The following is a reply I made on 9JUN2010 to a post made on facebook back on 2JUN2010 related to the realities of "Clean Coal" as it was used in the lexicon of the time, by a collegue of mine, Colin Bennett of the George Mason University Sustainability Office. While a tad old, I thought I needed to get it into my blog posts for some wider readership than a reply to a facebook post gives.
"Colin,
Thanks for the open letter and I greatly appreciate your perspective and taking on this issue. I too agree we need to call things as they really are, and “----- coal” is simply not clean from a purely objective, bottom line point of view.I do have two comments on this however:
1) One of the tragedies of environmental and energy sustainability is the hyper-sensitivity of the general public to the drawbacks to nuclear energy. When you say “nuclear” two things come to mind: a) a mushroom cloud or b) the fallout of Chernobyl. We have to recognize that so long as we require energy to live our lives (and turning back the clock on technology and a way of life without it is highly unlikely) we have to have an energy source to power them. There is no energy source, NONE, that does not have a draw back in some way that has potential to hurt the environment. Nuclear is no exception, and I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. But I will state that most people discount it so rapidly because of the over-hyped, over-scared, over-stigmatized campaign that was waged for the entirety of the Cold War period. The immediacy of the end of the world as a result of nuclear war, and radiation, was pressed upon insidiously through all forms of media and was amazing pervasive. The parsing of the difference between a rocket with a nuclear warhead and the image of the cooling tower as being distinct and starkly unrelated was never emphasized in this context. Consequently, pressing now, like many nations have, for energy independence through the use of nuclear energy is not just smirked at in some circles, but seen as antithetical to being environmentally friendly. I bring this up in relation to “----- coal” because, I think all of us who are fighting for the world to reduce GHG emissions, need to remember this past history and not over stigmatize something to the point that we have done with nuclear energy. I say this because of point #2.
2) With regards to fossil fuels, specifically, when we look at defining the broader “sustainable energy future” we must recognize that there are two ways to define “sustainable” that may or may not be congruent.
The first, which I think we both subscribe to, is based upon a world-wide view of ecology, resources, and sociology that desires us to overall reduce our net consumption of the earth and, if possible, enable it to be in balance such that the current net ecological trends can be reversed or at least stabilized for the future, infinatum.
The second, which we have to acknowledge, is that a society uses such resources at its disposal such that they are renewed or enable continued growth in such a way as to not further curtail consumption or enable us to continue in the social norms we have for the foreseeable future and doing so without harm to others or the planet, as much as is possible, at the same time.
While we would all like to see the end of fossil fuel emissions as a way to stop the vast majority of GHG emissions, I will tell you that no matter what happens in the future, burning things to get energy from them will remain fundamental in societies as the grow, especially in the developing world, for the decades, if not centuries, to come. This is mainly because much of the global south finds itself either in a position where it is prohibitive to develop non GHG power generation schemes (capital outlays and credit extensions are out of reach for massive solar, wind, or hydro projects) or they are banned from them (fear of any kind of nuclear proliferation is at the cornerstone of this). As a result of this, many of these nation states will continue to try to use definition #2 of sustainability, if they are even that egalitarian. So finding ways to better burn things (e.g. "cleaner"), such as dirty coal, is not an unworthy investment of time, material and human energy; and, honesty, should be encouraged. We just have long way to go to the point where fossil fuels are going to be dinosaurs again. One of our keys to making sustainability work is making an economic model that turns environmental stewardship into a net profit maker, not a “cost of business”, and, while it isn’t a final or “best” solution, developing and looking to use “----- coal” technology, until we can realize an economy that does not ignore the maxims of the first definition of sustainability, we have to press some measures that are interim and at least making a step in the right direction.
Thanks again for your heartfelt and on target plea. And I thank you for the chance to comment on it to ensure that the “green dialogue” is indeed a dialogue that all can get into."
All,
ReplyDeleteHere is Colin's Original Letter, to give you context.
"An open letter to all opponents of coal
George Mason University Office of Sustainability
Wednesday, 2 June 2010, 8:54 p.m.
By Colin Bennett
Coal is dirty. Everyone knows that. Saying otherwise is like saying that the Earth is flat; it’s just not true. The negative connotation that comes when people think about coal is practically part of our national psyche. Consider that the majority of children raised in the United States during the last century grew up being told that if they were bad, they would get a lump of coal for Christmas. Or, consider the images of a boy from 19th-Century America like Dick Van Dyke’s chimney sweep character in Mary Poppins, covered in soot, holding his broom. Even more people can probably picture a miner, face darkened with coal dust, sick, even dying, from black lung.
The point is that people already know that coal is dirty; thus, in the fight against mountaintop removal and the expansion of coal-fired power plants, we already have the advantage. But the coal industry and its supporters are feeling the heat; just a few short years ago, very few people were talking about coal. I certainly don’t remember seeing any advertisements about coal at all. Now, in face of looming climate legislation, they are spending vast sums of money spreading the lie of so-called "clean" coal. Unfortunately, though the deck is stacked against them, they are gaining ground.
Take the 2008 presidential campaign, for instance: both Senator John McCain and then Senator Barack Obama espoused "clean coal," while they crisscrossed the country. The reason for their language is obvious (albeit inconsequential). What is important is the fact that they got away with it. The coal industry, in a few short years, has successfully bamboozled much of the U.S. public into believing that "clean" coal is possible. President Obama even talked about “clean coal” his State of the Union address. Unfortunately, so many current anti-coal campaigns are perpetuating the problem; they are using the language of the coal lobby thereby legitimizing that position. The Coen Brothers television spot (put out by thisisreality.org) is cute but it ultimately just legitimizes the coal lobby’s claim. Quite frankly, I am disappointed. We are letting the coal industry frame the debate, thereby losing the high ground.
ReplyDeleteWe can still regain the upper hand and win the fight against coal. In order to do that we need to stop using the term, "clean coal," even when it is immediately followed or preceded by "there’s no such thing as." Simply saying, "clean coal," puts a wedge into people’s minds that clean coal could be a reality.
Let me give you an example: Santa Claus. As soon as you hear, or in this case, read, the words "Santa Claus," an image of a jolly old man with a white beard and a red suit pops into your head. The same is true when you hear about the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy, or unicorns. Everyone knows that these things do not actually exist, yet, most people could describe, probably in vivid detail, what each of these mythical beings look like, all the while knowing they don’t exist. Of course, each of these examples are present, be it in children’s books, Hollywood movies, or embodied by a person in a red suit ringing a bell on a street corner in December. Even though "clean" coal fortunately doesn’t have quite the same status as Santa Claus, the coal industry’s goal is clearly to get the idea that coal can be clean into the minds of as many people as possible.
Many people have undoubtedly seen the picture of the shiny black piece of coal with a power cord sticking out of it, accompanied by the caption "Clean coal means celebrating our energy independence 365 days a year." There’s nothing apparently dirty about that shiny black piece of coal. In fact, one could argue that the shiny black piece of coal looks downright clean. This is their attempt to create an image of ‘clean coal’ that people can reference in their minds when they hear the term "clean" coal; like Santa Claus and unicorns, although fantastical, ‘clean coal’ will exist if repeated enough.
ReplyDeleteSo here is my suggestion: stop validating the term "clean coal" with its use. Completely eliminate the term from everything you do. Coal is dirty. Period. Perpetuate that reality, not the myth of so-called "clean" coal. Reinforce the images that people already have of coal. We should spend our money and time showing people the images that will remind them about how dirty coal really is. Although I’m not in the advertising industry, I have a suggestion for a television commercial. It’s just a rough description but you should get the picture.
Start with historical shots that exemplify the fact that coal is dirty: begin with the miner and the boy covered in soot, show chimneys billowing black smoke circa 19th century Pittsburgh, and men shoveling coal into furnaces. The narrator (I’m thinking Dick Van Dyke) says "Coal is dirty. Since the time that humans first started burning coal, first for heat, then for transportation, and now for electricity, we have been polluting our atmosphere at an astronomical rate." With each example, a corresponding image should be presented, such as: a coal stove, a steam engine, a coal-fired power plant, a city shrouded in smog. The narrator continues, "Now, with mountaintop removal, coal companies are destroying entire communities and ecosystems, making coal dirtier than ever, yet the coal companies are spending millions upon millions of dollars trying to trick you into thinking otherwise. Don’t believe the hype. Coal is dirty. Period."
It might not be perfect but I definitely think it gets the point across: Coal is dirty. Repeat that message and repeat it often. The cards are stacked in our favor; if we play our hand correctly we can win this battle."