Peabody Coal Company argues that coal is “green coal” and “clean coal”

A few months ago one of my neighbors, a proudly conservative man, saw me carrying a package of high-efficiency light bulbs into my house. He gave me a disappointed look loudly said: “Buy some real light bulbs, Erich.” This neighbor has repeatedly made it known that that liberal concerns and proposals regarding energy are unnecessary because there is plenty of oil and coal, and we should make it our national priority to keep digging and burning these resources. I know that my Republican neighbor is not the only “conservative” in the U.S. willing to scoff at conservation. I previously argued that this anti-energy-efficiency climate–science-denial attitude like my neighbor’s outlook has become a badge of group membership among conservatives. It has become a salient display that one believes, above all, in the alleged power and wisdom of the “Free Market,” an unsubstantiated leap of faith so incredibly bold that I once termed it the Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity (and see here and here). These free-market fundamentalists are contemptuous at well-informed suggestions for using energy resources more efficiently and for reducing our reliance on dirty and dangerous fossil fuels. Many of them consider national policy aimed at energy conservation to be totally unnecessary and ridiculously expensive. Proposals that we should be smarter consumers of energy annoy and anger them and they offer no evidence-based alternatives for peak oil (and see here and here and here ). They refuse to consider the damage being done to our environment, our health and our budget (especially our military budget) as a result of our reliance on fossil fuels . My neighbor displays a startling lack of curiosity regarding the ramifications for continuing to attempt to drill and dig our way to energy independence. This same attitude is found in many conservative politicians, the most prominent being Sarah Palin. Based on an extraordinary video of a recent debate at Washington University in Saint Louis, this same attitude is also embraced by of the executives at the largest private coal company in the United States, Peabody Coal Company.

Continue ReadingPeabody Coal Company argues that coal is “green coal” and “clean coal”

That other dirty fossil fuel

I spotted a big coal train moving through town a few nights ago. As that huge load slipped quietly by, I wondered what people would think if they knew the truth about coal. What if they really knew how good conservation is and how bad coal and oil are? What if they knew that in the United States, we burn a railroad car worth of coal every 3 seconds. This year, your family will burn 1,000 pounds of coal just to run your clothes dryer (yet many communities make it illegal to dry your clothes on a line outside). The Average American family burns 30 pounds of coal every day. That's an awful lot of damage to the environment. For all of this and more, see this recent post.

Continue ReadingThat other dirty fossil fuel

Power versus truth

This video illustrates the conflict between truth and power. The parody troupe called the "Yes Men" staged a "press conference" presenting themselves to be representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As part of this conference, they took the position that "clean coal" was a myth and that the Obama Administration should be instead focusing upon proven effective technologies such as solar energy and conservation. In the middle of these proceedings, in walks the the Executive Director of Communications of the Chamber of Commerce making clear that he, Eric Wohlschlegel, was the true representative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, further announcing that the event was a "fraud" and a "stunt." Wohlschlegel then twice announced, "If you have any questions, you are welcome to direct them to me." After a rather testy yet amusing moment where the two purported representatives questioned each others' identities, a reporter took up the offer of Wohlschlegel, raising her hand and asking Wohlschlegel to comment on whether the Chamber of Commerce "acknowledges climate change." Wohlschlegel refused to answer this simple question and, instead, scurried away. His actions aren't surprising in light of the Chamber's failure to even admit that the climate is changing. The Chamber and its cheerleaders simply can't find the courage to admit that the climate is changing. This stunt illustrates the interplay between truth and power. Scientists are virtually unanimous that climate change is happening as a result of increased greenhouse gases, and that this situation presents huge dangers to our civilization (and thus to our economy). Scientists don't have enough money to flood Congress with lobbyists, however. "Clean coal" is a joke, technologically and as a public policy (and see here); no such technology exists, and there is nothing feasible on the horizon. It is beyond debate that coal is a terribly dangerous basis for an energy policy, yet the Chamber is married to Coal. In the meantime, conservation, ignored by the Chamber, is a guaranteed way to address energy needs and to minimize risk of further climate change, yet the Chamber would rather promote profits than truth. Here is the kind of company the Chamber coal-trainkeeps and the kinds of tactics it uses to prevent honest dialogue regarding the causes of climate change and meaningful steps that should be taken to address it. Here's a lot more information from the website of the "Yes Men." And here's Rachel Maddow's report. If we've learned anything in the past 10 years, we've learned that you can "swiftboat" any person and any Truth, if you have a lot of money. In modern society, truth, all by itself, doesn't have legs. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "[w]hile 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees." According to the March/April edition of Public Citizen News (I have the print edition only), the Chamber's reactionary position has driven away numerous corporate giants such as Nike, General Electric and Apple. Public Citizen has presented a brochure of various legitimate ways of dealing with climate change. Ironically and sadly, the Chamber is wearing narrow blinders that needlessly drive it into the arms of the fossil fuel industries. Those with open minds know that "protecting the climate is not costly but profitable." Wohlschlegel barged into the fake conference to announce that the fake speaker was not "legitimate." In reality, Wohlschlegel's (and the Chamber's) failure to deal with the issue of climate change honestly shows that they are not legitimate. Nonetheless, the Chamber has lots of money, and thus lots of power to load up the halls of Congress and media airwaves with falsehoods. And if you fill up enough airwaves with false statements, it will confuse the public, meaning that nothing gets done on these two critically important issues of energy supply and climate change. But that is exactly the plan of the Chamber.

Continue ReadingPower versus truth

Peak coal

For those of you who read this shocker that the worldwide oil reserves are dwindling much faster than official reports have been coyly indicating, don't get too cozy with the concept that we can always move on over to coal. At least that is the opinion of Richard Heinberg of the Post Carbon Institute. He claims that cheap coal is running out quickly too, and that we will have hit peak coal by 2025. There are a lot of good reasons for avoiding coal. It's a dirty fuel that has spawned dozens of massive ecological disasters, including this one in Tennessee. Another reason to not depend on coal is that there might not be enough of it to consider it to be a long-term solution. And please tell me: why is "conservation" still such a dirty word to so many people out there when it is the cleanest and easiest why to even out energy input and outgo?

Continue ReadingPeak coal

Radioactive coal

This just in, from Scientific American:

[T]he waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels. Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food . . . [E]stimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities.

Not that the risk of radiation from either coal plants or nuclear power plants appears to be significant for those living nearby.

Continue ReadingRadioactive coal