I've been I've been critical of Obama for some poor policy choices and rhetoric when it comes to coal. But Hillary Clinton deserves a good deal of chastising as well. Via WattHead, West Virginia Public Radio conducted this interview with Clinton on Wednseday, in which the candidate made quite a few uncritical comments about the worst possible choice for American energy. To wit:
Coal fits in very importantly because obviously, we have a great reserve of coal.
And:
The challenge is how we are going to continue using coal and meet a lot of our environmental challenges. What I have said is that we'll have a new cap-and-trade system, and we'll take a lot of the money we raise from that cap-and-trade system and invest it in ... clean coal technology.
Clinton also voiced support for "subsidies to coal-to-liquids plants" and said she's "excited" about the prospects of "clean" coal, going so far as to admonish the Bush administration for pulling the plug on FutureGen, the pilot clean coal plant, which was probably one the best decisions of this administration.
Most troubling though is her apparent ignorance about the environmental and health costs of coal mining, which destroys mountains, forests and streams, contaminates drinking water, kills miners, and creates community reliance upon an industry that most acknowledge is on its way out:
I'm not an expert. I don't know enough to have an independent opinion, but I sure would like people who could be objective, understanding both the economic necessities and environmental damage to come up with some approach that would enable us to retrieve the coal but would enable us to do it in a way that wouldn't damage the living standards and the other important qualities associated with people living both under the mountaintop and people who are along the streams.
WattHead and David Roberts have much more on how (misguided? ignorant? deceived?) Clinton appeared on this issue.
--Kate Sheppard
