According to AP, at least 48 coal plants are being contested in 29 states:
From lawsuits and administrative appeals against the companies, to lobbying pressure on federal and state regulators, the coordinated offensive against coal is emerging as a pivotal front in the debate over global warming.
Music to my ears.
Naturally, the industry forecasts an apocalyptic future where ponies eat puppies and rainbows cry tears of blood:
Industry representatives say the environmentalists' actions threaten to undermine the country's fragile power grid, setting the stage for a future of high-priced electricity and uncontrollable blackouts.
Uncontrollable blackouts?! That would suck.
You know, greens are always getting flack for predictions of doom that don't pan out. How come that narrative doesn't stick to industry, which has forecast catastrophe in response to every single environmental initiative ever?
Meanwhile, guess who's spending more?
Nilles said the Sierra Club spent about $1 million on such efforts in 2007 and hopes to ratchet that figure up to $10 million this year.
Meanwhile, coal interests are pouring even more into a promotional campaign launched by the industry group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. It spent $15 million last year and expects to more than double that to $35 million in 2008, said the group's director, Joe Lucas.
Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7
Comments
View as Flat
Alex 77 Posted 6:39 am
17 Jan 2008
$35 million buys a helluva lot of influence in one year, and there needs to be a countervailing program to publicize the lies and distortions this coal industry PR will bring. I'd like to see a "Inconvenient Truth" style documentary focused purely on coal, coal interests, coal PR, and the consequences of its proliferation.
Permalink
Solarspike Posted 7:01 am
17 Jan 2008
People are more addicted to electricity than oil. If king coal decides to make electric power unreliable, as they did during the deregulation fiasco in California, they can do so and blame the environmentalists and renewable energy.
Economics are not enough to drive the renewable energy market. NanoSolar is now producing Photovoltaics that make electricity more cheaply than coal. They are produced in sunny California and shipped to Germany? Why because the policy is right in Germany.
We need a national referendum supporting Feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. Then we can stop fighting king coal power plant to power plant.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:18 am
17 Jan 2008
Maybe someone will do a business seminar one day on the effectiveness of continually calling coal the enemy of the human race.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:17 pm
17 Jan 2008
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 3:06 pm
17 Jan 2008
Keep it up! The more we repeat it, the better.
Permalink
FuriaFubar Posted 9:25 am
18 Jan 2008
The prospect of oil in the previously unreachable areas of the North Pole has sabres rattling in a number of nations...which means there is no intention of turning away from fossil fuels by the powers-that-be. And, unfortunately, the coal folks have more money than the good guys.
All the Best,
Furia -
http://www.xanga.com/furia_fubar
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 4:56 am
19 Jan 2008
solarspike has it exactly right. if utilities in the US were forced to BUY BACK 100% of power generated by every single person in this country, and if the government offered those massive subsidies, grants and tax breaks to individuals instead of huge corporations, within 10 years this nation would be almost entirely decentralized.
it is sooooo irritating to see reporting (and Sierra Club policies) centering all around maintaining utility chokeholds and the "remote generation and long distance transmission" model of the 19th century.
game over, guys - you had a good run, but now you are getting phased out in favor of energy independence, even if it is grid-tied. if you want to work with us, and revolutionize your business model, great. if not, hasta la vista, baby!
let's lobby a little harder for benefits of our TAX DOLLARS to finally come to US!!!
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:11 am
19 Jan 2008
Like the interstate highway system (hopefully Hillary administration policies can add high speed commuter rail to the median) and national electrification, government lead projects, this green grid that carries internet too, can bring the economy back from the brink as FDR's policies did in the great depression.
Instead of Hoover Dam, Al Gore National Wind Farm. hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
JeffB Posted 10:24 am
19 Jan 2008
Permalink
nycowboy Posted 1:17 am
22 Jan 2008
There also was little to no pollution controls on power plants in the early 1970s. People still had no idea on how to control nitrogen oxides from power plants in that era, and sulfur emission control was still pretty limited.
There is no question that we could make the kind of change we made in the 1970s and 1980s with both emissions and reliability if we put some effort and money into it. How dirty are major cities where in the early 1970s (we still used PCBs, lead, and asbestos everywhere then) compared to now -- which is truly amazing.
Does anybody even remember how the skeptics said the Clean Air Act of 1970 would bankrupt the country and be impossible to implement? Or that it would be impossible to lead out of gasoline, or DDT off the fields?
I think if we compare 1970 to 1990s, and the progress we made, there is a lot of hope for a clean energy and conservation in our country.
Permalink