentional, since he doesn't want to pick a fight with Dingell when he's already engaged in a fight with Dingell over conflict between Energy and Commerce and his new Select Committee on Global Warming.  That new committee, mind you, is entirely communications oriented with no legislative authority whatsoever.  I figured I'd cut Markey some slack on net neutrality, since global warming is very important.

Well that was until today.  Brian Beutler reports some grim news from the new select committee on global warming.

I'll be posting a few entries here detailing the most significant ground Markey's hearing covered. But the nickel version is that, though everybody from the governor of Wyoming to the wonks at the Center for American Progress think a cap-and-trade program is inevitable, they also think that many, many billions of dollars in subsidies for carbon capture and sequestration technology will be crucial to any greenhouse-gas reduction strategy.

Carbon capture is a completely mythical technology.  It doesn't exist and is cover for a mult-billion dollar subsidy to the coal industry, the single worst industry in America when it comes to greenhouse gases.

This is coming, not from Dingell, but from Ed Markey's committee whose entire purpose is putting pressure on Congress to take a more liberal stance on global warming.  I can't believe this.  I really just can't.  Sometimes I feel like we literally have no allies anywhere.

Matt Stoller :: Get Rid of All of Them

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Get Rid of All of Them | 34 comments
Matt - Have you read this from NRDC? (0.00 / 0)
How to Clean Coal from NRDC.  I thought it was pretty informative.

there is no such thing as clean coal (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure the NRDC knows that... (4.00 / 1)
...the article is about emerging technologies in the industry.  It's worth a look.
[ Parent ]
Fascinating article. Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Carbon capture (0.00 / 0)
After a brief look at the subject it seems like carbon capture is commercially available and it is only the storage that hasn't been done to 100% yet.

http://en.wikipedia....

Where do you get the idea that it isn't possible?

never been done (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Simply false (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
there are lots of problems (4.00 / 1)
if you are capturing it in water, then you are going to turn vast quantities of underground water into carbonic acid.

Right now the technology isn't there to capture it in pellets.

Even if it were, you'd still have the environmental problems related to coal mining.

We need to stop subsidizing coal and put a moratorium on building any new coal-fired power plants.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
I just read the wikipedia article, (0.00 / 0)
And I got the impression that carbon sequestration has a lot of known and unknown risks. So far, it looks like the only projects that are using it are injecting carbon back into oil fields, where the goal is probably increased oil production by pressurizing the wells, rather than practical, cost effective and stable storage of carbon.

According to the article, there is no technology for mineral storage mechanisms (calcium carbonate, like sea shells). Everything else sounded unstable or just plain dangerous. (Lakes of acid at the bottom of the ocean creeps me out.)

I hadn't looked into it until now, but I must agree with Matt that carbon sequestration looks like a "mythical" technology. It sounds similar to the nonsense about the clean "hydrogen economy" -- as if there is some source of hydrogen other than coal or oil.

When corporate types start spouting off about "green" technology, I have to remain skeptical, and assume that any corporate foray into politics can have only one goal: converting taxpayer money into profits.

ec=-8.50 soc=-8.41   (3,967 Watts)

[ Parent ]
Clean Hydrogen Sources Do Exist (0.00 / 0)
"...I hadn't looked into it until now, but I must agree with Matt that carbon sequestration looks like a "mythical" technology. It sounds similar to the nonsense about the clean "hydrogen economy" -- as if there is some source of hydrogen other than coal or oil...

Carbon sequestration could be considered mythical because not even a pilot project of commercial size has been designed, built or tested yet.  Nobody knows yet what the ramifications would be for a carbon sequestration project.  That makes it mythical.  That isn't the case with hydrogen production and the primary source for hydrogen isn't likely to be coal or oil.

The trick will be to employ a renewable energy source like solar or tidal or wind to generate hydrogen from water.  It's not likely to be the most cost competitive system, but it does offer the ability to produce as much hydrogen as needed without accessing any carbon source.

[ Parent ]
You do recognize, I hope (0.00 / 0)
Undersea natural gas reservoirs are lakes of acid at the bottom of the ocean. It really shouldn't be that scary.

If you want to be creeped out by something, start worrying about clathrate guns.

[ Parent ]
Dodd = Richardson (4.00 / 1)
On global warming, Dodd equals Richardson, in that he is the only candidate willing to step outside the elite consensus on cap and trade. And, of course, there is an elite consensus on cap and trade because it doesn't really force businesses to change their practices, just as there is an elite consensus on residual troops in Iraq because it doesn't do jack to change the national security state.

I have to start blogging about Dodd and a CO2 tax more often. 
The Truth Is So Simple (0.00 / 0)
It just isn't easy.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
Where do you get the idea that a cap-and-trade system doesn't force businesses to change their practices?

A badly designed cap-and-trade system wouldn't, just as a badly designed tax wouldn't.

A properly designed cap-and-trade system that puts the credits up for auction (just like in broadband allocation) and has a strong cap would be both progressive and effective.

[ Parent ]
It's just another corporate/governmental rape and pillage (4.00 / 2)
All it does is to subsidize coal and redirect money away from research and development of alternate fuels.

I feel the same way about biofuels. All they are are monoculture subsidies that increase the price of food globally without adding any long-term benefit in terms of energy production.

None of this is serious. It's just business as usual.

Lot's of folks are very frustrated right now.... (4.00 / 3)
...and for good reason.

But keep in mind we've only just started our progressive revolution. We've done some good things getting some good folks elected and we look to be successful at electing more.

But...

One thing we have not done yet. We have yet to make those in elected office fear us. And I mean really turn white and pop sweat out of 'em when they hear the netroots are targeting them. I say this not because that would make me feel good but because....

This is an essential part of the way politics has been practiced for a long, long time and we need to recognize that fact and put the fear tool in our toolkit.

Targeting the worst of the 'Bush Dogs' and running them out of D.C. would be a good start. I do think we need to be successful however with those we target. No more 'victories' like Lamont vs. Liarmann and I say that as a Lamont supporter and contributer.

Let's string a few 'Bush Dogs' up from the nearest light poles and send a message.

A message to the 'Bush Dogs' and the corporatist hacks.

Vote progressive or die.

Politically that is.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Exactly (4.00 / 2)
We need to pick the targets and destroy them.  Primary challenge first.

If the primary fails, use an active 3rd party challenge and voter suppression effort in the general to give the seat to the GOP.

Give em a clear message.  Cross us and we'll get destroy you.  Even if your seat goes to the GOP.

[ Parent ]
It's about the Leadership... (0.00 / 0)
Targetting Bush Dogs is a great idea. But it still doesn't get to the heart of the problem: LEADERSHIP. If leadership doesn't feel like they are accountable, they will do whatever suits their own interests and agendas. They have to be made accountable if change is to occur AT ALL. Or, perhaps, they need to be voted out by the caucuses.

Jonathan Schwarz posted something rather smart along these lines.

http://www.tinyrevol... Give this a read.

As ugly and deeply unsexy institutional politics are, they must be considered. That said, we can target 40 House races and maybe win a few of those; or we can target the few races that really, really matter, Pelosi and Hoyer, and make a much larger splash with what are obviously very limited resources. Let's say the netroots knocks off 10 Bush Dogs this election cycle. Will it change Nancy Pelosi's mind about protecting our constitutional rights as citizens? Nope. She'll still have non-Bush Dog Louise Slaughter finagling the Rules Committee to suit her own interests, just like she did with FISA, Bush Dogs or not. Having ten fewer Bush Dogs will only lessen the size of her figurative fig leaf, but that's it.

I'm still all for targetting Bush Dogs. But given the leftiness of Pelosi's district (not to mention the shitloads of monied people there), that might be a great place to target. She might actually care about "change" then. Same goes for Markey, for that matter. He's a committee chair from MA. If he starts to feel the old adage, "With power comes responsibility," I think he'll change his tune. He has to be MADE to feel that, however.

Power does what it wants or can get away with. How much more can they get away with?


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
I live in the SF Bay Area and.... (0.00 / 0)
...the folks I talk to are much, much more angry with Pelosi than they are with Bush.

They know who Bush is and who he represents.

They are boiling over to find that Pelosi doesn't give a flying fuck about anything.

Not the criminality of BushCo.

Not Impeachment.

Not FISA.

Not the Constitution.

Not the DOJ.

Not oversight.

Nothing.

Apparently not even being Speaker since she isn't doing the Speaker's job.

Yeah, she is vulnerable but, with a bad case of Beltway arrogance, she refuses to believe that growing reality.

We need to help her 'believe'.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Please moderate your tone (0.00 / 0)
I know you're angry, and that you did provide the "politically that is" disclaimer, but it'd be a shame for this place to turn into the liberal equivalent of the Idiotarian Rottweiler or somesuch.

Though, yes, fear is essential to politics at present. General Motors, Exxon, Wal-Mart, etc., don't get what they want only because of the big donations, it's because there's a big stick waiting for those who refuse the carrot.

Right now, the only people that anyone in politics is afraid of are Republicans, megacorporations and the Beltway press. That's it. They're not afraid of most of the voters, the disapprobation of their colleagues, definitely not international opinion, and no one's afraid of the Democratic leadership. Certainly, no one is afraid of us, provided they don't say something stupid on a YouTube clip.

We figured out the raising money part. Time to work on the other bits.

[ Parent ]
I reject your point.... (0.00 / 0)
....nothing wrong with my tone and your comparison is odious and indicates you've never been to the site(s) you refer to.

I'm fine with criticism based on substance.

Manners, in the current situation, not so much....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
I think... (4.00 / 2)
that people should say whatever they damn well please.
[ Parent ]
Whoa! (0.00 / 0)
What a refreshing idea that is!

Thanks.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Lobbyists have an impact - corruption of moral compass (4.00 / 1)
Our legislators go to Washington and then day after day, they hear from very reasonable sounding, intelligent people that they have to look at these issues differently.

The voters just don't understand the reality. ~snark~

Until we have leadership that takes that on, it will get worse.

Edwards is right.  He knows the pressures they put on him.  However his moral compass and his financial independence makes it possible for him to stand against these interests.

The new congressmen and even senators have no one showing them how to resist this onslaught. 

I know this sounds very partisan, but I really mean it for many reasons, we NEED Edwards in the White House.  Even then I don't know how well he can counter the corruption that takes place, but he is the only one really telling the truth.  Obama is hinting at it but doesn't know how to break through it.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

Very true! (0.00 / 0)
and electing another DLC Centrist or Centrist-lite will promote more Blue Dogs and Centrists - not Progressives.
John Edwards will be a great President!
[ Parent ]
Good point about the lobbyists (0.00 / 0)
The folks like Pelosi feel much more comfortable around lobbyists, who are "their kind of people" than the Code Pink folks who picketed her home over the recess.  I don;t know how we break through this, but it is an undeniable fact.

I think picking a few reachable primary targets is the best idea.  And Pelosi isn't one of them, believe me.  Easier to pick off Costa (if someone would run against him) or Lipinski.  If nothing else, it forces the DCCC to spend money where they don't want to.  Since money is the only thing they listen to, that might get their attention--that and more like the effort behind Darcy Burner.  Do we need to protect Dan Seals in IL-10, for example?  I understand he has a Liebercrat primary opponent.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
"No allies anywhere" (0.00 / 0)
Absolutely. The _entire_ campaign against the war in Iraq is sabotaged repeatedly by Democratic leadership even though the majority of the electorate is against the Iraq war. How is it possible that carbon trading and carbon sequestration could avoid getting mellted into the same mix?

The answer can only be more activity, more advocacy, more argument to undercut conservative arguments (especially those that Dem leadership moves toward). Ironically, although third-party politics remains a loser's option, the best course of action is to emulate third-party politics within the Democratic grassroots. Hold elected officials to a standard of progressivism, support progressive candidates in primaries against incumbents.

The rub is that the first steps are the easiest, the first districts are the easiest to turn, and the most "moderate" officials (read Bush Dogs) are the easiest to defeat. Electing a progressive majority is probably impossible, assuredly a long-term project.

Where are you getting the idea ... (4.00 / 1)
that carbon sequestration is "mythical" or a cover for aiding the coal industry? I've been involved in the environmental movement for ages (I hate to say it, but almost 20 years now) and I've NEVER heard that argument. It features prominently in just about every enviro group's literature that works on global warming. John Edwards got HUGE raves recently when he called for a moratorium on new coal plant until they can develop and use carbon sequestration. No, it's not commercially viable at the moment, there are major technological hurdles, and it may never be part of the solution, but it IS a viable idea and deserves major investment. That's not my opinion (I'm not a scientist) but that of most everyone in the field.

Actually, it's the cap-and-trade system that many are now questioning, as it essentially authorizes pollution, especially for established (i.e. moneyed) industries, since they will be the ones capable of buying credits. Plus there are big questions about whether it actually does any good, since you have to ratchet down the available credits to decrease total emissions, which means you need the political will to do so again and again as we move forward (with different political leadership and in different economic times). That's asking a LOT.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'd love to know WHERE you're getting it. "From a friend who knows this stuff and blogged about it recently" isn't good enough. This is very complex stuff, and I want to know who's saying sequestration is "mythical" and what their credentials are.

This endless outrage -- especially when there are lots of things going on that DESERVE our outrage -- is getting old and a lot like Naderism, at least to me.

Spine-free, forked-tongued Democrats (0.00 / 0)
are what is "getting old".

Of course, Ralph Nader is no spring chicken, but if his notions of making the US live up to our ideals doesn't interest you anymore - why even bother with politics?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Not mythical (4.00 / 2)
As is typical with Matt's pieces on global warming, he correctly identifies a key issue but in his justifiable outrage overplays his attack.

CCS is simply not mythical. The Sleipner project in Norway's North Sea was started in 1996 and uses geological sequestration to store about one million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year.  It is the only place in the world where large volumes of carbon dioxide are injected for underground storage.

Acidification (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad that you have demonstrated that the "mythical" technology has been in operation since 1996.

One question: How do they prevent the "buried" CO2 from reacting with the sea water and acidifying it?

Aren't they running a risk of creating a large pool of carbonic acid underneath the sea bed? 


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Geologic, not oceanic (0.00 / 0)
1) The sequestration is geologic, not oceanic.

2) The ocean is really huge. Acidification is an issue but to be honest we're a long way from having to worry about screwing up the deep ocean due to any potential oceanic sequestration projects. It's the acidification due to near-surface mixing with the atmosphere, where nearly all oceanic life resides, that should be of major concern.

3) There hasn't been any leakage in the Sleipner Project so far, which is certainly a good sign (and makes sense from the engineering perspective).

[ Parent ]
From the site you linked to: (0.00 / 0)
I quote: "3D seismic data covering the Sleipner East area has been used to map the Utsira Formation. The seismic response represents the changes in "impedance" in the water-filled reservoir. The impedance is affected by the CO2 injected into the reservoir. This change in seismic impedance is apparent on new seismic data produced. The presence of CO2 and the movement of the CO2 gas in the Utsira Formation reservoir can therefore be monitored by examination of later seismic data."

Do you see where they say, "the water-filled reservoir" ?  This is the description of the sandstone formation where they are putting the CO2. (I don't know how to make this text BOLD or italic, sorry)

Your comment: "Acidification is an issue but to be honest we're a long way from having to worry about screwing up the deep ocean due to any potential oceanic sequestration projects"

Isn't that pretty much what industrialists used to say about air and water pollution?  "We a long way from having to worry about all the garbage we spew into the air, or dump into the water - just look how BIG that river/lake/ocean is!!  And the sky?  Well that's practically endless!"

I'm not saying that this issue ruins sequestration, just that it should be considered for the long run.  If this methodology gets popular, more and more CO2 will be sunk beneath the ocean, bringing acidification to the fore.

Converting CO2 into carbonic acid may provide a means to neutralize it and precipitate it as a kind of mineral deposit. I know the chemistry, but not the engineering.  That is: I don't know if neutralization is feasible on an industrial scale.

Seems to me that IF one could produce a mineralized form of carbon by capture/dissolving in water/and precipitation - the ideal place to stash the product would be in used up coal mines and spent oil well- essentially returning the carbon to its original place.  Too good to be true?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
The ocean may be really big (0.00 / 0)
but the ecosystem right on top of the putative "acid lake", this "local" problem might prove quite deleterious, don't you think?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Get Rid of All of Them | 34 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox