Greenwash Watch: AmericasPower
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 10.28.07
The full page ad in the New York Times placed by "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" says "Our commitment goes beyond clean."
Then they say "Through a $50 Billion investment in new clean coal technologies, today's coal based generating fleet is already 70% cleaner based on regulated emissions per unit of energy produced." It's probably true; coal plants are a lot more efficient and cleaner than they were in the seventies, when trees were dying and lakes were turning to vinegar.
The key word is regulated. Since the seventies, utilities have been forced to install pollution controls or switch to low sulfur coal to reduce smog and acid rain. Their own site says "The calculations are based on five pollutants: carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter."
Carbon Dioxide is not a regulated emission, so they can all but ignore it:
Watch the TV commercial here
"By relying on technology, we can do more. We can reduce emissions even further, to levels near zero for pollutants regulated by federal and state clean air laws. (then they toss in a bone-) We're also investing in the development and deployment of technologies to capture and store CO2- a greenhouse gas."
Message: CO2 is not dirty, is not a pollutant, is not an emission, and we're thinking about it. Did we mention that we are clean?
The ad people must have spent hours on the last line:
"Our commitment to clean is matched by a commitment to keep energy costs affordable and to protect our security by using our abundant domestic coal reserves to meet America's growing energy needs."
Cheap, secure, local fuel and lots of it! Just don't mention that climate change thing.
More greenwashing at AmericasPower.Org
People fully understand that regulatory requirements for eir emissions are a bare minimum performance standard that is weakly enforced, if at all, and over which local people have little or no influence.
For 4 decades they have watch industry scream "onerous consequences...you'll banckrupt us with these ruls; and poor people will freeze and go hungry" for every single regulatory proposal put forward in the interest of public health and ecosystem protection. Somehow, miraculously, we have survived this "onerous burden" and utilities are massively profitable. Otherwise they could not afford these lame ads.
This commercial is pretty disgusting. Wanna know what makes it worse, as if it could be? The first time I saw it was during CNN's Planet In Peril special. I seriously thought the commercial was a joke at first; maybe they were trying to be ironic or facetious. They had literally just finished the segment on a Chinese coal mine poisoning the locals. Talk about your cognitive dissonance.
shameful.
One of the worst things about coal is mountain top removal coal mining. If more people knew what goes on to obtain coal, their support of coal fired electricity would disappear.
i think i just threw up a little. (after watching the commercial)
Rather than poo-pooing all efforts on reducing our foreign oil dependence, we should set our goals to include mandated carbon dioxide regulation, for example, as part of the political agenda.
Consider when discussing Coal and "America's Dependancy on Forien Oil" that coal produces our electricity and does not fuel our cars. Also consider America imports more oil from Canada than any other country including Saudi Arabia. Producing electricity more efficantly does nothing to fix oil consumption or reduce our dependance on foriegn (Canadian) oil.
We do need a balanced energy solution that may include some coal. It is difficult to argue with a domestic 250 year supply. Shouldn't we spend some money to at least explore if we can make it clean and lessen our dependence on oil?
I've been seeing these ads all over the web. It is shameful greenwashing and astroturfing. I was saddened to see that supporters include a few electric cooperatives and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. I am sure some of the more conscientious energy cooperatives would be interested to know that NRECA supports this group. Please send them an email.
Wait, that’s not right. We are not ignoring carbon dioxide!
The coal industry is working with Department of Energy on a $1.5 billion project to build a coal plant that captures carbon dioxide for permanent storage before it is released into the atmosphere. The plant would bury its heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions deep underground in a saltwater aquifer.
Also, let’s talk about the statement that says today’s power plants are 70% cleaner. You’re right, we did base that claim on “emissions regulated under federal and state clean air laws”. We did that for two reasons. First, you have to substantiate any claim you make in an ad (that’s right … 4 out of 5 dentists survey really did recommend Trident to their patients who chew gum). Also, there are also obviously benign emissions from coal plants that are included in that statement (and why would anybody care about those?).
The organization is using the airwaves that belong to us to transmit this garbage. It seems to me that we could demand equal airtime to respond.
If you go the the sponsoring website, you can find many "facts" that are not true. Various scientists could easily dispute these. We could make a classy rebuttal ad.