WASHINGTON—Tapping the West’s vast oil shale, tar sand and coal resources would set the country back in its efforts to reduce the pollution that contributes to global warming, three conservation groups argue in a new report.
Released Monday, as the Senate prepared to debate new energy legislation, the report presses Congress to require tough environmental standards that would encourage oil efficiency and develop cleaner energy sources.
It warns against subsidies for developing oil shale and tar sand and creating liquid fuels from coal. In the U.S., all are unproven but potential alternative fuels that are getting a closer look as lawmakers press for ways to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.
“Industry and political leaders are pushing us blindly down a dangerous and expensive energy path,” said Deron Lovaas, an energy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which produced the report with Boulder, Colo.-based Western Resource Advocates and Canada’s Pembina Institute.
Tar sand is mined extensively in Canada and is found in Utah. The region where Wyoming, Colorado and Utah come together is one of the richest sources of oil shale in the world. Coal is mined in Appalachia and across the West.
Mining all three would produce dangerous greenhouse gases, scar the land, suck up water and hurt wildlife habitat, the report says. Industry also hasn’t proven that oil shale and liquid coal can be produced commercially yet, according to the report.
“There’s no question we need to reduce our dependence on oil, but this is the worst possible way to go about it,” Lovaas said.
The Senate energy legislation that will be debated this week would mandate greater use of renewable energy and improve vehicle fuel efficiency, among other efforts Democrats are pushing to reduce oil dependency and greenhouse gas emissions.
But environmentalists are worried because lawmakers have floated dozens of amendments that are expected to change the bill. For example, senators from coal-producing states are expected to push measures that would promote turning liquid coal.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has said he won’t consider amendments that would increase greenhouse gas emissions, said his spokesman Bill Wicker. But Bingaman is still open to finding alternative fossil fuels, Wicker said.
The ideal “would be if we can come up with some kind of amendment and some kind of fix that addresses concerns about oil security and the climate change,” Wicker said.
Frank Maisano, a spokesman for energy companies in Washington, said environmentalists who oppose investing in liquid coal and other energy sources are too closed-minded.
“We can’t shut off any options,” Maisano said. “We need diversity. Environmentalists don’t look at the larger issue ever.”
The environmental groups say in their report that the damage that would result from oil shale, tar sand and liquid coal make it too costly to produce.
Tar sand and oil shale are produce oil when heated, but both require intensive amounts of water and energy. Industry and lawmakers from coal states are excited about the potential to create liquid fuel from coal, but the groups warn that it would be a major emitter of greenhouse gases.
