Conspicuous absence

60 Minutes on coal: Dancing around the question 9

60 Minutes had a long segment on the problem of coal this weekend. Watch:

A couple thoughts on this.

First, it’s worth stepping back and noting how far the discussion has come. The coal industry probably views this segment as disastrous—it takes for granted that climate change is happening and that coal is a, in fact the, big driver. The industry has lost the denial fight and can no longer hide outside the public spotlight. So we’ve come a long way.

But more striking to me is where the discussion still stops short. We hear from James Hansen that to preserve a livable climate, we have to put a moratorium on new coal plants and phase out existing coal plants in 20 years. Then the discussion turns to the feasibility of cleaning up coal.

A Martian dropping in to watch this segment might say, wait a minute! What about what Hansen said? Can we do that?

But the subject goes almost entirely unaddressed. Jim Rogers—the CEO of a coal utility!—says passingly that he can’t do it, and then the focus turns to preserving the role of coal.

But can we? Can we phase out coal and maintain a modern economy? I hate even to say that 60 Minutes producers assumed the answer is no. It seems, rather, that it just never occurs to them to seriously ask the question.

This is symptomatic of a much larger phenomenon. It’s a hole in the heart of the ongoing energy/climate discussion: the possibility of a prosperous, fossil-free, low-carbon economy. Of course there are plenty of reports showing how it could happen: Here’s a detailed plan to meet America’s energy needs without new coal plants,  using a combination of efficiency and clean renewable power. Here’s another, another, another, another, and more. Just a few weeks ago the Department of Interior released a study showing that offshore wind alone could satisfy U.S. electricity needs.

But for whatever reason, that possibility is not alive in the public discussion. And it’s having awful effects. When you hear coal-state Dems push to weaken the short-term targets in the Waxman/Markey bill, what they’re thinking is, we need to align the targets with the projected availability of coal with sequestration. Pushing targets faster than that will only jack up prices. Because there’s no alternative. Again, this is not a “position” they have, the outcome of an investigation. It’s an absence: the absence of a real, live alternative future. They can’t see it. They don’t know how to think about it.

This is absolutely the No. 1 priority for all climate/energy crusaders: not the science of climate change, not the evils of fossil fuels, but a real effort to paint a credible picture of a low-carbon, fossil-free future that everyone can participate in.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. neosapiens's avatar

    neosapiens Posted 10:30 am
    27 Apr 2009

    This all gets back to the cost of living. If we want to preserve life on earth, we have to be willing to pay what it will cost. We must phase out coal--and we can certainly do it--but there will be costs. It accomplishes nothing to whine about it, and giving in vested interests who want to keep profits high regardless of the consequences is sheer stupidity. We need to get real and get on with ramping up clean energy and aggressively phasing out coal. No matter how you slice it, digging up fossil carbon that is laced with toxic contaminants, burning it and creating mountains of toxic waste isn't sustainable--even if you could capture the CO2. There just isn't a future for coal as a fuel. Coal companies should be plowing their profits into clean energy and making the transition as quickly as they can.

    Permalink

    1. splashy's avatar

      splashy Posted 1:43 pm
      27 Apr 2009

      Actually, it seems to me that if you subtract all the military spending to keep the fossil fuels going by using the military to control the countries that produce oil, along with putting the coal workers to work on the alternative energy sources, it would cost less for us to get off the fossil fuels, not more.That's not to mention keeping that money here in the US, creating all kinds of jobs, rather than sending it overseas to countries that hate us for our meddling in their governments.

      Permalink

  2. GreyFlcn Posted 1:55 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    Well for all the focus that automotive transportation gets.
    Doesn't it only make up 7~9% of the issue?

    Perhaps the primary focus should be on electricity, building heating/cooling, agriculture, and tropical deforrestation.

    Permalink

    1. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

      Christopher S. Johnson Posted 4:51 pm
      27 Apr 2009

      That's been Gore's tack: Focus on electricity almost exclusively right now. The plug-in hybrid revolution will bring up the rear.

      Permalink

  3. neosapiens's avatar

    neosapiens Posted 2:04 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    The obvious solution is to reduce the scope of the problem by as many avenues as possible: conservation, efficiency, smart grid, cogeneration, natural gas, diluting coal with biomass, and all forms of renewable energy. If we have to make retail electricity more expensive, so be it. It's a life and death issue. We should not be distracted by people who want to keep their private gravy train going as long as possible. Science and not business interests must prevail in this matter. We can't wait for carbon sequestration to be developed. We have to do everything we can now, and if we someday can add carbon sequestration to our portfolio of strategies, that's fine--but we can't wait for it. There just isn't time.

    Permalink

  4. enviroperk Posted 2:51 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    If petroleum and coal are highly taxed, the problem will be most quickly solved. France solved it by eliminating oil imports and moving to nuclear power beginning in the 1970's. Other european countries have had success with high taxes. Only a financial tax will force change. There is no magic bullet. All alternative energy solutions come with a considerable price tag.
    Forcing conservation through taxation will produce results. Sadly, financial pain, not environmental concern, results in behavioral change. 

    Permalink

    1. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

      Christopher S. Johnson Posted 4:53 pm
      27 Apr 2009

      Couldn't believe the 60 Minutes piece didn't discuss putting a price on carbon.

      Permalink

  5. ancberg Posted 6:17 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    King Coal = Swine Fuel

    Permalink

  6. jude1321 Posted 9:06 pm
    27 Apr 2009

    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]> <style>
    st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
    </style>

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement