One thing the coal industry seems to get, but that isn't yet common public knowledge, is how fragile it is. It's a filthy relic of the 19th century and a rational society with a free and open energy market would have ditched it already. It has survived almost purely based on inertia -- its stranglehold on the political process and the persistence of various myths (like, say, the myth that it can be cheap and clean, or the myth that we can't meet our needs with renewables).
As those myths meet reality and the U.S. starts taking global warming seriously, plans for new coal plants are running into resistance, as chronicled in this Washington Post piece from Steven Mufson.
It can't be overstated how important it is for people to rise up in opposition to coal now. Once there's a price on carbon, it will be clear to everyone that new coal is grossly expensive and counterproductive. The coal industry is racing to get as many plants as possible built and grandfathered before climate change legislation hits:
"There is a slug of projects, maybe as many as 40, that are desperately trying to get their permits, and we are doing everything we can to make sure those investments don't happen," said Bruce Nilles, a Sierra Club lawyer. "Once you do an honest assessment of global warming and the threat it presents ... these coal plants are the worst legacy we can leave to the next generation."
Meanwhile, we hear the same old lines from the same old industry shills:
"In fast-growing areas, there's a need to build coal plants," said Frank Maisano, a lobbyist with Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents a variety of coal firms and utilities. He said that while coal opponents had won "a victory here and there," coal remains "an important part of the diverse fuel supply that we have. ... We have to use coal and use it as cleanly as possible, and environmentalists are going to have to live with that."
We "have to" use coal exactly as long as people believe we have to. But this is a free country, Frank. We don't have to keep your industry alive if we don't want to.
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Flat
Kit Stolz Posted 8:30 am
06 Sep 2007
"I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers, and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."
I've wondered about this myself. Obviously, some young people are concerned about global warming, but most seem no more concerned about it than people in older generations, even though they're sure to suffer more. Why is that? Shifting baselines? A lack of imagination? Or -- ?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:59 am
06 Sep 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:11 am
06 Sep 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Jones Posted 10:28 am
06 Sep 2007
I dunno. Maybe I'm making too big a deal, but that phrase seems to speak volumes more than the shrill warnings and dour resignation that the environmental camp usually puts out. Even the celebs, when they spout their eco-drivel, sound a bit like they've been body-snatched. Not exactly deep thoughts.
Enviros would do well to remember the power communication can have as an art--a subtle but potentially strong one. A turn of phrase that puts things succinctly and intelligently will connect more deeply than the usual litany, or the why-the-hell-don't-you-care-about-this-as-much-as-me-don't-you-know-you're-going-to-DIE?
I mean, don't we remember what happened to Fat Homer when he did that?
I'm just saying...
Permalink
Jo2 Posted 10:51 am
06 Sep 2007
Permalink