NBC: Coal trying to ‘cloak itself in green.’
NBC Nightly News reported last night on the multi-million-dollar PR campaign being orchestrated by the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices to promote the construction of enormous coal plants in Nevada. As NBC correspondent Anne Thompson points out, ABEC’s misleading campaign is “cloaking coal of once belching smokestacks in green.” Watch it:
In the segment, NASA scientist James Hansen says a moratorium on coal plant development is needed, or else “we don’t have any chance of stopping global climate change.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
58 Responses to “NBC: Coal trying to ‘cloak itself in green.’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Surveillance
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Just watch the smokestacks. Not much green except house gasses going up into the atmosphere.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 pmEh. Science, schmience.
We don’t need no steeenking science!!! Everyone knows the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that there’s no such thing a “global warming”!!
/snark
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pmLung-clogging smoke — the healthy alternative!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:10 pmI’m patiently waiting for the trolls to trot out the scientists who are demonstrably in the pocket of the energy companies and using their cherry-picked data to proclaim the fallacy of global warming.
I say… 1:15 Pm or thereabouts
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:10 pmJames Hansen must’ve snuck by the White House vetters to do this interview. Well done!
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm“Give ‘em more tax breaks!!!”
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm~reich-wing talking point 124,447,981
“Clean coal” attempting to cloak itself in green is like the the wolf attempting to cloak himself in Red Ridinghood’s granny’s nightie. It may look better, but still dangerous.
It sounds like technology has made coal energy cleaner than it was. This is good. However, we still have a few pesky emission problems — carbon dioxide, mercury, etc. that need to be addressed.
Here’s an idea — why not work on these problems instead of spending money on expensive PR campaigns that do little but lie to people? If we could get coal energy to leave but a small footprint on the earth, I’d be all for it. So would most people. And we wouldn’t need expensive ads to convince us.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pmEXPOSING CNN’S DARLING MAJOR POLLUTER AND SPONSOR OF THE DEMOCRATIC DEBATES?!?!?!
HOW EMBARRASSING FOR CNN!!!!!!!!!!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pmGee, I wonder why CNN isnt reporting on this….
Oh yeah, they’re bought and paid for by these same people. I wonder if the muzzle they placed on their reporters causes any of them any sleepless nights. I wish someone would have the balls to report on the influence of corporations on the news we watch.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pmI’m patiently waiting for the trolls to trot out the scientists who are demonstrably in the pocket of the energy companies and using their cherry-picked data to proclaim the fallacy of global warming.
I say… 1:15 Pm or thereabouts
Comment by raynman — February 22, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Just so we’re prepared, here’s a preemptive list of the most common climate skeptic myths and the science that debunks them:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pmThanks for the link, toasterhead. Nice site.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pmHere’s an idea — why not work on these problems instead of spending money on expensive PR campaigns that do little but lie to people? If we could get coal energy to leave but a small footprint on the earth, I’d be all for it. So would most people. And we wouldn’t need expensive ads to convince us.
Comment by missmolly — February 22, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Well, for the energy companies the math is easy:
Cost to produce a 30-second TV spot: $350,000
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pmCost to bring a new technology to market that would increase your maintenance costs and involve actually admitting to the world that your service is harmful to the environment: $gajillions
We need to build more nuclear power plants. Safe, consistant, and clean.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pmComment by Gin — February 22, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
It’s called walking. Try it some time.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pmIt’s called walking. Try it some time.
Comment by Zooey — February 22, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
That would work if you live within walking distance from your job. But if you don’t?
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pmSince all of you “progressives†seem to have replaced coal, oil and gas with some alternative power source wouldn’t it be a good idea to share? Even if us evil “deniers†don’t deserve it, wouldn’t that still clean up the environment?
Comment by Gin — February 22, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
In fact, there is a very cheap, safe, and renewable alternative power source that’s available today.
And the best part is that we don’t need to share, because you and your fellow trolls are already full of it!
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pmThere is soo much consternation in the world about energy, THIS IS THE TIME FOR AMERICA TO SHINE. There should be massive government spending on R&D for this. Small startups dont have the resources and the big corps dont want to cut off their $$ supply as they dont ever take the long view on anything. This is what government is for, this is what I want my tax dollars going to. It IS possible, the question is does our government have the vision to do anything about it?
BTW - the token gestures in the SOTU speeches are an insult.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 pmHere’s an idea — why not work on these problems instead of spending money on expensive PR campaigns that do little but lie to people?
Comment by missmolly — February 22, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Probably for the same reason we would invade a sovereign country instead of driving more fuel efficient vehicles.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pmComment by Gin — February 22, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Again, I’ll explain it for you…
We haven’t replaced these fossil fuels with anything yet, but we WOULD like to stop subsidising them because:
a. the technology is a dead-end
b. new technologies could use the money so that they COULD replace them
c. these companies are posting RECORD PROFITS and still asking for the government handouts
Solar and wind have the POTENTIAL to strengthen America throught the distribution of power distribution in addition to giving the American people “ownership” of their power production—
to review:
COAL, GAS, OIL- ineffecient welfare queens
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY- Strong on defense AND increase private participation!!!
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pmWhy aren’t you “conservatives” all over these alternative power sources?
That would work if you live within walking distance from your job. But if you don’t?
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
How about if we fair tax’d walking. would you be pro-walking then?
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pmThat would work if you live within walking distance from your job. But if you don’t?
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Uh, move? Get a different job? Get a bike? Carpool? Vanpool? Public transit?
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pmThat would work if you live within walking distance from your job. But if you don’t?
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Take the bus/train.
Move closer to your job.
Move your job closer to your home.
Ride your bike.
I’m sorry you’re having trouble coping with this dilemma.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:38 pmHeh. Jinx, gummitch!
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:38 pmWhy do Conservatives find it so easy to believe that a “magic” shield will protect them from all enemies for all time if only we were willing to spend TRILLIONS on it but fail to see how easy it would be to begin to wean ourselves from fossil fuels if the government got behind conservation and energy research just a little bit?
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pmhey belac, couldn’t agree with you more. Where are our (America’s) priorities???
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pmbelac ~ R&D in green technology does not add one penny to quarterly earnings..
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pmbelac ~ R&D in green technology does not add one penny to quarterly earnings..
Comment by RUCerious — February 22, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Not FY2008 quarterly earnings, anyway. I mean, it might add millions of dollars to FY2015 or FY2020 quarterly earnings, but who wants to think long-term like that?
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:45 pmHeh. Jinx, gummitch!
Comment by Zooey — February 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Great minds!
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:47 pmRUserious-
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 pmNo one can predict where pure research will lead… that’s why funding it is the governments role. No private company would have developed plastics, personal computer’s, or penicillin with out a government grant to support the initial research and discovery. Relying on private companies to steer R&D leads to SUV’s, sexual impotence drugs and subsidies for suckers…
This is just one more example of how big corps are screwing over this country and how Republicans are so wrong.
Listen folks, capitalism only works if corporations do what is in the best interest of themselves. The problem is that short term gain IS NOT always in their best insterests. I’ll go one step further and say that short term gain equals greed and avarace. Witness the subprime meltdown, how many banks have gone under???? Corporations need to re-learn how to be good citizens because it WILL benefit them in the long run.
Can you imagine the wealth of a company that comes up with a good alternative energy source.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:55 pmTake the bus/train.
Move closer to your job.
Move your job closer to your home.
Ride your bike.
I’m sorry you’re having trouble coping with this dilemma.
Comment by Zooey — February 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
I already fixed the dilemma. I have a Ford F150.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pmTake the bus/train.
Move closer to your job.
Move your job closer to your home.
Ride your bike.
Comment by Zooey — February 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
No bus or train that goes from my house to my job.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 pmI like my house and my job. so moving is not an option.
I ride my bike for fun.
No bus or train that goes from my house to my job.
I like my house and my job. so moving is not an option.
I ride my bike for fun.
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
So you have nothing to contribute except pollution. Nothing new here, you pollute just by living. lazy piece of redneck shit.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pmSo you have nothing to contribute except pollution. Nothing new here, you pollute just by living. lazy piece of redneck shit.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — February 22, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
So you walk. Never drive. Don’t berp or fart. Turn on any lights in your house.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 pmSmog is healthy, mercury in water is helpful, black is white, up is down, war is peace, republicans are honest….pretty much the opposite in todays Bush Speak World.
I used to ride my byke to work, till some REDNECK drove off the road onto the byke path to hit me, the judge was not nice to him.
Buck Fush
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 pmjpoke: “Gee, I wonder why CNN isnt reporting on this….”
Same reason why NBC or any of its partners don’t report on GE’s environmental problems.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 pmVA Voter: “I already fixed the dilemma. I have a Ford F150.”
Does it run on coal?
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pmjpoke: “Can you imagine the wealth of a company that comes up with a good alternative energy source.”
Yes, but I can also imagine that there are corporate interests which would work very hard to suppress the technology for that source.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:09 pmVA Voter-
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pmHere’s why market driven regulations don’t work:
1905 Ford Model T MPG- 25 and could run on ethanol, alchohol, or gasoline
2007 Ford f-150 MPG- 17 runs on gas… but not very efficiently
Back to the Future!
Should be 1908 Model T, sorry finger slipped
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pmbelac: “1905 Ford Model T MPG- 25 and could run on ethanol, alchohol, or gasoline”
Which is why Rockefeller gave lots of money to the prohibition movement. I hope nobody thought it was about “morals.”
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 pmNice try, Coal Industry, but the Romulan cloaking device only works on spaceships.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:13 pmI’m not pushing for coal. I’m pushing for nuclear.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pmThat would work if you live within walking distance from your job. But if you don’t?
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Uh, move? Get a different job? Get a bike? Carpool? Vanpool? Public transit?
Comment by gummitch — February 22, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
Take the bus/train.
Move closer to your job.
Move your job closer to your home.
Ride your bike.
I’m sorry you’re having trouble coping with this dilemma.
Comment by Zooey — February 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
These are all good suggestions for cutting down on automobile usage, but as much as I hate to admit it, VA Voter may have a somewhat valid point.
1) Moving closer to job. Many of us have jobs in urban areas and can’t afford to live there — best we can do is find a home in the suburban/exurban sprawl several miles away.
2) Get a different job. In today’s job market? Many of us are lucky to have the job we’ve already got. Switching jobs isn’t exactly an impulse move anymore.
3) Take public transit. Excellent idea if you live in a place that has a good system. Where I live, I would have to drive three miles just to get to a bus stop, take one bus toward downtown, transfer to another bus that gets me close to where I work, and then walk about two miles from the bus stop to my workplace. Repeat process in reverse to get home. Public transit is great when it’s practical, but it’s not practical for everyone.
4) Carpool/Vanpool. This is probably the most practical idea on the list, in that it’s doable most places. However, it’s inconvenient if you cannot be matched up with people who live and work in the same vicinity you do, and/or if your hours tend to be project-driven more than fixed.
5) Ride a bike. Great idea if you don’t have to dress up for work, if you don’t have to shlep a lot of stuff to work with you, if your community has bike lanes and friendly drivers, and if it doesn’t rain a lot. Some places (like Seattle and San Francisco) allow you to bring your bike onto a bus or subway, but unfortunately not during heavy commute times.
One alternative not mentioned is telecommuting, or working from home one or two days a week.
It’s always good to find ways to cut down on driving, but because so many of our cities have been laid out for the automobile instead of public transit, and have been built sprawling outward instead of upward, it’s tough for even environmentalists to escape the automobile.
Therefore, I will concede that VA Voter has a point. But even if you HAVE to drive to get places, you can still own a smaller more fuel efficient car, and consolidate trips (run all your errands at once) to use your fuel as efficiently as possible.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pmI’m not pushing for coal. I’m pushing for nuclear.
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
And nuclear power is clean, efficient, and problem free — until you get a Three Mile Island or Chernobyl incident, or you run out of secure space to store your nuclear waste.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm“we don’t have any chance of stopping global climate change.â€
Sadly, I agree 100% with this statement.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 pmI’m not pushing for coal. I’m pushing for nuclear.
Comment by VA Voter — February 22, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
I’m not buying Blu-ray, I’m buying HD-DVD… yeah, I know it’s yesterday’s news but alot of people I know have them already and it works really well… plus I think people will be nostalgic for the little brown boxes in a few years and Toshiba will stage a comeback… Will anyone be nostalgic for cooling towers and nuclear waste?
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:27 pmComment by Gin — February 22, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
One more time… despite what you’ve heard on the EIB network not one of us here is advocating that you stop using electricity altogether. All we’re saying is that sticking with fossil fuels to generate that electricity is a dead end… If you can think about conservation of electricty that’s a great place to start- I certainly wouldn’t mind if you unplugged your computer at this moment…
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 pmhow excellent to see nbc take on the nasty coal energy. good thing that network isn’t compromised in any way… oh wait:
General Electric’s Nuclear-Powered Returns
Tara Murphy, 05.18.01, 2:30 PM ET
NEW YORK - President Bush’s energy plan sounds like a renaissance for nuclear energy, proposing to increase reactors at U.S. licensed plants. The plan is a vision covered in red tape, but won’t likely impact investors’ wallets in the near term.
Most experts don’t see a new nuclear plant being built for decades due to the onerous licensing process and environmental issues, such as storing radioactive waste. But Bush wants to add reactors to current plants and that may clear the bureaucracy faster. U.S. companies haven’t been building plants here, but they’ve been active in more nuke-friendly countries and are ready to reap the benefits in the U.S. when the time comes.
“If the U.S starts building nuclear plants in significant numbers, that would have to be looked at, but we’re pretty active,” says John Redding, manager of marketing and public affairs of GE Nuclear Energy, a unit of General Electric (nyse: GE - news - people ).
GE, which supplied many of the reactors when U.S. plants were being built in the 1970s and 1980s, is building two plants in Taiwan and constructed two nuclear plants for Tokyo Electric Power, which have been running for four years.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 pmComment by linda — February 22, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Glad to see that you listen to Glenn Beck as well. For me it’s mostly entertainment value as there is very little accurate information but live and let live, I guess.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmYes, General Electric is in the business of making Electricity- a clear conflict of interest. So I propose that we remove corporations from the media entirely… public airwaves~ public television! Can I count on your support?
I don’t mean to observe something that shows my ‘grasp of the obvious is at times astounding’ but I’m compelled to say . . .
We’ve been seeing the corporations out of control for quite a few years now . I’ve been thinking for quite a while that something’s got to give. They can’t really think that record profits can be sustained year after year . Yet they try like hell to make it happen.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:46 pmI mean, they’ve squeezed the employee until there’s no blood left, they destroy the environment at will and completely, they outsource like mad to make another greedy buck.
It’s got to stop.
VA Voter: “I’m not pushing for coal. I’m pushing for nuclear.”
Then, I assume that as a good citizen of Virginia, you’ve figured out where IN Virginia you’d like to store the nuclear waste.
February 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pmThen, I assume that as a good citizen of Virginia, you’ve figured out where IN Virginia you’d like to store the nuclear waste.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — February 22, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Simple! Just stick it under one of those mountains in West Virginia.
Oh wait…
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pmHere’s the problem with the global warming stuff.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pmIt takes the focus off the more immediate problems that come from PRODUCTION of fossil fuels. Oil refineries and coal mines are disgusting sources of pollution.
Here’s the problem with the global warming stuff.
It takes the focus off the more immediate problems that come from PRODUCTION of fossil fuels. Oil refineries and coal mines are disgusting sources of pollution.
Comment by Alejandro — February 22, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
This is kind of like saying “the problem with worrying about the cancer-causing effects of cigarette smoking is that it takes the focus off of emphysema and heart disease.”
We need to look at the problem holistically.
Climate change is just one of many environmental issues related to the use of fossil fuels. From fossil-fuel derived fertilizers degrading soils and poisoning ecosystems, to fossil-fuel derived plastics entering the food chain and killing fish to Dutch Disease, fossil fuels are the source of massive environmental and social problems. We as a society need to wean ourselves off of them in all areas. It’s not just how we fuel our power plants or gas up our cars, but what we eat, what we buy, and where these come from.
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 pmComment by toasterhead — February 22, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Good point-
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 pmWHERE COAL SHOULD BE PLACED:
UP THE RECTUMS OF BIG COAL COMPANIES’ EXECUTIVES!
Comment by raymundohpl — February 22, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
… in five years, we’d have diamonds!
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:18 pmWife and I spent 2 weeks in China last November. As everyone knows they have coal burning power plants everywhere. The air pollution there was absolutely unbelievable. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should spend time there. My lungs are just now clearing.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm