Conserve -- Disgustingly -- Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process

These are Democrats -- these are responders to their states lobbyists!

Edmund L. Andrews news story in today's May 29, 2007 edition of the New York Times, "Lawmakers Push for Big Subsidies for Coal Process"  -- represents the most disgusting legislation ever presented regarding the negatives of coal from the mine and related affects on the miner, the environment -- to the product that pretends to offer relief from imported petroleum -- as it is clear from the legislative content such is not the case:

"Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases for the next 25 years."

And the pretense is that:

"With both House and Senate Democrats hoping to pass “energy independence” bills by mid-July, coal supporters argue that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline and potentially greener than ethanol.

Greener is the catch word -- used, not to express Green, but to attempt to cover without validity something as 'nasty' as anything from coal!  And what do the coal state supporters say, including as seen elsewhere in the story: 

“For so many, filthy coal is a dirty four-letter word,” said Representative Nick V. Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. “These individuals, I tell you, have their heads buried in the sand.”

This from someone who has his head buried in the miserable environmental negatives of his industrial supporters.  Shame!

This idiocy of converting coal to petroleum liquids – must be stopped – Mr. Obama and Gerhardt and their Democratic Party friends fall for this nonsense based on helping their friends and not the environment.  There is little doubt that success in converting coal to petroleum products as is done in South Africa by Sasol -- is strongly dependent on the relatively loose environmental conditions found in South Africa as well as minimum economic squeeze affects -- salaries, taxes, etc.Even Qatar Petroleum and Exxon Mobil have dropped plans to build a gas-to-liquids plant in Qatar due to spiraling costs and will turn their attention to developing part of the country's huge North gas field.  And in this case the environmental impact would have been far less than that from coal gasification.

Most importantly, syngas can be produced from biomass -- environmentally sound and economically from biogas grown specifically as the overall feedstock.  Under biomass conditions -- particularly under tropical and semi-tropical conditions -- as is the case for leucaena -- one of the feature feedstocks in CFR's methanogenic anaerobic fermentation process -- negative ecological effects can be avoided.

Conservation is the only answer -- Conserve --  in general; stop driving -- car pool -- remote offices, etc., and wherever possible use renewable fuels -- not made from foods or coal or nuclear.Best, Dick Glickwww.CorpFutRes.com