Global Warming Talk Scarce at Big Coal-Sponsored Debates
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 01.23.08
Image courtesy of Isaac Brekken for NYT
Sure, preying upon peoples' sensibilities by using kids to push your product is a good start, but - when you're Big Coal - that type of PR work is just the tip of the iceberg. As we briefly mentioned in a prior piece, Big Coal has funneled $35 million into an organization called "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" (ABEC) to counter the "smears" and "misperceptions" it alleges have wrongly tarnished its "reputable" name.
Kevin Grandia at DeSmogBlog recently unearthed a copy of the organization's request for proposals for PR assistance in Nevada, touting - among other dubious things - the importance of selling Americans on the benefits of "clean coal."
According to the request, ABEC's stated campaign goals include: "increase general public awareness of the importance of coal to America’s energy mix," "educate key audiences on industry advances in the development and deployment of clean coal technology," "help shape near-term, crucial state policy decisions through the implementation of an effective public affairs and media relations campaign" and - most importantly - "enhance the image and credibility of ABEC."
And what better way of capitalizing on heightened consumer awareness than by sponsoring one of the MSM's largest draws: the presidential campaign. As reported by Think Progress' Amanda Terkel, ABEC sponsored the recent Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina during which (surprise, surprise) no questions about global warming were raised by CNN's moderators.
The list goes on:
"ABEC also co-sponsored November’s CNN/YouTube debates in Nevada and Florida, at which no questions about global warming were asked . . . What is ABEC receiving in return for its support of CNN’s debate? Besides branding on tv and newspaper ads, ThinkProgress has learned that at November’s Democratic debate in Nevada, ABEC was given a special area near the debate’s entrance to hand out “clean coal” brochures. No other organizations were allowed to distribute materials in that prime area."
ABEC has so far spent close to $1.3 million "on billboard, newspaper, television and radio ads in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina" (you can see their TV ad from the debate on the ThinkProgress website); at this rate, one can imagine that it will likely spend several millions more before the real presidential election gets underway.
Via ::Think Progress: No Questions On Global Warming Asked At CNN’s Coal Industry-Sponsored Presidential Debates (blog), ::DeSmogBlog: Americans For Balanced Energy Choices "Clean Coal" PR Spin Campaign Revealed (blog)
See also: ::Big Coal Turning Kids Into Pushers This Primary Season, ::As Goes Nevada, So Goes The Planet: Three Lumps Of Coal On The Slots Machine, ::Big Coal Gets Wired: With A Little Help From Its Friends
Disgusting.
Maybe the clean in coal refers to the coal miners reduced incidence of black lung disease. This is brought about by no longer digging the coal out of the ground, but by blowing the mountains off the top of the coal! It's a lose - lose situation for everyone.
in the coal industry's defense, coal is going to remain part of our electricity generation basically forever, so we might as well get used to it.
while coal is bad, there's really no substitute for it--even nuclear can't do what coal can do.
that being said, all efforts should be made to limit the amount of coal consumed.
No... Nuclear can do what coal does... Concentrated solar can do what coal does... Wind can do what coal does to an extent. There are many options available... Why would anyone think that coal is something we need to stay dependent upon?
Also, need I remind you that if we continue to use coal "forever", then "forever" will be a very short time. Ever heard of something called global warming? If we continue to use coal... Well then there won't be a "we" around to use that coal, will there?
@spycharles
Are you seriously suggesting that global warming will result in the extinction of mankind?
Humans survived the last ice age, and they will survive this next warming spell. Our cities and societies might not, and so yes, there might not be "anyone to burn the coal" but there will be people. My bet is that people outlast affordably minable coal. (meaning coal that can provide enough energy to pay for the effort to mine it, transport it, and burn it.)
As the cost of windturbine power becomes lower than coal in 2-3 years then this issue will become a non-issue. As it is now then Windturbine power only cost about 1 cent more per kilowatt than coal and wind turbine costs per kilo watt goes down 1 cent every 2-3 years.
Coal is not forever. Like oil, there are finite quantities of coal; maybe a couple hundred years worth. Second, if coal had to pay for what it robs from the rest of us - our clean air, clean water, intact functioning ecosystems, a stable climate, etc. - then it would already be uncompetitive and out of business. Third, renewable energy technologies are accelarating their rate of cost decreases; wind is already basically competitive with coal, and solar will be so in 5 to 10 years. Other renewable energy tech.s will also eventually become competitive. And with their steep cost decreases, all of these renewable energy tech.s will eventually be much cheaper than coal, especially when real legislation kicks in that truly starts making coal pay us for what it robs from us. And as soon as that legislation arrives, then coal will deflate as quickly as a popped balloon. Coal is most definitely not forever; there are plenty of alternatives.
And for anyone who has doubts about what I have said, take a moment to think hard on this statement: Why would coal be wasting a ton of money to convince us that coal is an irreplaceable part of our energy future if it truly is irreplaceable? If coal truly believed that coal is indispensible, they wouldn't spend a cent trying to convince anyone of that fact. How much money is spent by the water utilities trying to convince us that we will still need water 10, 20, 50 years from now?
"Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" - that is a genius piece of PR!
I acknowledge that a piece of coal is being burnt right now to power my computer, and it's likely to stay that way for a while. And I agree with gbrunga - humans are probably the last species that has to worry about going extinct from climate change.
But when we talk about 'energy needs' we have to realise that there's no real upper limit to how much energy we think we need. And then the dealers start saying "no don't worry about being addicted to crack....we've got 'clean crack' just round the corner....carry on, business as usual!"
For those die-hard coal haters out there, quick fact check on alternative sources.
1- Nuclear. It's really, really, really hard to change the level of power production coming out of a nuclear plant. On the other hand, more power out of a coal plant simply requires throwing more coal on the furnace. Because power usage varies--more during the middle of the day, less at night, nuclear power can only suplement coal.
2- the "green" alternatives like solar and wind are dependent on the weather. as such, they cannot maintain a whole energy grid.
as a result, coal or at the least natural gas, is here to stay. while we should cut back on the quantities consumed, no question, it's not going to be eliminated.
'Nuclear. It's really, really, really hard to change the level of power production coming out of a nuclear plant. On the other hand, more power out of a coal plant simply requires throwing more coal on the furnace.'
---You are absolutely right about nuclear not being able to change level of power production easily. But you seem severely confused about coal. The overwhelming majority of coal plants are used as baseload plants - they too have difficulty adjusting quickly to demand changes. That is why the energy infrastructure relies on intermittent and peak power energy plants (and demand management) to balance supply with shifting demand. And peak power plants typically use oil, natural gas or hydro. But moving beyond this correction, your statement does nothing to support the argument that coal is here to stay.
'the "green" alternatives like solar and wind are dependent on the weather. as such, they cannot maintain a whole energy grid.'
---Get your facts straight. You have just put in brief the 'baseload fallacy' argument. FACT: solar and wind combined (and wind alone)(and even solar alone in future with some storage medium such as molten salt) can maintain baseload power. AND when you include all the range of renewables into the mix, then renewables can maintain the WHOLE energy grid; there are renewable energy sources that can act as peaking power and as intermittent power. Now don't be disingenious and try to say that it is impossible; obviously it is impossible to do that overnight because it takes time to build up a new energy infrastructure and get rid of the unwanted elements of the old infrastructure. So even if society seriously decides to do the completely possible - a 100% renewable energy infrastructure - it will take at least a couple of decades to implement unless govt. takes all subsidies away from fossils and nuclear and gives them all to renewables.
'coal or at the least natural gas, is here to stay.'
---You come to a faulty conclusion based on faulty reasoning. Neither of them necessarily have to stay. If they stay, it is not because society does not have a choice. It will be because coal has spent enough money on lobbying that it will secure its political and economic interests in DC. Of course, if society manages to transition to a renewables energy infrastructure fairly quickly, then it is not absolutely necessary to go all the way to 100% renewables energy to battle global warming. Some very small amount of fossils would be 'tolerable'. And fossil fuel natural gas would be MUCH more tolerable than coal since it pollutes much less. And by the way, in case you were unaware, society can make natural gas (methane); this is one of the renewable energy sources that would power the renewable energy infrastructure of tomorrow - and is already powering it to a very small degree today.
Coal is not here to stay unless we CHOOSE to let it stay.
what everyone is saying about our energy options is all fine and we can talk about it until 2015. But there are three things I see when I read this.
number one - We have two presidential possibilities who know full well about the problems we are facing and they are not talking about it. Why? Because...
number two -The ones who footed the bill for them to be on stage ARE the problem.
number three - We have a so called reputable news channel hosting this event who knows full well about number one and two, can do the math, and they're not talking about.
Houston, we have a problem.
Nuclear isn't an option because of its wastes.
The only reason our alternatives aren't viable at this point is because they haven't been subsidized as heavily as oil, coal and nuclear energy. If we gave equal funding to finding alternative energy, you would see alternatives that actually work. As it it we are funding and energy sources whose times have passed.
The south used to less than ideal for solar, due to clouds, but with our new drought situation, it's sunny nearly every day. Soon to be the new desert southeast.
this is honestly one of the most disguting conspiracy newsbits that i have heard in my life.
all the rest have to do with evil coal too.
The environmental lobby should focus their interests and get people to rally around destroying coal. uniting america in getting rid of coal will get rid of 80% of US carbon emissions and get ordinary people who are not leaders and/or are not very bright to participate in stopping climate change as well.
Once coal is gone, we can fill the void with renewables and natural/landfill gas turbine power plants, then get over this climate change thing and move on already.