Speaking of reasons climate legislation is going to be impossible this year: It's good to see the Washington Post pick up on the coal industry's massive lobbying effort.
The focus is Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), which we've discussed before. WaPo's Steven Mufson uncovered a few details. Right now, ABEC is spending $1.3 million for ads in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina (not coincidentally, early primary states). It's also deploying street teams on the campaign trail, with human billboards handing out propaganda outside events. And this tidbit is particularly (darkly) amusing: "An ad targeting that [Lieberman-Warner climate] bill is currently being shown on video monitors at the baggage carousels at Dulles International Airport."
"We'd like to say that you don't get to be president unless you understand how complicated this issue is," says ABEC executive director Joe Lucas. I frequently have people scold me that "coal is the enemy of the human race" is "too simplistic." Well, ABEC is trying quite hard to convince the public and lawmakers that it's very, very complicated. Why do you think that is? Why do you think they work so hard to resist having a simple message get through?
The industry is putting lots of money behind that effort to complicate the message:
The coal mining industry is fighting back. It increased the budget of the National Mining Association, the industry's main lobbying group, by 20 percent this year, to $19.7 million. Last September, the industry also boosted the budget of Americans for Balanced Energy Choices more than fourfold. The roster of backers includes 28 companies and trade associations such as Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Duke Energy, Southern Co. and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
Kudos to Mufson for this:
The group says in a TV ad that the price of coal is one-third that of other fuels. But coal prices have risen, albeit not as much as oil. And environmentalists and economists argue that the price of coal does not include substantial environmental costs.
Could be better (the price of coal does not include all sorts of costs, not just "environmental"), but at least it gets the counter-argument out there.
Finally a note on this:
"Big coal may launch a 'Harry and Louise'-style disinformation campaign to sink global warming solutions in Congress," said Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress.
One of the coal industry group's radio ads hints at those themes. A woman asks: "How can we become less dependent on foreign resources? What fuels will keep power bills reasonable and be environmentally responsible?" A man responds, "We have many questions for our candidates, and coal has to be part of the discussion."
Big Coal "may" launch a disinformation campaign?! They have already launched it. It is raging, and only going to get more intense. Are green groups or climate concerned lawmakers prepared with a counter-message?
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Flat
GreenMom Posted 4:04 am
19 Jan 2008
Green groups need an ad campaign with lots of pictures of clean power being deployed right now. We should run commercials showing off wind farms, big solar in the desert, et. al., and narrated by the Governator (he'd do it -- California mostly doesn't use coal). Then show blown-off mountaintops as the alternative.
We need a benefactor to pay for the ads, to counter the coal industry -- Google, are you listening? Or Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, maybe?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:39 am
19 Jan 2008
Or alternatively use "green and inexpensive"
_
But as mentioned before
This is why I hate the "Foreign Sources of Energy / Peak Oil" arguments.
Since largely we don't have a shortage of energy, and as long as oil is valuable, oil barons will still get lots of money from it. With which they can still continue to do Washington lobbying with.
_
Remember, setting the basis of the argument about whats important practically determines the outcomes.
Getting off Dirty Energy is much more important than getting off Foreign Energy.
And has far stronger national and global security implications.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news ...
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 6:37 am
19 Jan 2008
the stereotype Green is an angry fanatic INSISTING that people starve to save the endangered snail darters
I have seen lots of union bumper stickers with anit-enviro slogans
When coal says that Greens are attacking your pocketbook, Green arguments about hidden costs (not obviously out of your paycheck) and why we must pay the cost of getting rid of coal, are not going to resonate, I bet.
I could be wrong. I do not really know. I am not an expert.
But I think we need to hype alternative energy available NOW. And push for the types of broad programs of modest measures (weather-proofing, geo units for cooling) etc. that Panogolin (sp?) was pushing yesterday.
Let the dry, reticient scientists keep their place as the clarion against the apocolypse.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 7:15 am
19 Jan 2008
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
ids Posted 3:18 pm
19 Jan 2008
a big Nevada adviser to Obama who is also heavily promoting coal, adviser Billy Vassiliadis is the PR and advertising firm for a coal industry front group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices
http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-coal-co ...
Permalink
ids Posted 3:33 pm
19 Jan 2008
"Like it or not, it's just politically implausible that there's not going to be an energy economy that doesn't include coal in the near future," he said.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id= ...
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:55 am
20 Jan 2008
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:03 am
20 Jan 2008
Many coal plants, even traditional ones, meet "environmental standards". "Environmental standards" for coal plants in the United States don't include GHG emissions. It mostly pertains to things like sulfur and mercury content of release.
Sayin' they meet environmental standards is no big deal, 'cause our environmental standards don't include releases of CO2 and other GHGs.
Don't let 'em greenwash ya by sayin' that they meet "environmental standards".
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 2:40 am
20 Jan 2008
Coal companies trumpeting that coal is dirty, but promising to fix it.
My guess is that the main effect will be to remind viewers "coal is dirty."
time will tell
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 8:49 am
20 Jan 2008
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
simpsonss Posted 11:35 pm
20 Jan 2008
WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?
Coal, which destroys the environment (and laborers) in the process of getting it, and THEN, pollutes the world, AND THEN, releases carbon emissions.
Or...investing billions to launch a man-to-the-moon type program and vision to find a credible renewable energy source?
The resources are there. We all know it. We just need to put some money, like Google, into more R & D.
What angers me is that Democrats don't have the spine to stand up and say, hey, let's invest billions into renewable energy sources so we don't have to rely on coal.
See Jeff Biggers' post, Coal Truth on Candidates on HuffPo the other day. He calls the Demos on the carpet and points out:
"our entire federal alternative energy budget is less than a week of expenditures in Iraq?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/the-coal-truth ...
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:06 am
21 Jan 2008
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
greendays1 Posted 1:36 am
21 Jan 2008
which side am I on:
"On some positions a coward has asked the question is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right."
- Martin Luther King Jr., November 1967
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 3:13 am
21 Jan 2008
I live in the heart of the Appalachian Coal fields, Pike County Ky. I live directly under a Mountain Top Removal. A stone's throw, from the subject matter. I was born in a coal company house and my father died in a roof fall in an East Ky. Coal mine. I place articles in local Newspapers and tell my friends right here in the middle of coal country that they are wrong to the bone with what they are doing to the land. I put myself at risk with my convictions. Anyone can use the safety and cover of an online environmental site to spout about their convictions to their cause. "On some Positions a coward has asked the question is it safe" Come down and walk a mile in my shoes, dodge the 18 wheel coal trucks that run you off the road and watch the bullets kick up dust when the guards let you know you are getting a little to close with your camera. I fight MTR where it is done, and fight my friends who are doing it. You look good in print my friend, you talk the talk, come down here with me and walk the walk.
"Attack your enemy where he the weakest and not in his strong place"
Sun Tzu
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 4:18 am
21 Jan 2008
That is enough heat to generate a lifetime supply of electricity for an average American.
The 5.4 ounces of fission products are less radioactive than uranium ore in 300 years.
Permalink
greendays1 Posted 5:25 am
21 Jan 2008
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 7:25 am
21 Jan 2008
My frustration also comes with a sense of urgency. A coal company has obtained a permit to mine a 6000 ft. stream area at Fishtrap in Pike Co. Ky. That permit area stream runs right into the lake. I just know from the topography this will be a Mountain Top Removal and Valley Fill. I not only live below a MTR I also live below this Dam as does several communities and one fair sized town here in Pike County.
Unbelievable if it were not for the fact it is starring us in the face.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 11:20 am
21 Jan 2008
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink