Blog

How appropriate that some members of Congress today dropped a bill to repeal a “clean fuel” federal procurement law from the Energy Bill that passed last year.  This clean fuel provision (Section 526 of the Energy Bill) was put in place to ensure that federal agencies not be allowed to use their purchasing power to incentivize the production of fuels that make global warming worse.

Section 526 provides a much-needed backstop to prevent federal agencies from contracting to purchase “dirty fuels” – such as liquid coal (coal-to-liquids), tar sands and oil shale – that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gasoline.

This protective measure passed amidst numerous proposals by industry to grant the Defense Department authority to enter into 25-year contracts with companies to build the first liquid coal plants in the country.  They asked for all of these subsidies in the name of energy independence and national security but when you look deeper they’re only concern is increasing the size of their wallets.  Even under the most optimistic scenarios liquid coal can’t even replace 10 percent of our oil use.  How can that provide us with national security? If they were really worried about national security they would be more worried about global warming and the security implications of thousands of global warming refugees.

According to EPA and DOE, liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of conventional gasoline.   In addition to doubling global warming pollution, relying on liquid coal fuel would increase the harmful effects of coal mining – that means more mining in the Rockies and mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia.  Not to mention the financial uncertainties facing liquid coal.  These plants would cost over 4 billion dollars to build – and if pending carbon regulation passes Congress, these plants could be even more expensive. It’s no wonder that Wall Street is rejecting loan applications from companies that want to build liquid coal plants. Why should our tax dollars be misused to launch a liquid coal industry in the US when liquid coal produces twice the global warming pollution of conventional gasoline?  

Besides liquid coal, Section 526 also ensures that any future investment in developing unconventional fuel sources like oil shale and tar sands is required to meet this clean standard. A good thing, too, since oil shale and tar sands extraction would significantly increase global warming pollution compared to conventional gasoline.

Let’s hope Congress treats this like the April Fool’s joke that it is.

Want to learn more about liquid coal? Check out NRDC’s new video – “Crude Substitute: The Folly of Liquid Coal.”

Want to learn more about all three dirty fuels? Check out NRDC’s website on dirty fuels:

www.nrdc.org/energy/dirtyfuels.asp.