Last Saturday, 2,500 bicyclists raced an historic, steam powered train from Durango to Silverton, Colorado.

The irony of the fact that self-propelled human beings, young and old, fit and not-so-fit, could ride up and over two mountain passes in excess of 10,600 feet faster than a train could negotiate a more moderate route was not lost on me. Nor was the fact that the source of the heat that produces the steam–dirty coal–is such an inappropriate source of energy for the 21st century.

One could question the inappropriateness of my driving to Durango to race the train, just as one could rail against the greenhouse gas impact of numerous daily round-trip tourist excursions on the coal-fired Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad–but those are possible topics for future posts.

For as much as I'm an advocate for individual action, there are times when even I question the efficacy of symbolic gestures, particularly in the face of big industry lobbying in Washington D.C. An editorial in today's New York Times epitomizes the problem:

Coal is far and away America’s most abundant fuel. It provides more than half the country’s electricity. And there is no doubt that it could substitute for foreign oil, although how much and at what price is not clear. In addition, the technology to convert coal into liquid fuels is well established. But it is also true that between the production process and burning it in cars, coal-to-liquid fuel produces more than twice the greenhouse gas emissions as gasoline and nearly twice the emissions of ordinary diesel. These are terrible ratios.

Terrible ratios indeed. But wait, there's even more bad math behind the scenes:

Researchers at M.I.T. estimate that it will cost $70 billion to build enough coal-to-liquid plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. A similar investment in biofuels like cellulosic or sugar-based ethanol — which could yield substantial reductions in greenhouse gases — would seem a lot smarter.

So, why would Congress even consider subsidizing coal-to-liquid production? Money talks:

Even as Congressional leaders draft legislation to reduce greenhouse gases linked to global warming, a powerful roster of Democrats and Republicans is pushing to subsidize coal as the king of alternative fuels.

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.

As The Times editorial warns, the abundance of coal is a trap:

Given the dimensions of our energy problems, new ideas must be explored. But it makes little sense to shackle the country now to a coal-based technology of such uncertain promise.

I'd hate to see Durango's Iron Horse Classic go away, but I may wait until the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad converts to a cleaner source of energy before I race the train again.

Carbon Neutral Journal's rants are brought to you by Vertical Media.

Popularity: 19%