Who was rooting for FutureGen funding to be included in the stimulus bill (okay, it's not FutureGen per say, its just $1 billion for an unnamed "zero-emission coal plant)?
Environmentalists generally feel that clean coal technology is unproven and that it cannot provide either a fast reduction in carbon output or a reduction in the overall environmental impact (as coal mining is still environmentally harmful).
Economists would balk at the project's cost ($1 billion for a reduction of one million tons per year) and its unclear economic benefits ($1 billion dollars in other sectors would likely have a larger impact on employment).
Coal miners/people who dependend on coal for their electricity also have no reason to support funding "clean coal." Why not simply lobby for more "non-clean" coal plants? If you are a coal company, why are you concerned about global warming? And if you are, wouldn't it be easier just to invest in clean technologies?
And conservatives/libertarians are generally not in favor of the heavy-handed command-and-control approach to pollution reduction that subsidies represent. After all, the government is generally unable to do cost-benefit analysis (and the high price of Futuregen makes it one of the poorer ways of reducing carbon emissions), and this is a transparent interference in the "free market."
Again, who is this pork for?
What happens next in France will determine the level of bigotry Europe is willing to tolerate - “If Le Pen wins, she will divide the country, Europe and probably the world.”People line up before casting their vote for the first-round presidential elec...
16 hours ago