In general, this blog applauds creative coalition building. So when the climate change people started wooing the security hawks, convincing them that the United States is "addicted to oil," that was eye-catching and, dare I say it, "silo busting." Climate advocates got the feeling that the "serious security" crowd was starting to place their issue alongside traditional security concerns. But alas, as the Economist points out in an incisive look at this particular coalition effort, serious differences are undermining unity of purpose when it comes to practical policy solutions.

What are these insuperable differences?

• Biofuels: "Witness the fuss about corn- and wheat-based ethanol, which are great for farmers, but of dubious benefit to the environment and of serious detriment to the poor, who find themselves paying more for their food. As these drawbacks have become apparent, the political consensus in Europe and America in favour of ever-bigger biofuel mandates has evaporated."
• Coal: "The divide is even wider in the case of coal, the foulest of fuels as far as greens are concerned, but one of the fairest in the eyes of energy-security types. America and Europe both have lots of it. There are few cheaper ways to make electricity than burning it. And firms like Shell even know how to turn it into petrol (albeit quite expensively). For those who wonder where our next barrel of oil is coming from, coal is a tempting substitute. But it is undeniably filthy. Burning coal produces twice the greenhouse-gas emissions that natural gas does for the same energy output. Converting coal into fuel is just as bad. The process requires lots of energy, and so produces a far dirtier fuel than petrol, assuming that the energy involved comes from a fossil source. The Sierra Club, an environmental pressure group, calculates that an ultra-efficient hybrid vehicle run on fuel derived from coal is as polluting as a Hummer, an iconic American gas-guzzler."
• Domestic oil: "Democrats and Republicans are now locked in a battle over whether to open various pristine bits of coastline to oil exploration in a bid to increase domestic production--definitely not an area where concerns about energy security and the environment coincide. Even in Europe, where there is much greater consensus about the perils of climate change, several governments have cut fuel taxes in a bid to placate angry voters. That won't make the planet any cooler."

So is this coalition doomed to expire? That depends on how much each side is willing to yield -- and on whether some strong alternatives that both can pursue wholeheartedly emerge in contrast to these areas of disagreement. But, concludes the Economist, "There is no magic wand that will make tackling global warming politically painless--not even frequent use of the word independence."