Al Gore leads new ‘Reality’ Coalition to debunk ‘clean coal’ myth.
Al Gore leads new ‘Reality’ Coalition to debunk ‘clean coal’ myth.
Today, Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, the League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club launched the “Reality” Coalition, a national grassroots and advertising effort to tell a simple truth: there is no such thing as “clean coal.” The coalition is arguing that coal cannot be considered clean until its carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored, and that until coal is truly clean, there should be no new coal-fired power plants built in America. Watch their new ad:
“The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions promoting ‘clean coal’ technology, but in reality, there is not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of coal’s CO2 emissions,” Gore said. “The industry must make good its promise if they truly want to do their part to solve the climate crisis. Until that happens, coal cannot be called ‘clean.’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This is great, I just signed on. Strength in numbers will successfully overcome the coal/oil/gas robber barons.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:50 amWith the pure bloodlust-hatred so many harbor for Gore, why doesn’t he find a better spokesperson?
Hire a PR firm and let’s start making real progress toward teaching people about reality.
Gore’s name always shifts focus away from the problem and onto him, which, no matter how hard we try, will NEVER change.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:50 amGood for Al Gore. Obama’s “clean coal” rhetoric during the campaign was one of the very few elements of his message that troubled me.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:54 amThere is clean coal and then there is clean coal technology. I believe that there should be investments for research and development of the technology itself, but that until such time this technology has proven itself, not a single new coal plant should be built in the U.S. It’s bad enough that the world has to contend with these plants built overseas, especially in China. The coal companies p.r. leads Americans to believe that this technology already exists, when it certainly does NOT.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:05 amMaybe with a President without the Luddite mindset of Dubya, research and actual implementation of clean coal technology can be started.
We have to remember, when you’re in a hole, the first thing we do is get out of the hole before we start building….
December 4th, 2008 at 10:07 amWhile Mr. Gore continues his attempts at debunking coal, the Right continues trying to debunk Mr. Gore.
Of course, the EPA supports blowing the tops off pristine mountains, while letting the sludge & debris runoff into streams & rivers.
Who’s correct on this?
(clue #1: Fresh water will become more valuable than coal within our children’s lifetimes.)
December 4th, 2008 at 10:10 amok – first, i must say i totally agree with the ‘reality’ position…
however:
The coalition is arguing that coal cannot be considered clean until its carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored, and that until coal is truly clean, there should be no new coal-fired power plants built in America.
how do we find this out without building the experimental plants?
this would explain why gore did not want any cabinet position… obama’s illinois still wants to build that FutureGen plant in mattoon…
December 4th, 2008 at 10:10 amWe have a dear friend that completely subscribes to the rw agenda. We recently had a discussion with her about “clean coal.” She completely bought into the idea and told us that there were traps and filters that took the carbon dioxide out of the gases and left the gas escaping to the atmosphere perfectly clean. She felt that it was already proven and in operation so she couldn’t understand why were we so not with the program. This is a very bright, community-minded woman with many talents, but the rw has her mind.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:12 amDNFP…you are saying that Al Gore is a drag on the environmental movement and alternative energy movements because ignorant right-wingers pick on him?
In case you hadn’t noticed he’s driven the issues in the public discourse more than anyone else. An Inconvenient Truth was one of the most successful documentaries of all time. He has access to policy makers–especially the new administration which is vitally important, and he has the support of the scientific community. That makes him the most effective public authority on the issues.
Were it not for Gore we wouldn’t even be having these public discussions. As the right wing nuts attacked him it just highlighted their own moral and intellectual bankruptcy. The majority public accepts Climate Change as fact and supports efforts to mitigate its effects, thanks to Gore’s efforts.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am“The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions promoting ‘clean coal’ technology, but in reality, there is not a single large-scale demonstration project in the United States for capturing and safely burying all of coal’s CO2 emissions,” Gore said.
but there WAS a project in the works… just that illinois won the project and not TEXAS… gee, wonder why dubya’s energy dept. nixed that one… hmmmm…
December 4th, 2008 at 10:14 amThe coal companies p.r. leads Americans to believe that this technology already exists, when it certainly does NOT.
There is no such thing as “clean coal.” It’s an intrinsically dirty resource. It is never gonna be better than energy-neutral, with the requirements of producing it outweighing or barely eqquivalent to the energy it might produce.
The Feds should spend as much developing alternate technologies as it has spent and still spends to prop up the traditional industries.
This will happen when rabbits grow gills…or when it becomes possible for the energy hegemons to monopolize and exploit for enormous profit. Until then, we can all pound sand…
December 4th, 2008 at 10:17 amI have what may seem like a stupid question. I’m no fan of flinging tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but how does one “store” it? Put it in barrels and truck them off to a landfill? Build gigantic tanks for it? Put it in rocketships and blast it off into space? I suspect any solution to storing CO2 will create new environmental and/or energy consumption problems.
Maybe someday in the future, somebody will figure out a way to split CO2 molecules into C and O2 in a way that doesn’t consume more energy than was originally produced when all the CO2 was created (and think of how this technology would be helpful to astronauts and divers!). Yes — I know I’ve been reading too many sci-fi comic books.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:18 amMost of what we enjoy today with regards to technology first appeared as science fiction
December 4th, 2008 at 10:23 am:)
misshusseinmolly Says: …Yes — I know I’ve been reading too many sci-fi comic books.
Good morning. I credit my sci-fi interests as a child with broadening many of my technology interests as an adult, but I probably read ‘too many’, as well.
It’s my understanding that Montana is as close as anyone in ‘clean coal’.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:25 amThe caveat is that they don’t actually ’scrub’ it, but rather ’sequester’ it.
In other words, they pump it back underground in the vacant spaces resulting from the coal that was removed. Granted, that may be a temporary solution, but it does prevent the CO2 from rising into our atmosphere.
katy–how do we find this out without building the experimental plants?
Well the coal industry hasn’t even proposed building any experimental plants. They just want to go ‘on-line’ with their definition of ‘clean-coal’ plants.
They have fought tooth and nail against cleaning up their existing plants, and whilst touting ‘clean-coal’ in a PR blitz (without actually offering any supporting evidence) they never mention anything about the mining methods they would employ ( which of course is particularly important as as expanding the industry is implied given that the whole idea is to replace oil as a major energy source.
They also avoid talking about how they will process waste–which currently they are allowed to dump into rivers.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:29 amThere is clean coal technology. It is expensive, and hasn’t been proven on a large scale. The energy in coal can be converted to natural gas, gasoline, jet fuel, or any other liquid fuel and it has been done since WW2. The trick is the CO2 capture and the technology is there, but not perfected.
Throw a few billion towards research to capture the carbon and sequester it. Mining coal sucks, there’s no way around that, but the Powder River Basin itself has enough coal to fuel the US for 300 years. And after reclamation, these prairies look about the same as before. Not mountain top mining in West Virginia. Mr. Peabody’s coal train done hauled it away and the antelope don’t mnd.
First and foremost we need to lower our consumption. Then invest in renewables. But clean coal and (gasp!) nuclear need to be part of a realistic answer.
For those who question my cred, I am probably greener than 75% of those here. I could be in prison for life for some of my “protests” against logging companies.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:30 am“Clean coal” is ripe for the oxy-moron list.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:35 ammisshusseinmolly: Maybe someday in the future, somebody will figure out a way to split CO2 molecules into C and O2 in a way that doesn’t consume more energy than was originally produced when all the CO2 was created
What is a tree, Alex!
December 4th, 2008 at 10:35 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
Maybe someday in the future, somebody will figure out a way to split CO2 molecules into C and O2 in a way that doesn’t consume more energy than was originally produced when all the CO2 was created (and think of how this technology would be helpful to astronauts and divers!). Yes — I know I’ve been reading too many sci-fi comic books.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I’m pretty sure this technology already exists. In fact, it’s been in use for at least 3.4 billion years already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
December 4th, 2008 at 10:36 amThe usual way of ‘capturing’ CO2 is by sinking it into the oceans.
Problem is, sequestering CO2 in the seas makes the oceans more acidic.
They’re already becoming more acidic than, say, most coral reefs can stand, and there isn’t time for these species (not corals alone) to adapt.
so, we humans can keep on using carbon-based energy and subsist for a while, at the price of killing off the oceans.
i don’t think we’re worth it…
December 4th, 2008 at 10:37 amtokin librul Says:
The usual way of ‘capturing’ CO2 is by sinking it into the oceans.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
________
That’s one way, but not the only way. The other way is to capture it in plants. Tropical rainforests are perhaps the most efficient carbon sink on the planet.
Unfortunately, the Indonesians and Brazilians and Ecuadorians and others who live in these rainforests continue to consider their forests more valuable for slash-and-burn agriculture than carbon sequestration.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:39 amnanlichi: First and foremost we need to lower our consumption. Then invest in renewables. But clean coal and (gasp!) nuclear need to be part of a realistic answer.
I quite agree. It would be foolish to replace one single source dependency for another. That’s basically what the coal industry wants to do, and of course they don’t want any competition so they can then control supply and demand.
Say , has anyone noticed that the Nuclear Industry hasn’t been running an equivalent PR campaign? I wonder why that is?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:44 amhussein toaterhead has it right. Mangrove forests that have been destroyed can be reseeded by aircraft. CO2 can be injected into geologic formations. Take farmlands out of production and restore forests around the world.
The key to all of it, in my mind, is research. The problem is defined, now throw some money to the best and brightest and in ten years we will have technologies that we can’t even think of now.
There’s lots of energy in an atom. Lots and lots.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:46 am5th Estate Says:
Say , has anyone noticed that the Nuclear Industry hasn’t been running an equivalent PR campaign? I wonder why that is?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
_________
I think it’s because they’re completely dependent on subsidies and in the present economic and political climate they don’t see investing in a PR campaign as a positive ROI.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:49 amnanlichi Says:
hussein toaterhead has it right. Mangrove forests that have been destroyed can be reseeded by aircraft. CO2 can be injected into geologic formations. Take farmlands out of production and restore forests around the world.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:46 am
________
Unfortunately, rainforests don’t grow back. At least, not within time frames we’ve observed. Sure, we can replant some of the trees, but it won’t come back the way it was before it was burned. Rainforests are dependent on all their biodiversity to thrive. Every tree, vine, grass, bird, worm, rodent, and caterpillar has a role to play, and once one element is gone the biological balance is upset.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:53 amHere’s a good article on small nukes that are available.
Not, huge centralized plants that require high voltage transmission.
And the radioactive waste can be recycled, like the rest of the world does. If the Surrender Monkeys can do it, so can we. /snark off.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:59 amWell, that didn’t work out did it? Let’s try again.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
hussein toasterhead Says:
Unfortunately, rainforests don’t grow back. At least, not within time frames we’ve observed. Sure, we can replant some of the trees, but it won’t come back the way it was before it was burned. Rainforests are dependent on all their biodiversity to thrive. Every tree, vine, grass, bird, worm, rodent, and caterpillar has a role to play, and once one element is gone the biological balance is upset.
While this is true, it may not be relevant to the question of CO2. The diversity of a rainforest may never come back, but the sheer biomass can re-emerge very quickly, and CO2 doesn’t care what plant is using it.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:01 amnanlichi Says: hussein toaterhead has it right. Mangrove forests that have been destroyed can be reseeded by aircraft. CO2 can be injected into geologic formations. Take farmlands out of production and restore forests around the world.
I thought they were still having some problems getting the seedlings to actually develop after they’d been dropped. I hope they can solve that issue, because it’s a great idea.
We also have to worry about the Great Barrier Reef, which is expected to die in the next several decades if the Earth’s temperature continues to rise. Live coral produces the most CO2.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:02 amDamn it!
December 4th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Forget it, I will have one of the kids show me how to insert a link tonight. In the meantime, the old fashioned way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
December 4th, 2008 at 11:02 am5th Estate Says: Say , has anyone noticed that the Nuclear Industry hasn’t been running an equivalent PR campaign? I wonder why that is?
They’ve been buying politicians instead?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:03 amLive coral produces the most CO2.
Make that reduces…
December 4th, 2008 at 11:05 amCNN seems to very much believe in “clean coal” judging by their commercials. You know the one with the pristine lump of coal with an electrical plug in it. Inane perhaps but no doubt effective given the intelligence of the average glass tit addict. A great deal could be done to reverse this blatant presentation of false propaganda by e-mailing CNN and tell them you will no longer watch a news program that is sponsored by a lie.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:10 amgummitch Says:
While this is true, it may not be relevant to the question of CO2. The diversity of a rainforest may never come back, but the sheer biomass can re-emerge very quickly, and CO2 doesn’t care what plant is using it.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
_________
Yes, but that biomass is also interdependent on the other forms of life for its own survival. It’s not going to help reduce CO2 if one type of plant takes over an area of reclaimed forest, depletes all the soil nutrients, and then starves itself to death. Or if all the pollinators leave or die out because the fruit they were dependent on is no longer growing. It may not matter to us what plant is using all that CO2, but it does matter to the sustainability of the plants themselves.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:14 amnanlichi Says:
And the radioactive waste can be recycled, like the rest of the world does. If the Surrender Monkeys can do it, so can we. /snark off.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
________
What? We recycle our radioactive waste, too, you know! Where do you think all those depleted uranium bullets we’re using in Iraq come from?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:16 am5th Estate Says
December 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
What is a tree, Alex!
hussein toasterhead Says
December 4th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I’m pretty sure this technology already exists. In fact, it’s been in use for at least 3.4 billion years already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
___________________________________________________________
Yeah, yeah, yeah — thanks, guys.
Okay, but do we have enough of them left? Since we’ve been mowing them down at breakneck speed in the quest of gaining land for cheap beef so that we may all enjoy our Whoppers, we may still have to find some way of artificially replicating the process on a massive scale. Maybe not in my lifetime, but hopefully before the planet chokes.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:33 amThe haters will hate any spokesperson……Gore is perfect for this.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:37 amThat’s just spreading the wealth hussein toasterhead. Winning their hearts and minds by piercing breastplates and skulls.
The coral formations are caught in a vicious positive feedback loop. The coral is a carbon sink, and the more atmospheric carbon the more coral is lost to acidic poisoning, which leads to more atmospheric carbon…..
I’ll give you the Bush Solution. The first domino is to bomb Iran before That One takes over, which will lead to a retaliation against Israel, then Russian involvement, someone will set off a nuclear bomb and the resulting dust cloud will shade and cool the earth.
A hell of a lot easier than trying to figure out carbon sequestration.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:40 amarSTOP DRINKING SOFT DRINKS!
think how much co2 just bubbles into the air out of your cup!
Co2, we exhale it, it comes from wood rotting in the forest, I’m prohibited from heating my home with a Outdoor wood furnace on my farm with my own dead wood instead of 1600 gallons of imported oil a year.
Irony, here in my town, rural NJ, we have a manufacturer of co2 for the soft drink industry, distributes to the whole east coast. Next door to the propane company on the rail road siding. cannot buy anthracite coal period for home consumption unless willing to buy 26 ton minimum or a 5 year supply, which would be a cleaner burn then wood would be, when the ash is sent to the landfill which is properly treated waste water filtered.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:44 amI average 20 miles a week driving.
recycle co2
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s405835.htm
December 4th, 2008 at 11:45 amhussein toasterhead Says:
Yes, but that biomass is also interdependent on the other forms of life for its own survival. It’s not going to help reduce CO2 if one type of plant takes over an area of reclaimed forest, depletes all the soil nutrients, and then starves itself to death. Or if all the pollinators leave or die out because the fruit they were dependent on is no longer growing. It may not matter to us what plant is using all that CO2, but it does matter to the sustainability of the plants themselves.
Does this actually happen? The only equivalent I’ve seen is in North American forests, where recovery after a burn begins immediately and a new profusion of species develops. I’ve never heard of a monoculture occurring that wasn’t introduced by humans.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:46 amgummitch Says:
Does this actually happen? The only equivalent I’ve seen is in North American forests, where recovery after a burn begins immediately and a new profusion of species develops. I’ve never heard of a monoculture occurring that wasn’t introduced by humans.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:46 am
________
Deciduous forests like the ones we have in North America are very different. They will come back pretty quickly after a forest fire or clear-cutting.
Rainforests don’t behave the same way. They’re a much more complex ecosystem. A recent survey of regenerating forests in Brazil found that at least 25% of rainforest species don’t come back once the forest is destroyed – and many of these are low-lying surface dewellers. If we’re just talking birds and canopy trees, it’s as many as 60% that don’t regenerate.
Yes, reforestation efforts can work, with a lot of time and investment, and there are some efforts going on in places like Rwanda and Brazil with limited success, but the consensus of scientists is that we get a much better return on investment by preventing deforestation than attempting reforestation.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Okay, but do we have enough of them left? Since we’ve been mowing them down at breakneck speed in the quest of gaining land for cheap beef so that we may all enjoy our Whoppers, we may still have to find some way of artificially replicating the process on a massive scale. Maybe not in my lifetime, but hopefully before the planet chokes.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
___________
Sure, there are some techniques for reducing atmospheric carbon, either in-use or on the drawing board. We can inject CO2 into depleted oil fields and aquifers, for example. Or seed the oceans with iron to stimulate algae growth. Or store it in the soil as biochar. These could all help, though they’re also prone to some side effects such as out of control algae blooms and ocean acidification.
But they’re also expensive – you get far more bang for your buck paying an Indonesian village to protect its surrounding rainforest than you do from seeding the oceans and sequestering carbon.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pmJust a question about form – Is it proper for a “coal”ition to address issues OTHER than coal?
December 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pmIf it’s a single issue, you need a monologue. Multiple issues is polygamy.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:25 pm;)
Shitty Ad for NOT Clean Coal
read the Joe Romm critiques posted above to learn why…
I didn’t like the open door to the arid land either…
It sort of insinuated Mtn Top blown off, dead, and lifeless, but they leave that up to the viewing eyeball to figure it all out
Needs lots of work and surprised Al said “go”
December 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pmI totally agree with rf (No. 48) The ad is very weak. And, not only is “clean coal” a total oxymoron, but the whole process of mountaintop mining, strip mining etc. is utterly polluting from start to finish. From the stream runoff, to the poisoning of groundwater and toxins being taken in by human via both air and water. Anybody flown over the Great Smoky Mountains recently?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:23 pm>>”5th Estate Says:
Say , has anyone noticed that the Nuclear Industry hasn’t been running an equivalent PR campaign? I wonder why that is?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
_________
I think it’s because they’re completely dependent on subsidies and in the present economic and political climate they don’t see investing in a PR campaign as a positive ROI.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:49 am”<<
It’s because the nuclear industry doesn’t have to convince anyone. Obama talks about clean coal and has taken a lot of money from coal companies. I think this ad is for him.
He is already on board with nuclear energy, so nuclear energy doesn’t have to advertise to him. Al Gore is also tentatively in favor of limited use of nuclear power. People are going to have to get used to the idea of nuclear power or we are goners.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:26 pm“”samrigrl Says:
. . . . Anybody flown over the Great Smoky Mountains recently?”
I would like to know where I can find good clear high-res photos of mountaintop removal results….. I would like to publish lots of them on a website to show people what it looks like. A lot of people aren’t even aware of what the coal companies are doing. And the idiotic Republicans spent most of their campaigns talking about “clean coal”. People don’t know what it does to the environment, and this ad sure isn’t going to help with that. I guess it’s up to us to get the message out.
BTW, there is a great website about MTR here:
http://www.ilovemountains.org/
If anyone has a good source of pictures of MTR please let me know! shelly at civilianism dot com thanks
December 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pmGore is saying the technology that industry calls “clean coal” in their all talk and no build PR campaign, doesn’t exist. If anyone would like to understand what the state of development of this technology is, read the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. This is the same IPCC that won Nobel Prizes for doing the same work as Gore: i.e. raising awareness about climate change.
The IPCC is saying that the technology is already in commercial use where taxation on emissions forces industry to act, i.e. in Norway. Its ready to go on to the next stage, i.e. building a number of full scale plants in the US. The industry and the Bush Administration didn’t bother to come up with a single one: they cancelled the only one they had, i.e. FutureGen in Illinois. But this means there is something wrong with the politics, not the technology. Gore is way off base here.
Instead of calling on the public and the US government to force industry to use this technology, Gore is campaigning to try to make people believe there isn’t any technology ready to be implemented. This is not his finest hour. He didn’t win his Nobel Prize this way.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:09 pmI’m very impressed that this site has so many experts on what NOT to do. Any experts out there who can clearly delineate what TO DO? Half our electricity comes from coal,and that can not be changed readily. Wind and solar can not entirely take its place. If we start driving plug-in cars, that will just exacerbate this problem. Nuclear makes sense, but it gets condemned as readily as coal.
And why do you pick on coal with regard to CO2? Petroleum, natural gas, wood, and our breath all emit CO2. And the evidence keeps mounting that CO2 does NOT cause global warming. That CO2 causes global warming was never more than a premise anyway.
You alude to the hidden agendas of the coal companies. What about Gore’s agenda. He is one of the single biggest polluters on the planet. Every time you send him a donation, you are paying for the wasted energy in his mansions and his jets. He is a hypocrite. He makes the coal execs look like straight shooters.
Ultimately our energy problems will be solved by scientists and engineers, while you all just sit and complain and try to act significant.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:24 pm