Community | February 10, 2010 | 27 comments

My chat with President Obama: Face off on clean coal, nuclear energy, and oil drilling

source: http://blogs.current.com/green/2010/02/10/my-chat-with-president-obama-face-off-on-clean-coa...

leahl
The following guest post is by Gillian Caldwell, campaign director of 1 Sky. She originally posted this on 1Sky’s blog.

Last night, I went to hear what President Obama had to say at a Gen44 event organized by the Democratic National Committee (note that I took time off from 1Sky to attend the event because 1Sky is a 501(c)(3) organization and we can’t — and don’t — do any electoral work).

Anyway, I happened to catch President Obama on a rope line and decided on the fly to challenge him on the mythology of clean coal since our base has been so concerned about his repeated calls for clean coal (and nuclear and oil drilling) alongside real renewable energy solutions. My partner Louis captured the exchange on his iPhone.

Here is what happened and a transcript as best as I can put it together since the audio isn’t great, especially on my voice — although Obama comes through loud and clear and we have our work cut out for us!


We shake hands, I grab President Obama’s hands with both of mine and look him straight in the eye:

Me: It’s got to be renewable energy. No more clean coal. [Inaudible: It’s a unicorn. It doesn’t exist.]

Obama: I disagree with you. I disagree with you. We are not going to get all our energy from wind and solar in the next 20 years…

Me: Let the market do it. Let the market do it. Can’t the market make the investment? [Inaudible: It’s hundreds of billions of dollars (we’d be investing in "clean coal" in the House version of the bill)]

Obama: They can’t do it. The technology’s not there. I’ve got a nuclear physicist in my Department of Energy who cares more about climate change than anyone and he will tell you you can’t get it done just with that — so you’ve got to have a transition period to do all this other stuff. Don’t be stubborn about it!

Me: It’s about getting the votes [inaudible: in Congress isn’t it?]

Obama: This is not a votes matter, This is a technological matter. It really is. I have looked into it.

Me: We’re running a national campaign and people are really upset about this –

Obama: I know everybody’s….listen, if I could do it all with wind and solar I would! We can ramp it up. That’s what we’re working on.

So what was really going on here in this brief exchange between me and President Obama with the noisy bugles in the background?

We were talking past each other, for one thing.

President Obama was making two points:

* We can’t kick our dirty coal habit right away. It’s going to take some time — he has said at least 20 years.
* Because we aren’t going to get rid of coal immediately, it’s worth it for the federal government to invest in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology , to make coal cleaner for now.

Generally speaking, we agree with his first point. Some persuasive arguments have been made that we can get rid of coal in the next 10-20 years but right now almost half of our electricity comes from coal, and retiring those old dirty plants won’t happen overnight. That’s why we agree with the President that our clean energy transition must start immediately. As President Obama has said, “it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

However, we disagree strongly with the President’s assertion that the federal government needs to help bail out America’s aging coal industry by footing the bill for carbon capture and sequestration technology as they limp into the 21st century.



To see the rest of this post head over to the current green bog.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Earth and Science,   Progressive America,   19 more
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

27 comments // My chat with President Obama: Face off on clean coal, nuclear energy, and oil drilling // Video

  • Stradius
    • +1
      Stradius  

    • Great stuff! He still seems like a practical man and he won't sugar-coat the bad things for us so that's good.

      Now should we slow down on solar and wind? Hell no!

    • 2 years ago
  • GreenerSide
  • JanforGore
  • dougiefresh55
    • -3
      dougiefresh55  

    • What's more impportant energy for homes or a little smoke in the air. The air is much cleaner now then it was in the 70's and 80's, with same ole coal, so let's admit the technology has gotten better. So let's look for new ways without hurting the people who need the energy now.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • dougiefresh55:

      There is nothing quicker than the power of the sun. You know, that big red ball up in the sky that you don't have to blow out of the ground thus polluting the waterways of thousands of people who get cancer? Don't even pretend to know what you are talking about.

    • 2 years ago
  • Idiolect
    • 0
      Idiolect  

    • There is a huge gap between what we could and should do and what we are actually doing. It seems that the President at least perceives that there is a problem, but he is battling vicious opponents who are in profound denial.

    • 2 years ago
  • rippin_tom
    • 0
      rippin_tom  

    • awesome that he engaged for that long. And sorry he is right we can't do it all with renewables its not about investment but about technology. Now I'm not a huge fan of clean coal sadly CCS is to expensive, and the technology isn't there yet but what about nuclear?

    • 2 years ago
  • Jeremiah_Richard
    • 0
      Jeremiah_Richard  
    • rippin_tom:

      most people dont realize all the costs that come with nuclear.. its actually one of the most expensive to start, and noone is willing to finance nuclear power operations, plust the stigma of "not in my backyard" and where to store all the spent nuclear fule. Also, nuclear power uses VAST amounts of water to operate.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • Jeremiah_Richard
    • 0
      Jeremiah_Richard  
    • JanforGore:

      if we started today completely doing everything money could buy and all our effort into renewable energy and i mean EVERYTHING it would be at best, 8-10yrs before we could be 100% off non-renewable power. And thats a best-case scenario where our whole national attention is focused on changing. Even that i believe is unreasonable cause any 100% renewable energy has to include electric cars, which will greatly increase demand to our energy grid and energy production at power plants. I just do not see any way to get there in less than 10 years

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Jeremiah_Richard:

      Maybe, but is that not better than twenty years, if that is even truthful? It is obvious that there is a disconnect between politicians and scientists, and the fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of money to now even make those scientists look questionable to consumers. These lowlifes will do anything to preserve their own profit margins. They do not care about the health of this planet or its people. And it may well take ten years now because we didn't start 10 years ago when we should have, but it would be a ten years that would bring us well on our way to saving the climate balance of this planet, because at the rate we are going we don't have much time after that. This isn't about their "choice" at this point, it is about necessity. This also isn't something new here. Washington politicos and the coal/oil companies have known full well what the repercussions of continuing on this path would bring. It is not the fault of those of us calling for this now. We need to face reality regarding politicians and these industries: they have absolutely no plans to move from fossil fuels to anything else that will predominate the energy markets, unless it is made lucrative for THEM.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jeremiah_Richard
    • 0
      Jeremiah_Richard  

    • 20yrs is a good goal.. to be completely off un-renewable energy sources. And if you want something to "drive the market" cap and trade is where its at. And i find it a little disheartining to not hear more about ideas like tidal power and geothermal power.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • Jeremiah_Richard:

      And just how much more damage to the planet do you reckon we could do in twenty more years on this track? Cap and trade is not going to save us at this point, it is only going to make coal companies richer. Soil carbon sequestration, reforestation, conservation not attached to market mechanisms with an aggressive move towards solar, wind, and other clean energy sources like tidal wave energy is what we should be investing in. Not pie in the sky oxymoronic "clean coal" dreams. We need to stop spewing the Co2, not using slight of hand tricks to make people think we are. And when placing a value on CO2, we need to do it through a revenue neutral carbon tax. Sweden has had one since the nineties and is thriving and as far as I know not holding any indigenous peoples hostage in their forests because of it.

    • 2 years ago
  • Jeremiah_Richard
    • 0
      Jeremiah_Richard  
    • JanforGore:

      I agree with all of that, especially deforestation and our ridiculous farming practices, there is just no way i could see us doing all that in under 10-15 years. I agree that clean coal for the most part is a myth. However, to have our power supply come from renewables is going to take 10yrs atleast if we 100% focused on it. In the mean time trying to get our coal factories clean helps with the transition and many other technologies. Dont get me wrong, im not a fan of coal power at all, nor nuclear.. nuclear power is a pipe dream anymore. However, there will be a transition and making coal as clean as possible for the transition is a good thing.

    • 2 years ago
  • covelogibbs
  • Idiolect
    • 0
      Idiolect  

    • What Obama says makes sense because maintaining supplies of energy is vital. I'd like to see more emphasis on conservation; maybe it could be retro-trendy to return to the 70's and turn down the thermostat. Government jobs for insulators, now!

    • 2 years ago
  • lookatmypix
    • +2
      lookatmypix  

    • A transition like that will surely take time but the technology exists and it's always been there.
      Copenhagen was a joke and the change is not happening unless we raise our voices.

    • 2 years ago
  • HowdyDo
  • Dagum
    • +1
      Dagum  

    • Next to nothing on the environmental agenda will ever be checked off unless Green party Candidates get into office. Even then other interests will (and already have) infiltrate and pretend to be “Green” only to get into office and accept corporate pay offs, and pass “green legislation” with rosy names, that will actually end up benefiting polluters.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  

    • We already have the technology to make "upgrades." This is simply holding the status quo for votes. Obama is nothing on this but a smooth talker.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • Give them jobs making solar panels. So sick of hearing that to actually do the right thing will kill the economy. It's baloney. Mountaintop removal has done more to hurt the economy and the health of citizens not to mention destroying our natural beauty as a country than making solar panels ever could!

    • 2 years ago
  • Philip_Robibero
    • +2
      Philip_Robibero  

    • The other issue is what are you going to do with all those coal miners and technicians who are now without a job? Millions of jobs are on the line.

      Part of the transition is also about reeducating that labor force to work for greener energy projects. The government should also pass a bill that will help them transition into those new energy industries.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • +1
      RaceBannon  

    • does anyone mention geo thermal energy, and csp solar which individually can power the entire country of america right now? Nope
      You don't need a transition period for an upgrade, saying the opposite is pure bs. Even if you did need such a transition, why coal and not hydro electric? Ughh

    • 2 years ago
  • danitassin
    • -2
      danitassin  

    • the problem is money mostly. and Every one thought that we would be able to use these resources forever, so no one trained for anything else. So there is not enough people to do the jobs right now. We need to be focusing our attention an our children. THEY ARE OUR FUTURE! If we teach them about the planet and the right types of enery use. Then they will pay to train in those fields. And our problems will slowly work themselves out. Obama is right. It will take time. Knowlwdge is Power, as cliche as it sounds.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • The real word isn't can't, it's won't. And in twenty years this planet will be done at this rate. Then all I can say is, don't come out spewing bogus Co2 emissions targets you just admitted we can't meet regardless of even how pathetic they are. Personally, I'm done with placating politicians.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos