Administration OKs sale of enough coal to "undo all of Obama’s other climate work"

[wtmusic]

[div style="float: left; padding-right: 12px;"]"Today the Obama administration’s Bureau of Land Management will hold the first of two major coal lease sales over the next month from public lands in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. Combined, they will allow the extraction of almost 316 million tons of taxpayer-owned coal that, when burned, will result in significant carbon pollution. The second sale is scheduled for September 18.

Burning this coal will release 523,524,951 tons of carbon dioxide into the air, according to a Climate Progress analysis using BLM’s environmental analyses and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. This is equivalent to the emissions from nearly 109 million passenger vehicles every year. For comparison, there are approximately 253 million vehicles in the U.S.

The first of three tenets in President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan announced in June is “cutting carbon pollution in America.” Paul Bledsoe, a former Interior Department official during the Clinton administration, highlighted the disconnect between the administration’s dual pushes for coal leasing and cutting carbon pollution in December 2011:"

On some level, the twin goals of increased fossil fuel production and reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are necessarily in conflict, at least without a national cap on emissions. This fundamental contradiction in current U.S. energy policy is playing out on the Keystone oil pipeline, in our public lands policy and throughout the energy economy.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/21/2499291/obama-major-coal-sales/

This is on par with an approval of Keystone XL. Disgusting.

[MotherPetrie]

1. Figures.

[kristopher]

11. "Figures". Yes, the important question is what are the figures going to be?

While this BAU is going on, there are three other paths being pursued.

First is the authority of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. Investors are getting nervous about the future value of coal in a world where there is a direct cost assessed on carbon emissions.

Second is a thing called "the social cost of carbon" which is a figure required to be used when cost/benefit studies are done for regulatory purposes. This figure was (in March) raised significantly. This means that when any project (like Keystone XL) is evaluated for regulatory purposes, the a much more realistic cost of the social damage caused by carbon emissions (meaning damages from climate change) is required to be used.

Third is the effect that renewables and natural gas are having on coal plants. They are stealing market share to the point where many coal plants are already at or near operating in the red.

All of these factors are affecting the coal market, so it will be enlightening to see what price the coal brings and how many bidders there are for it.

There is no shortage of coal available to be mined, so it isn't as if this is going to bring more to the market than would otherwise be the case. The real key to moving out of the fossil fuel age is building a renewable infrastructure and the key to that is 1&2 above - properly pricing the externalities of fossil fuels.

[pscot]

13. I don't think the figures are right

Using the numbers above, burning 316 million tons of coal yields 524 million tons of CO2, giving a conversion factor of 1.6. But according to EIA figures, a ton of bituminous coal releases about 5300 pounds of CO2, which would give a conversion factor of about 2.6. Using that multiplier, that 316 million tons of coal would release 825 million tons of CO2.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. Good thing the president is a Democrat or this would really suck. Good lord!

Is it the "clean coal" that he's so fond of???

[wtmusic]

3. No, it sucks even more. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

4. Yeah, I know. I was tap-dancing with the ridiculous. Should have tagged it "sarcasm."

[wtmusic]

6. Sorry, I guess I needed that second cup of coffee before the reply.

[kristopher]

12. You ARE the poster that continually hypes nuclear and slams renewables, right?

ALEC's energy agenda:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112751630

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112751630#post3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112751630#post5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112751630#post6

PS: They also push fossil fuels.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Don't let the perfect become the enema of the good.

Umm,

You think it would have been better if Romney had won?

Why are you picking on the President? Are you a racist?

Why was this all OK with you when Bush was doing it?

It's 17-dimensional chess. He's gonna defeat the coal industry by giving it everything it wants.
You have to trust the President to have your best interests at heart.

We need energy industry contributions to stay on a level playing field with the rich Republicans/

Umm,

{{6 or 7 links to irrelevant threads & old GW denier sites}}

OK--Do I get the job?

[Ed Suspicious]

7. Perfect. You're hired.

[wtmusic]

8. The job requires reciting a mind-numbing list of minor accomplishments

so that when you get to the coal-sale part, everyone is asleep. But you show a lot of promise.

Heaven help us.

[bahrbearian]

9. Where have those guys been the last 2 days. If they don't come and straighten me out,

I might just cross over.

[frylock]

10. did it really happen if it's not on The List®?

[pscot]

14. There's a secret list, fool

[frylock]

15. that secret list was classified..

you've just exposed state secrets. we'll need to seize your jump drives at once!

[hatrack]

16. This just in - BLM confirms that there were no bids

Cloud Peak Energy, which nominated a coal tract near its Cordero Rojo mine, did not bid on it, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management said Wednesday morning.

BLM spokeswoman Mary Wilson said no companies bid on the Maysdorf II North Coal Tract, which has 1,300 acres and about 148 million tons of mineable coal. The BLM’s lease sale was scheduled for 10 a.m.

Shortly after the BLM announcement, the Gillette-based company released a statement that said it evaluated the coal tract and declined to bid due to current coal market conditions and the uncertain political and regulatory environment of coal and coal-fired electricity. Executives had previously said they were considering reducing production at Cordero Rojo, south of Gillette.

“Due to the configuration of the North tract and surrounding land ownership positions, we believe a significant portion of the BLM's estimated mineable tons would not be recoverable by us if we were to be the winning bidder in the BLM's competitive process,” CEO Colin Marshall said in Wednesday’s statement.

EDIT

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/blm-no-bids-for-coal-tract-in-powder-river-basin/article_97973023-564c-585e-81ee-a7283bbe5ffa.html

[kristopher]

17. Well, well, well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112752171#post11