The Reality Blog

Coal’s two cents

The coal industry loves to give their two cents on the yet undeveloped technology to capture and store carbon pollution from burning coal (CCS).

They say this technology is the answer to reducing carbon emissions, and while we wait for it to be developed, they say we should just go ahead and keep on burning dirty coal and building new dirty coal plants.

But when it comes to actually investing in this technology, two cents is all the coal industry is willing to give, literally.

According to a recent “60 Minutes” report and an analysis by The Center for American Progress, the coal industry’s investment in CCS technology amounts to a paltry two cents on every dollar of profit — or less.

“60 Minutes” interviewed Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy, a major producer of coal power:

Asked how much Duke Energy has invested in carbon sequestration technology so far,” Rogers said, “We have not invested any dollars in the technology, per say. We have spent a lot of time and money reviewing and analyzing the various technologies.”

The Center for American Progress analyzed investments by all 48 of the American Association for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) member companies, including Duke, finding:

Like Duke, ACCCE’s other member companies are much more committed to the idea of clean coal than investing to make it a reality—as their research budgets demonstrate. An analysis of their investments found that they spent less than two cents in research on “clean coal” for every $1 of profit.

This year, ACCCE is gearing up to spend an incredible $40 million on ads and PR selling the idea of carbon capture to the American people.

Why is ACCCE spending so much money to sell the idea of a product that doesn’t exist and that they’re not even willing to truly invest in?

It’s all part of the clean coal smoke screen, to keep us burning dirty coal for as long as possible. Of course, if ACCCE has a different answer, we’d love to hear their two cents.

Scare Tactics

The coal industry knows that dramatic changes are imminent for America’s energy policy, but that hasn’t dissuaded them from their latest effort to sow doubt and fear about any change that involves burning less dirty coal.

One of the industry’s current distortions is the Green Jobs Bogeyman — that somehow massive new investments in clean energy won’t result in tremendous new job growth. Riiiiight.

In a recent blog post, the coal industry cites a dubious Spanish study, (its details, methods and the author’s objectivity — including his links to Exxon Mobile — were all called into question by the Wall Street Journal,) to scare us into thinking WHAT IF these new investments don’t produce new jobs and lower energy prices. MAYBE we should just keep on burning dirty coal and not try to make any new progress.

Here’s the Reality:

• Clean energy is one of the few bright spots in our economy. Growth in clean energy is already getting Americans back to work.

• A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds that the direct benefits of increasing renewable energy production to 25% by 2050 will include hundreds of thousands of new jobs and $64.3 billion in lower energy bills.

• The wind, sun and other renewable sources are free and limitless.

• Our current system leaves coal unaccountable for the catastrophically high costs of its global warming pollution and leaves us, not the coal industry, to pay for those costs.

There’s nothing scary about an economic recovery powered by truly clean energy, so the coal industry has to manufacture doubt and fear. This type of scare tactic is the very definition of protecting the status quo.

Coal is one of the industries that is most responsible for global warming pollution in America. Now that we are finally on the verge of revitalizing our economy at the same time we hold them accountable for the cost of their pollution and reduce the amount of dirty coal we burn, they want to scare us into doing nothing at all.

These distortions and scare tactics don’t change Reality: continuing to burn dirty coal is the scariest thing we can do.

Coal’s “Clean” Conscience

The American Coalition of Clean Coal Technologies (ACCCE) spokesman — the same one who said “I don’t know” if burning coal contributes to global warming — put up an interesting op-ed last week.

It’s interesting because it makes clear the coal industry’s position — they aren’t willing to reduce their profits by taking real action on CO₂ reduction, and they aren’t too concerned about the high external costs of burning coal (in health care treatment, pollution, and global catastrophe) because they don’t directly pay these costs — we do.

ACCCE argues that “shifting the primary burden for reductions to coal-generated power clearly will drive up the costs and put a further dent into the wallets of families and business owners.” But that’s not true. It will drive up the costs to the coal industry, but it won’t be more expensive for consumers unless the industry passes on all of the costs by refusing to take a bite out of their $57 billion a year profit.

Furthermore, coal is responsible for more than 80% of the CO₂ that is released by producing electricity. No energy producer pollutes with CO₂ like coal. So there’s no “shifting” here — it’s ALREADY the coal industry’s burden, they’re just not accepting responsibility.

What do you think will be more costly to America’s families and business owners?

• A gradual reduction in burning coal, as we move to abundant, free and clean sources of energy and upgrade our buildings and appliances to use less energy.

• Increasing our present rate of burning coal: continuing to depend on an uncertain priced fossil fuel that releases the deadly poisons which, according to a 2004 study cited by the American Lung Association, are responsible for an estimated 24,000 premature deaths, 550,000 asthma attacks, 38,000 heart attacks and 12,000 other hospital admissions per year.

  And continuing to release the CO₂ that is heading us toward a collision with, as Time Magazine recently called it, the “asteroid” of global warming — which without action now “will be far worse — and last far longer — than any natural disaster humanity has ever known.”

ACCCE has told us their answer. What’s yours? If you’d like to comment on this article, you can quickly sign up for an account on the Tribune-Democrat’s discussion feature. Of course, you are always free to leave a comment at ACCCE’s blog, too.

Instead of more industry ads and op-ed articles about “clean” coal to make it seem like they are accepting responsibility, the coal industry needs to step up and do something real to solve this very real problem they have helped to create — without making threats to pass on all costs to the consumer.

“Clean Coal” — One Big Fishing Expedition

File this under “what won’t they try?”

The coal industry has sponsored a professional bass fisherman for the ESPN/BASS Elite top 100 series.

Seems they are trying to drum up some good feelings about coal against a lot of reminders to the contrary. From the Metro News:

[The] new Basscat boat is wrapped in a sleek and colorful scheme that includes a backdrop of Sutton Lake, the Kanawha River, and the state capitol dome. Beside the familiar “Friends of Coal” logo, the rig reads “Clean Coal Power, science and technology engineering coal for the 21st Century.” It’s an important message in a time when coal is taking a beating in Washington and amid the mainstream media.

The coal industry isn’t big on irony, so it’s unlikely they see any in the fact that they are advertising coal to fishing fans, even as mining and burning coal is responsible for killing fish, poisoning rivers and lakes and warming temperatures that threaten fish populations. Or maybe they have a really dark sense of humor.

Either way, we caught this whopper.

Coal industry spokesman “doesn’t know” if coal causes global warming

Joe Lucas, the spokesman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) was just interviewed for a piece exploring the myth of “clean” coal. (You may remember ACCCE as the folks who spent over $10.5 million on energy lobbying.)

It seems that the spokesman who represents the industry that puts out more than one third of our CO₂ emissions — the leading cause of global warming — is having some trouble grasping reality.

Transcript:
Still the industry refuses to say its plants contribute to global warming.
[Question:] Can you just answer that yes or no? If you believe that burning coal causes global warming?
[Joe Lucas:] I don’t know, I’m not a scientist.

You don’t have to be a scientist to know that burning coal is a leading source of global warming pollution. (”GHG Emissions and Sinks 1990–2006,” US EPA 2008.)

But it certainly is hard to believe that while the industry has spent $10.5 million on lobbying, their spokesman isn’t better informed.

Watch the whole story.

UPDATE: Remember this gem? Cigarette executives testify before congress in 1994 that they “do not believe nicotine is addictive.” But you can’t blame these guys for their denial of obvious facts — after all, they are also not scientists.

Shady

What’s the best way to hide the damaging impact of burning coal?

Apparently, some in the coal industry think they can add sunglasses to a piece of coal and call it “cool” — in a way that is strangely reminiscent to tobacco’s Joe Camel.

Do they know we can see right through this ploy? If you haven’t seen coal’s “cool” ad,
check it out.

If you’ve seen any other “shady” ads or statements about coal, let us know — you can even upload your photos and videos.