Gore's "Reality Coalition" Fighting "Clean Coal"

Today, Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club launched the Reality Coalition, a national grassroots and advertising effort with a simple message: in reality, there is no such thing as clean coal. Coal, they say, cannot be considered clean until its carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored. The Coalition is backing a multi-million dollar ad campaign, running in print, broadcast and online media and supported by the website www.ThisIsReality.org.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, Gore argued that until coal is truly clean, there should be no new coal-fired power plants built in America.

Comments

[David Lewis]

When the news came out that Stephen Chu was Obama's choice to head the Department of Energy, activists cheered. Here's what Chu signed off on as co-chair of the Study Panel of the IAC when they wrote their report "Lighting the Way" about carbon capture and storage , i.e. what Gore says doesn't exist:

"[we should] Aggressively pursue efforts to commercialize carbon capture and storage. Moving forward with full scale demonstration projects is crucial, as is continued study and experimentation to reduce costs, improve reliability, and address concerns about leakage, public safety, and other issues."

" "the general public needs to be thoroughly informed about the advantages of carbon sequestration and about the relative manageability of associated risks."

Gore is doing the opposite of what Chu recommends as he and his fellow anti "clean coal" campaigners say carbon capture doesn't exist, will take too long to implement if ever, will be too costly, and is unsafe.

The climate campaigners have been asking us for years to listen to what scientists say about climate change. Now, Gore, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Rainforest Action Network, the NRDC, etc, are asking us not to listen to the scientists.

What scientists are saying is that the threat climate change presents to the existence of civilization is so great that other threats, such as even the threat posed by nuclear power, pale in comparison. Implementing carbon capture on coal would reduce some of the other problems coal use has.

[Plink]

"If coal power plants capture and safely store their carbon pollution, coal can be part of America's 100% clean electricity mix." This is from http://action.thisisreality.org/ which made the ad. The point is, "clean" coal technology is only worth a damn if you capture and sequester the CO2 that comes out The mining issues are of course another matter that is harder to avoid. Over 1400 industry, regulators, researchers and enviro NGOs met in DC last month at the GHGT-9 (from 39 countries). Once the US starts cap and trade and some more $ for early projects, CCS will take off, but we'll need it all. CCS, efficiency, wind, solar, cleaner cars, and yes, maybe more nuclear too, if we want to make a serious dent in the soaring CO2 levels.

[ManifestDestiny]

The ad "There is no such thing as clean coal" is good, but fundamentally flawed. For those of us who listen to channels such as CNN, but seldom watch the screen, the message received is just the opposite of the message sent! Please add a voice over to read the bottom line. James Earl Jones would demand attention booming out the real message THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL.

[David Lewis]

Try reading the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. They won their Nobel Prizes for helping civilization become more aware that climate change is a real issue, just as Gore did. They say the next step for this technology isn't basic research, its go ahead and build a bunch of full scale plants to prove it out. This is very far from what Gore is saying when he says carbon capture and storage, i.e. what industry calls "clean coal" is a "cynical and self interested illusion". This isn't how Gore won his Nobel Prize. Obama was supporting building five full scale plants to show American leadership on this issue to the world, Gore is just saying where are the full scale plants, therefore the technology is bogus. I'm with Obama. Gore is out of line on this one.

[mheister]

The Air Force is all hot for clean coal because they see coal gasification as a midrange solution to their fuel needs.

I would argue that if we took more aggressive steps to shrink demand for fossil fuels in the civilian sector, and if all the military branches greened their ancillary operations, the Air Force could have more of the remaining crude oil products for itself.

And let me briefly make the defense preparedness argument for implementing solar on military bases. The military would be far less dependent on fossil fuel sources of electricity such as power plants, which are high-value targets in a military exchange, hence would be far better prepared to continue full operations under extraordinary circumstances.

[ScottontheSpot]

We need to distinguish between what is economically unfeasible, and what is technically unfeasible. The second needs more research, the first needs only a change in the laws to make it economically feasible. Interestingly, it was Al Gore's who said "Tax what you burn, not what you earn." By simultaneously freeing coal producers from taxes on their production, while simultaneously taxing them, heavily, for dumping C02 into the air, they have powerful incentives to clean up their act, allowing them to keep more profits. Tax not just C02, but also mountain top removal, for that ruins common land. The same applies to streams polluted as well. The onus on the coal company could not be stronger, or fairer, under the single tax, to clean up their act if they want to achieve full profits. There would still be some land tax, but that could be used to support the community of which they are a major part, by the local government.
Under the classic "Single-Tax" first proposed by 19th century economist/writer Henry George, natural resources belong to all of us, to be used and protected by the community for our common benefit.
However, if someone builds a power plant, they deserve to profit from their labor.
Obama needs to be apprised of the power and simplicity of the single tax to transform society into a greener, more equitable and just society, where poverty is virtually eliminated, yet where productive individuals can proper from their labors.

[Canukistani]

I was wondering when someone would take this up. Bravo! Clean coal isn't a process or technique for producing a clean-burning coal. Clean coal is a marketing term.

[suec03]

Why is the concern only with emissions when coal is burned? How can coal be "clean" when mining it exposes miners to coal dust causing respiratory problems, and mountaintop removal and other strip mining dumps toxic tailings into streams?

[TwistedNibbler]

The "concern" is not only with carbon dioxide emissions, the clever marketing ploy leading to the birth of the term "clean coal" is. To declare coal-burning technology as hazardous and unsafe to the environment is to attack its use for power generation AND also its harvesting from the dirt. The plain reality is that in the meantime, we NEED to continue burning coal (ie, cannot grind to a halt tomorrow) so we need interim band-aids. Chimney scrubbers and emissions bottling is a stop-gap until we can eliminate its widespread use for power production. When demand goes down, so will the atrocities commited in mining it, and the trade of coal will assume a modest face for what minimal ideal uses it still has. Hopefully that rate of use will see a gradual increase in global mass of coal over the next aeon or four...

Thank you, Robert F Kennedy Junior, and your NRDC, for taking arms with President Gore and starting our Twenty-First Century over again!!!!!

[Agentlady007]

The clean environment we are all waiting for won't happen until we inspect every plastic plant in America and refinery that emitts toxic fuels into space and filter their tanks, because somehow this has gotten federal approval for slipping through the cracks - ending reason for all of this. Seems like corruption to me.

[Snwbnny9]

Clean coal is doublespeak.
Just like the Justice Department is doublespeak under Dubya.

[castlerider]

I've been wondering who'd have the balls to come out with the so-obvious truth on all this.

Every time a commercial would come on, saying it over and over. Everytime a politician would fall in line and say the semantic catch phrase that's really a lie. Everytime, when they say clean coal, they're looking at you straight in the eye and bold faced lying right at you.

The Coal lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington and has been for many years. I actually fear for Obama's life if he allows people to take the coalmasters to task for their lies and for the damage this industry does to our nation and the world. I just hope the Secret Service does their job, but I have full confidence in them because they are the best in the world.

Let 'em have at it, Mr. President-elect.

[marlainWA]

I think Gore waited to do this to help Obama win but now is going after him on it. Good for you Al...

[Thermodynamics]

Coal is carbon.

When you burn 1 ton of coal you get about 3.6 tons of carbon dioxide.

Energy conservation seems much easier than trying to pump all that gas down a hole. Just do not use so much energy in the first place. Ask anyone with a photovoltaic powered home. Their first step is to make everything very efficient so that they do not need to buy so many PV panels.

[Meah]

Keep doing what you are doing, Al. Where can I contribute?

[elizaconnors]

Thank you Al Gore! This clean coal nonsense was stressing me out.