Hillary Supported Burning Tires as a Fuel

The Politico ran my op-ed today, "Burning Tires and Liquid Coal: The Clinton-Obama Energy Plan" about how both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have, despite compiling generally pro-environment records, caved to polluters at key moments, "casting doubt on how much they will fight for the planet when special interests stand in the way."

Here are some key excerpts:

Clinton's moment of truth came in 2005, when executives at the International Paper mill in upstate Ticonderoga, N.Y., were pressing to cut costs by burning old tires to provide power for their operations. Tires are one of the most toxic fuels known to man, and people downwind from the plant (including Republican Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas) were organizing a campaign to stop IP from poisoning their air with mercury, benzene and other deadly chemicals.

Seen from outside a political lens, it should have been an easy choice for Clinton: Tires are so toxic that even limited exposure can cause permanent health damage, especially to children, whose developing brains and immune systems are hypersensitive to the pollutants tires produce. Tire pollutants can cut years off a child's life and impair mental development, according to the American Lung Association. For someone who had once been chairwoman of the Children's Defense Fund and who had forged her political identity around protecting kids' well-being, it would seem like a no-brainer.

But in 2005, Clinton had things on her mind in addition to children: She was determined to boost her margin of victory in upstate New York in her 2006 Senate reelection campaign -- even if it meant sacrificing children's health for, at most, a few hundred votes from people who bought into IP's empty threats.

And so, despite the pollution concerns, Clinton went along with IP and lobbied to allow it to go ahead with a two-week test tire burn. Although that may not sound like a lot of time, tires are so toxic that the acrid cloud they produce can cause damage after even just a few hours of exposure.

The tires turned out to be so polluting that the emissions exceeded even IP's extremely lax permit. The company was forced to suspend the incineration three days after it started. It didn't go out of business, but Clinton had provided her critics with more evidence that political calculation was her real first priority.

Obama hasn't been any better in terms of acting on principle:

Exhibit A is Obama's enthusiastic support for "coal to liquid" technology, which allows auto fuel to be squeezed out of coal. Obama touts it as a way to free America from reliance on Saudi oil fields and to tackle global warming. However, coal-to-liquid technology produces twice the amount of greenhouse gases that regular old oil does; additionally, it's so expensive that it's unlikely to displace one drop of cheap Saudi oil anytime soon.

So why would he support it? What's more, why did he vote for other anti-environment policies, such as President Bush's 2005 energy bill, which funnels more than $27 billion in taxpayer subsidies to big polluters?

A huge factor in Obama's decisions was his desire to support Illinois agribusiness (Bush's energy bill contained massive ethanol subsidies) and the southern Illinois coal industry. His votes mean that he's willing -- sometimes, at least -- to put these kinds of parochial interests ahead of the global environment and Americans' health (pollution from coal-fired power plants kills more than 30,000 people every year, according to EPA consultants Abt Associates).

Obama has explained his positions by saying that sometimes you need to "trim your sails" -- by which he means cutting back on goals to avoid becoming marginalized.

But it's exactly that kind of political calculation -- special interests versus doing what's right -- that Obama is promising to reject. Obama's energy policy shows that so far he is at least as much a creature of establishment influence-peddling as Clinton is.

Fortunately, John Edwards and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson provide some hope:

While both Democratic presidential candidates have in the past surrendered to big polluters on key issues, lately they've been showing real grit when it comes to defending the planet.

Edwards has called for a ban on construction of coal-fired power plants that don't capture all their greenhouse gases. He also has released an ambitious plan to cut global warming pollution by 80 percent by 2050. Richardson has one-upped Edwards by proposing the same cuts by 2040 and speedier conversion to clean electricity sources and dramatic cuts in oil consumption.

Edwards and Richardson seem to have learned that at least when it comes to energy policy, courage can trump calculation.

Thanks to David Roberts at Grist in his really nice blog post about this article for pointing out that Chris Dodd also has a great climate plan.

Glenn Hurowitz, who blogs at DemocraticCourage.com, is the author of the forthcoming book Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party.



Display:


When discussing Obama and coal-to-liquid (3.00 / 2)

it would be nice if folks would include his actual statements.

Obama, who is sponsoring separate legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions, said his support for coal fuel depended on finding a way to remove the greenhouse gases emitted in production.

"If it is used simply to compound the problem of greenhouse gases, then it's not going to be a credible strategy," he said.



by rashomon on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:49:03 PM EST

Nah, don't let the facts stand in way for (none / 0)

some Obama-bashing-as-usual.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Besides this (none / 0)

Please do correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Obama has yet to do anything with regards to liquid coal technology but advocate and fund technology research. If so, I cannot see any really reasonable way to oppose this.

Personally I consider technology research, even on technologies which it ultimately isn't a good idea to actually use, to be an unqualified good. The expansion of human knowledge is a benefit unto itself, and we shouldn't shy from research just because we're not sure we'll like the results. There are limits to this-- I for one find it frustrating that our government puts SO much research money into biodiesel, a technology with real uses but also known and very serious limitations, to the extent that it appears to be dwarfing the research money given to certain other technologies that could treat the disease of our oil dependence rather than alleviating the symptoms. We shouldn't allow research into flashy but incomplete "solutions" like Biodiesel, Liquid Coal, TDP, or whatever, to eclipse or serve as a replacement for research that could result in real change.

But this doesn't mean there's no place for liquid coal research at all, and I find the offense taken at the mere idea of looking into the question kind of disturbing. This is not biodiesel: This is a young technology, poorly explored, and we do not have a clear grasp yet of exactly what its limitations are. We do not know enough yet to be sure that putting money into researching it is money wasted. It may well be, once this basic research is completed, that it will turn out that liquid coal is for environmental or other reasons a technology that should not be implemented. But we should at least do that basic research that would allow us to create an informed judgment as to whether liquid coal can be done without unacceptable levels of carbon emissions...


by Silent sound on Thu May 24, 2007 at 08:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually... (none / 0)

Despite that comment, the subsidies finance r & d on coal right now. And he did vote for Bush's energy bill, which included a hell of a lot more bad subsidies. Check out this post showing who wrote Obama's energy policy: coal executives i.e. big polluters.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/28/ 152156/760


- Glenn Hurowitz
by Democratic Courage on Thu May 24, 2007 at 06:08:20 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton's Burning Tire Problem (none / 0)

it's a yes and no with Obama.  he really believes there is clean coal possibility and as a representative of Illinois, of course he will look for ways to champion things that are good for this state.  This is his job.
I don't agree with the coal thing but, as a person living in Illinois I more than understand the desire to find ways that will help us.
I live in the northern part of the state.  three years ago 4 of our biggest employers left for the joys of outsourcing and left my town devastated.  Now we are going to lose our biggest, Chrysler.  Most jobs available unless you are a dr or lawyer, are minimum wage.
My own husband's job is hanging in limbo.  He is a product engineer and the factory left for Mexico and only engineering is left.  If they leave, which they are looking to do within the year, he either will have to go with or be unemployed and at 55, I don't think finding a job in this climate will be easy.
I have family that have lost alot do to the job situation.  One brother in law lives in chicago and has been unemployed for a year and is white collar computer.
So, yeah, with this kind of happiness and security floating around Illinois, I can see why both of my senators are looking at clean coal.
by vwcat on Thu May 24, 2007 at 07:29:59 PM EST

Coal Kills Illinoisans (none / 0)

Actually, coal does worse things to Illinoisans than  almost every other state:

1,356 Illinoisans die from air pollution from coal fired power plants every year.
2,361 heart attacks in Illinois every year attributable to pollution from coal-fired power plants.
All of Illinois's 32,190 miles of river and 309,340 acres of lake are so contaminated with mercury from coal fired power plants that the state warns against consumption of some fish from those waterways.
In Illinois, it's a narrow, deadly special interest vs. everyone else just like in the rest of the country.
For more details, check out:
http://www.cleartheair.org/regional/fact sheets/factsheetILfinal.pdf


- Glenn Hurowitz
by Democratic Courage on Thu May 24, 2007 at 09:18:53 PM EST

Re: Hillary Supported Burning Tires as a Fuel (none / 0)

See also:
Exclusive: Hillary Web Site Traffic Surges Past Obama and Edwards
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/e xclusive-hillary-web-site-traffic.html
Politics 2.0 - What's now and what's next!
by PoliticsTwoPointZero on Fri May 25, 2007 at 10:20:05 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.