It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is one of the 12 sponsors of subsidies for this barbaric practice.

Here at MyDD with whom I've discussed this issue over the last week. It helped me figure out what to say in this diary.

Great diary. There is a lot more multimedia at End Mountaintop Removal Action and Resource Center (ilovemountains.org) including some streaming video of mountain top removal with local people explaining the effects of the practice.

http://www.ilovemountains.org/multimedia

given this issue. I think he will steer clear of endorsements.

Sen Obama, Barack [IL]

Not very Green.  I will love to see how his fans explain this one away.

Al Gore is right about Barack Obama.

The audacity to poison our planet is not good enough for me.

This issue should be all about what is good for the planet and not what is economically good for an industry.  Even when something is economically good for an industry doesn't mean it is good for the people in the state. This is not good for Illinois or West Virginia.

$70B invested in green energy would do alot more for sustainable jobs for people and would be better for health and for global warming.  This is being promoted as a bi-partisan effort.  It is the worst of pork barrel politics.  The taxpayers would be subsidizing an industry that is destroying the environment in more than one way.  $70B being ripped off taxpayers is not good fiscal management.  Committing the government to these subsidies to make the environment worse is almost criminal.  My questions is what are the profits anticipated and what are the salaries of the CEOs?

Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel.

All senators and congressmen need to be called to stop this bill.  It is unconscionable that anyone who claims environmental concern would even consider this direction.  Obama and the other co-sponsors are not serving their constituency in this, he is serving the corporate interests.  Coal country in the Repub territory. Chicago is liberal and its citizens care about the environment as well.  

The coal lobby has spent millions trying to say not to worry.  We ignore this at our peril and our children's future.

I don't have a problem with the coal mining itself because America has a lot of coal compared to most energy resources and so we should be seeing if we can make it a more useful resource.

However that does not mean we should be subsizining it or allowing the corporations who mine it to not have to pay taxes for the purpose of enviromental renewal after they are gone(One thing I have heard is that the companies have to pay for enviromental renewal, but they just bail out and go bankrupt after the coal has run out).  Also that the loss of capital can be written off in taxes which supports using nonrenewable resources.

withdraw his co-sponsorship of th bill and perhaps thinks about this in global terms.

Dear Barack:

The bill's implications are LONG TERM, and from the bar chart, it's quite clear that liquid coal would at best be 4% worse than gasoline. Since the latter is already very bad for human-induced climate change, how can we go for liquid coal as a long term approach?

Might some other avenues be found from research? Sure, it's possible, but why not invest in academic research on that first? The last time we checked, NSF was not getting enough funds ($5 bn all told?). Money on research into better coal derivatives will be better spent on that, it appears to me, from the limited knowledge I have on the subject.

Now, how about local industry and economy needs for the state you represent? Well, no one is asking them to shutdown the existing plants. Until we have an overall global warming abatement package that address all the aspects including job considerations in the next (Gore?) administration, let them keep doing for another 1.5 yrs what they've been doing for decades.

We should solve these problems with a global perspective.

Very bad move politically as well.

As things stand, unless either Gore jumps into the  race or endorses one of the non-HRC candidates, Hillary has a firm grip on the nomination. Gore apparently will not find this co-sponsorship very endearing.

Therefore, unless you ultimate goal is to become Hillary's VP or to stay a senator for IL, this was not a good move from a 2008 stand point at all.

I have no idea what Hillary would do on this bill. But, my conjecture is that she'll trump you by voting no. If I may get a bit speculative, if she is "listening" to the coal industry (I don't know if she is or not), maybe she'll even ensure behind the scenes that the bill itself will pass, but she looks good on paper by voting no. A win-win approach for her. Case closed.

For these reasons, my sincere advice and request is to withdraw your co-sponsorship of this bill, which on top your vote for the 2005 energy bill, is proving you standing on environmental issues to be quite poor.

Thanks and best regards.
-NL

This is a clear cut example that a "new brand of politics" apparently values special interests over public interests.  That sounds a lot like an "OLD brand of politics" to me.  

This has far reaching implications to discredit the whole idea of him being a different type of politician.  I hope that he withdraws co-sponsorship too, because I think Obama is much better than this.  He's just falling into the trap that every well-intentioned politician has fallen into when they get to DC.  This isn't at all surprising given the current landscape there.  What is surprising is this action given his fierce rhetoric about supposedly going to DC to change that landscape.  

Everyone runs a campaign saying their going to change Washington DC.  Then when they get there, the only thing that changes is them.  It's sad, really.

I'm confused.  The bill gives money for research on liquid coal technology.  It doesn't say specifically "Turn coal into liquid so it can still be used in cars while it is ineffective."  

Assumed response:
"Tell that to Schweitzer!"

We didn't land on the moon the first time did we?  A state didn't run the apollo program either.  Montana is also a very small state population wise.  How much can they really dedicate into finding a way to enhance liquid coal technology?  Probably not much.  If it doesn't work, there's no strings to force it on cars, like people keep drawing.  

My intention is not to attack Obama (who I like very much), BUT...

How does one explain his co-sponsorship of this bill? Why, in the middle of the most important campaign of his life, and at a time when environmental issues are front and center, would he attach his name to something so dubious?

There must be a legitimate explanation... right?

Why would Gore endorse anyone. He's going to run! ;-)

Just a suggestion on the title to this wonderful blog:

"Al Gore - 'A horrible mistake'" looked like it was going to be an anti-Gore blog.  I know we are liberal intellectuals here, but have we given up on considering stylistic framing altogether?