Rhinocrisy

Obama, this morning:

And so the question then is, are we going to be able to put together a package that includes safe, secure nuclear power; that includes new technologies so that we can use coal — which we have in abundance and is very cheap, but often is adding to our greenhouse gases — can we find sequestration technologies that clean that up; can we identify opportunities to increase our oil and natural gas production in a way that is environmentally sustainable? And that should be part of a package with our development of clean energy.

Answer: no. We’ve talked about clean coal here before, and how it’s at best on a twenty-year time horizon before it becomes viable technology. “Twenty years” basically means “never going to happen”, or “this is science fiction”, so whenever you hear someone talking about “clean coal”, understand that they’re talking through their hat. Oil and gas are tapped out domestically; that is simple geological fact against which there is no argument. The only sources left are offshore, which are expensive and environmentally problematic.

Nuclear power has been a mess for many years; some people are now discussing thorium as a safer, cleaner, cheaper, and all-around better alternative to uranium. India is really into it. Maybe that’s a reasonable plan; I don’t know enough to comment.

But I’d like to take issue with Obama saying this:

I am very firm in my conviction that the country that leads the way in clean energy — solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal — that country is going to win the race in the 21st century global economy. … [W]e can’t overnight convert to an all-solar or an all-wind economy. That just can’t happen.

Here’s an idea: stop funding that unwinnable war in Iraq. Just end it. Then, use that money to spark research on clean energy. If you’re really very firm in your convictions, put some money where your mouth is.