Greenpeace Sneaks In, Addresses Coal Conference
by Alex Pasternack, Beijing, China on 06.28.08
Who says coal and environmentalists -- even the most hardcore take-no-prisoners kind of activists -- can't get along? Or at least listen to each other. And who says that just because coal companies can rally under deceptively-titled front groups like Americans For Balanced Energy Choices, green groups do the same?
That's exactly what happened this week, when members of Greenpeace crashed a major coal conference, Coal USA 2008 -- by co-sponsoring the event under the buttoned-up moniker “Institute for Energy Solutions." When organizers discovered that the group's site redirected to Coal is Dirty, they not only grudgingly permitted Greenpeace to keep their booth (where, of course, they handed out asthma inhalers, gift baskets of coal, and water samples from coal mining regions) but even invited the green agitators to address the gathered audience of coal executives.
The big moment came yesterday, when Greenpeace spokesman Carroll Muffett was asked to speak to an audience not of "evil, mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash impersonators" but of "(mostly) normal people." Here's the advice and question he posed just before being whipped off the stage by a security guard ...
Perhaps you can explain to your kids: "I polluted the air because my boss made me do it. I poisoned the water to increase shareholder value. I denied global warming because the board demanded it. I supported CCS because it was the industry's only hope. And I refused to believe in solutions, because I was paid to believe in coal."Will that answer make your kids happy? Will it make them proud? Will it help them forgive you?
We can just imagine the shifting in the seats, the loosening of ties, the clearing of throats, and the whisper to the guy with the thick neck, telling him to get those rascals off the stage. Still, there was some quiet applause from what Muffett called a mostly "polite" audience. (People were less happy to see children at the Greenpeace booth handing out asthma inhalers.)
That the organizer of the conference -- Gerard McCloskey of McCloskey Group -- was willing to let Greenpeace air a litany of the environmental costs of coal to its biggest promoters came as a bit of a shock.
Then again, this was coal's home turf, and letting the green guys speak their piece looks better than trying to shut them down. Given Greenpeace's proclivity for dramatic measures (interrupting industry dinners, shutting down power stations, scaling buildings) the conference organizers might have caused even more of a scene had they forced Greenpeace out.
And it was just the right thing to do. "I thought what we should do was engage them," McCloskey told Reuters. "All of us have children, grandchildren. It was good to see Greenpeace here willing to put their argument out."
The decision by the coal promoters to let Greenpeace speak about the damage wrought by their product also illustrates a larger fact: "Green" has become so mainstream, and the dangers of energy production so apparent, that the companies that once worked hard to deny their role in pollution, or downplay the impact of climate change, now have little choice but to become part of the solution.
For his part, Muffett was pleased to be allowed to speak after decades of the industry's denial and then sugar-coating of climate change, but he still saw it as a mere gesture. On his blog, Muffett dismisses the idea that coal could be "part of the solution" through carbon capture and storage (CCS), which Fred Palmer, of industry leader Peabody Coal, called at the conference an "enabling" technology. " I couldn't agree more," Muffett wrote on his blog.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an "enabler" is someone or something that "enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior." And that's precisely what CCS does: its a dangerous myth that provides America with a convenient excuse to keep burning coal and pumping carbon dioxide into the air, rather than confronting its fossil fuel addiction and taking real action to stop global warming.
Muffett was also glad, he said, to learn some gems about big coal from the inside:
For instance, did you know that Alaska is now a target for new coal mines? ("Shhh. It's our secret", said the coal traders.) Or that you can expect your home energy costs to go through the roof because coal companies are finding it much more profitable to export "excess supply" to foreign markets than to sell it here at home? Or that the only thing the coal industry hates more than environmentalists is the natural gas industry?Or that "the United States is a developing country." That one from Fred Palmer again. I could listen to that guy talk all day. He's like a Crazy Quote Machine. According to Fred, using MORE coal is in the public interest because "Coal is Life itself (through the medium of electricity)." Wow! Who knew? See, I told you we were learning stuff!
Apart from the apparent tolerance of green activists, the real surprise may have come from Greenpeace. The group known for its radical interventions -- perhaps none more famous than its high-seas battle with Japanese whaling ships -- may be finding more subtle and clever ways to get its message across (much like the companies it lobbies against). This week, we wrote about the cheeky Alberta Tar Sands Resort, for instance; last year, it put out this great fake iPod ad.
In an era of both green obsession and green fatigue, these more playful kinds of tactics will become more appealing. And talking directly to the people who control things like the coal industry, and listening to them too, sounds much more productive than yelling at -- or throwing shit at -- the problem.
"It's easy to do anything if you do it for a company, because then the company can be evil for you, while you just go on being a normal, decent person," Muffet writes on his blog.
But what we easily forget is that a company, at heart, is simply a collection of people. Companies aren't real in a human sense--they aren't alive; they don't have souls. A company can't choose to be evil any more than it can be good. Only the people within it, individually and together, can make that choice.
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Greenpeace's Updated Consumer Electronics Guide
- Coal's Darkest Hour Comes Just Before EPAs New Dawn
- Coal Pellet Stove Introduced in Uganda
- A Carbon Neutral Futurama
Berkeley Protesters Treetop Insanity No Help to Environmental Movement
|
This Weekend in NY: Dan Deacon at Citysol, Bucky at Whitney, Figment and the Waterfalls
|
I am all for clean energy. But I think a bigger goal would be for *affordable* clean energy. I am getting tired of people thinking we can actually stop global warming. Global warming is natural. Our planet has been doing this forever. And scientifically we all know that some volcanoes put more greenhouse gasses into our air and atmosphere than all the combined industry of our country. ... maybe the world.
I am not discouraging the use of clean energy I fully encourage it, I just think bothering coal companies right now is a waste of time. When solar gets cheep, batteries get affordable, and ultra capacitors get better and more affordable and it is clear that coal is obsolete and that would be the time to switch.
So really all I am saying science and research will determine green energy. When technology develops and everyone is powering their car and house with energy hopefully produced by themselves then we won't need coal anymore.
Just keep studying people, do your homework, get a job and change the world. WE can do it.
I usually recoil from Greenpeace's more outrageous tactics- I think they make people think green means the end of prosperity, which is absurd. But this seems like it was a really good idea- peaceful, relaxed, well thought out, perhaps even effective. I agree that coal cannot be part of any long-term solution except as the source of energy that in the short term allows us to manufacture and build more sustainable and clean energy infrastructure.
However, as for the rejection of the claim that the U.S. is a developing country, I must say I certainly hope that is what we are. If not, if we are truly "developed" in an absolute sense, then this is as good as it gets, that there is no more progress to be made. That would be terrible. We may be further along in the process of economic and technological development than some other countries, but so what? It isn't like we are at some sort of endpoint.
As usual, Greenpeace wastes a bunch of somebody's money sending an arrogant zealot to go make a scene.
I'm so sick of progressive groups making my issues look like some kind of circus! I would rather we spent money marketing renewables than harvesting coal but that doesn't mean I go around insulting the people with whom I disagree. I mean, it's not like guilt is going to defuse the profitability of their industry. It just makes anyone left-of-center on energy look like they don't understand the academic interests of industry people who were there (good or "evil").
That said, I like Greenpeace making up a fake "institution". That's great. I think guerilla tactics could work. But get in there and get to know the people on a personal level. If you're trying to get them to quit their jobs or something (which is ridiculous), find out how to lead them away from coal to something better.
Even on a shock/publicity level, this stunt didn't work IMO. It just makes Greenpeace look like a bunch of amateurs when the truth is that they're raking quite a bit of cash. Sigh. We're screwed.
@chmoder; i am so sick of people who do not understand the science and keep denying man-made global warming.
The 3 people above me have totally lost the plot.
Coal is unsustainable. What is the definition of affordable energy? Coal is definitely affordable in the current sense, but that's because of the plethora of externalities it produces that make it much more expensive in reality.
Solar power is the only viable solution.
Greenpeace are heroes, you people have no idea what change has been caused by Greenpeace. Please do something worthwhile besides shooting your mouth.
One should be careful reading comments on a board. I'm sad to say that when I read negstive comments like the previous commentator that I have to wonder whether he/she is on the up and up or sitting in PR consultancy across from a coal firm.
It's laughable that anyone when presented with polluters and the ones who oppose them should point at people like Greenpeace and say basically "they're in it for the money", "they're undermining issues that I care about".
It's right up there with deriding a cop for catching criminals. You have to wonder whether it's on the level or whether a view marketed as being honest is something else again.
greenpeace is none profit. they use money that they recieve in donation to fund efferts to better our enviroment. i am grateful that they do what they do
@chmoder:
"Global warming is natural." ... Sorry? Absolutely wrong! Go to realclimate . org and look up the science - or as you put it "just keep studying people, do your homework"! The temperature levels of the past decades are not at all in any way explainable by any geological or oceanic or atmospherical cycle or a variation in solar radiation (which went down for the last 20 years) or a combination thereof. So in which way is this global warming 'natural'?
And can we stop it? Well - no one actually knows.
"volcanoes put more greenhouse gasses into our air..." ... Sorry? Completely wrong again! If you look at the records of world temperatures, you'll find a sharp peak downwards in every year with a major volcano eruption. And you'll also find that this influence in lowering temperatures is only a short-term effect - mostly 1 or 2 years only. The trend doesn't change. Hmm, maybe it would change for a longer time if an asteroid would hit earth - the same scenario as with the exstinction of the dinosaurs. But that's a different story.