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.

No new dirty coal in the UK

Yesterday, the United Kingdom pledged not to allow the construction of any new dirty coal plants. Meaning, only plants that capture and store a portion of their carbon dioxide emissions can now be built. From the Guardian:

The energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, said the new policy balanced three challenges: the need to ensure the security of the UK’s energy supply, the need to build a low-carbon economy and the need to slash greenhouse gas emissions.

Miliband imposed a new requirement that any new coal plant would be forced to demonstrate CCS from the start, with emissions equivalent to 300MW being trapped. He abandoned a previous proposal of allowing plants to be ‘CCS-ready’

“The era of new unabated coal has come to an end,” he said.

The American coal industry insists they are committed to CCS, but in Reality this is exactly the type of progress they have been fighting against. For all their talk about new, clean technology, not a single power-plant in America — or the UK — actually captures and stores it’s carbon pollution.

And despite increasing profits, the coal industry has yet to make a significant investment to develop the technology needed to actually make coal clean.

Instead, groups like ACCCE spend $45 million a year to keep talking about the new technology they haven’t yet demonstrated, perpetuate misleading information about the devastating impact of continuing to burn dirty coal, lobby Congress to block clean energy legislation, and fight to continue building new dirty coal plants — about which the the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission just said “We may not need any, ever.”

If ever there was an opportunity to be part of the solution, and actively play a part in promoting solutions to the climate crisis, this is it. Now that the UK has said a definitive “no” to new, dirty coal plants, it’s time for the coal industry to hear “London calling” — and answer.

How’s that for Clean?

Today, the E.P.A. made a major announcement. From the NYT:

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday formally declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants that threaten public health and welfare, setting in motion a process that for the first time in the United States will regulate the gases blamed for global warming.

The E.P.A. said the science supporting its ‘endangerment’ finding was “compelling and overwhelming.” The ruling triggers a 60-day comment period before any proposed regulations governing emissions of greenhouse gases are published.

Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said: “This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations. Fortunately, it follows President Obama’s call for a low-carbon economy and strong leadership in Congress on clean energy and climate legislation.”

This finding makes official what we already knew: the coal industry’s claims to already be “clean” or “77% cleaner” are a complete farce, because these claims completely ignore industry carbon dioxide emissions, which are now recognized as a dangerous pollutant.

The coal industry hasn’t reduced their CO₂ emissions at all. And until they can safely capture and store these emissions, any claims that coal is “clean” are now — according to both reality AND the U.S. Government — complete lies. We can only hope that ACCCE — the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity — will soon be “scrubbing” all mention of “clean” from their website and name.

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.

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.

Guess who’s #1?

A new report by the Center for Public Integrity finds explosive growth over the last five years in the number of lobbyists seeking to influence climate change legislation.

It turns out, the coal industry has been pretty busy lobbying for legislation friendly to the dirty status quo. In fact, they were #1 in these lobbying efforts.

According to the report, 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year — with expenditures topping $90 million. Among all these groups, it’s no surprise that the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) came in at #1:

ACCCE spent $10.5 million lobbying Capitol Hill on climate in 2008 — more than any other organization solely dedicated to the issue.

Good ‘ol ACCCE — spending money on lobbying almost as fast as their industry pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now that the EPA is reconsidering regulating C0₂ emissions how do you think they feel about that chunk of change?

It seems they find it cheaper to market and lobby than actually investing in the development of a commercial-scale system of carbon capture and storage. Such a system still doesn’t exist for a single one of the more than 600 power plants in operation in the US, and until it does, claiming that coal is “clean” is just blowing a whole lot of smoke.