‘Frosty the Coalman’: King Coal Launches Holiday-Themed Greenwashing Campaign
‘Frosty the Coalman’: King Coal Launches Holiday-Themed Greenwashing Campaign
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) has launched a new holiday-themed greenwashing campaign through their website AmericasPower.org aimed at painting their “environmental oxymoron” clean coal technology as “clean,” “affordable,” and “adorable.” As Switchboard explains, the campaign features “animated lumps of coal belting out songs like ‘Frosty the Coalman,’ ‘Clean Coal Night,’ and ‘Deck the Halls (with Clean Coal!).’” An excerpt from “Frosty the Coalman”:
Frosty the Coal Man, is a jolly happy soul.
He’s abundant here in America and he helps our economy roll.
Frosty the Coal Man, is getting cleaner every day.
He’s affordable and adorable and helps workers keep their pay.There must have been some magic in clean coal technology,
For when they looked for pollutants there was nearly none to see.
Listen here:
It is not clear if ACCCE will expand its new holiday campaign beyond their website, but in the past ACCCE has spread its falsehoods on TV, radio, and in print, often spending millions. In early 2008, ACCCE’s clean coal campaign reportedly had $50 million to spend on pro-coal, anti-climate initiatives.
The Wall Street Journal recently credited ACCCE’s misleading campaign with convincing politicians, the media and the public that “clean coal” is a cure-all for global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants. Even President-elect Obama has taken the bait.
Clean coal, of course, is nothing of the sort. Al Gore put it bluntly: “Clean coal’s like healthy cigarettes — it does not exist.” Similarly, Kevin Grandia writes, “Nothing like mercury emissions, asthma attacks and melting polar ice-caps to get me in the holiday spirit.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
There is no “clean coal” technology. It’s under research and development (under-funded of course), but does not currently exist. I hate liars and those who push the lies.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pmPut one every Bushite’s stocking this year.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:46 pmThis has to be from The Onion or something. It can’t be real. It’s just too ridiculous.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pmUp is down! Black is white! Night is day!
Really! Trust us!! Would we …lie… to you??
December 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pmI could just never be comfortable living in a world where coal is clean and sex is dirty.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pmAre people actually buying this shit? Wow.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:37 pmhows rachel maddow gonna put a possitive spin o the fact that we’re $53,000,000,000,000.00 IN DEBT ??
December 10th, 2008 at 4:46 pmOMG, O’lielly was right, there is a war on christmas! “clean coal night”? where does the baby jeebus and the virgin mary fit into the lyrics? Blasphemy, i tell ya.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:46 pmI just wish I had been a fly on the wall of the boardroom that decided this was a good idea. Who are these people and where are their aesthetic sensibilities?
December 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pmI’m sure what they meant to say was CLEAN-ER Coal Technology, but that doesn’t sound as good in an AD.
In my state, pregnant women are advised to NOT eat the fish because of Mercury contamination…the direct result of Burning Coal in Power plants.
We should Learn from Fish, instead of Poisining them:
A revolutionary device that can harness energy from slow-moving rivers and ocean currents could provide enough power for the entire world, scientists claim.
The new device, which has been inspired by the way fish swim, consists of a system of cylinders positioned horizontal to the water flow and attached to springs.
As water flows past, the cylinder creates vortices, which push and pull the cylinder up and down. The mechanical energy in the vibrations is then converted into electricity.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/29/211611/05
December 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pmnext they’ll be trying to sell getting a lump of coal in your stocking is a good thing and the “drill baby drill” assclowns will buy into it hook, line and sinker.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pmdbadass Says:
I just wish I had been a fly on the wall of the boardroom that decided this was a good idea. Who are these people and where are their aesthetic sensibilities?
December 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
___________
These are the same people who think rolling mountains look better as big brown scars in the ground, and who think rivers and streams look better filled up with rubble.
Need you even ask about their aesthetic sensibilities?
December 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm“…where does the baby jeebus and the virgin mary fit into the lyrics?”
Away in a coal bin, the poor baby weeps…
December 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pmThe dust and the mer-cury,
he breathes as he sleeps…
His mother she worries,
why he can’t find peace,
and waits for the dawning,
to at last RIP.
They went with the Frosty theme since the song is in old enough to be in the public domain. Their first choice as cartoon spokesman was Pigpen from Peanuts. He was to be featured building a ‘coal man’ in lieu of a snowman.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pmnevar,
December 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pmever think of going on “american idol”?
i’ll be your agent for 15 percent :)
Nevar is a genius and hussein toasterhead makes a very strong point. I respect both…
December 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pmClean coal technology,
December 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pmis a lie as you can see.
The lying liars who push this sh*t,
are as dirty as they can be.
We’ve got to wean ourselves off coal,
as quickly as we can.
Global warming is real and we’ve
got to draw a line in the sand.
Cartoon coal. Cartoon cars. Who is the target?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pmI couldn’t do it without each and everyone of you…
December 10th, 2008 at 5:35 pm:)
I share the revulsion to implying “clean” coal is as pure as the driven snow (all white and all).
But this is just plain sick.
Also, have they bought the performance rights to “Frosty, the Snowman”?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:46 pmJust wondering but has anyone tried to kill themselves by running their new car in the garage recently? Yeh, can’t be done because engineers figured out how to reduce CO emissions. Ever wonder why the smog has gotten a lot better in Cali? Engineers figured out how to reduce NOx and VOC emissions. Ever wonder why you stopped hearing about acid rain? Engineers figured out how to reduce SOx emissions.
Why not give them an incentive to develop the technology. Give them incentives to do it and it will get done. Keep current laws the same, or prohibit the oportunity to deploy the technology by blocking new coal plants and it won’t get done. All that will happen is rolling blackouts and sky high energy prices.
Fan-freaking-tastic, instead of listening to people who have worked with coal we listen to folks like Lord Yglesias who once saw a coal plant in a magazine and Al Gore who invented the internet.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:00 pmWipe the dust off your coal goggles and get back to us.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pmBlow your nose, too.
For all you envioro hippies who don’t want to give the coal companies incentives to capture and sequester the CO2, what do you propose as the alternative? Coal generates about 50% of our electricity, and provides most of the base load. What do you propose as the alternative?
Do we reduce our electricity use by 50%, how is that possible? How is that possible when you are promoting PHEVs?
Whats the alternative source of electricity generation, because I have yet to see anything that is possible of providing the same consistent elec production as coal.
Clean coal is more of a reality than a nation powered by wind farms and solar cells, or a nation that uses 50% less electricity without sever impacts on GDP and standard of living.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pmHow many times does that Al Gore Internet inventing shit have to be debunked?
December 10th, 2008 at 6:16 pmIncidently I have no problem with reigning in a standard of living rooted in gross over consumption and wasteful unwise use of resources. Those that are unwilling to show some self discipline are spoiled children
December 10th, 2008 at 6:19 pmJust wondering but has anyone tried to kill themselves by running their new car in the garage recently? Yeh, can’t be done because engineers figured out how to reduce CO emissions.
Methinks you may have tested this theory one too many times, JimboSlice.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:19 pmObama should say “Fine, I’m all for clean coal. As soon as it exists, you can have more plants. Get back to me when you’re done with that.”
December 10th, 2008 at 6:37 pmCan that thing be a bit more realistic, with the coal being doused with lighter fluid and that coal getting lit on fire to keep some homeless people warm…or at least watch the Ford family burn hundred dollar bills by the SUV-full?
December 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pmHmmm…new poster, JimboSlice. You are very obvious, you know? Do you just lurk around and wait to respond on blogs that discuss this one issue? I have no problem with funding research and development of clean coal technology. What I DO have a problem with is continuing to build dirty coal plants. Your statement that not being allowed to build such plants would harm development of the technology is pure B.S. Do you think it would have been okay to develop nuclear power plants before the technology to cool the rods had been developed? The problem with you and the people who pay you is that you continue to believe that the American people are stupid and will believe anything you say. Well, some are. But they are becoming the minority in this country. And those of you who support the continuing use of fossil fuels, with no conscience about the well-being of the existence of life on this planet are starting to look like people spitting into the wind.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:47 pmI’m all for cleaning up Coal Burning…getting rid of Mercury,Sulphur, and other Contaminants….but to get to CLEAN COAL…we need to deal with the CO2.
So far , no one has been able to demonstrate an Economically Viable way to do this CO2 Sequestration.
The reason COAL has Predomonated as an energy souce, is because the TRUE COST of Burning Coal has not been figured into the Price.
On a level playing field, alternative Green Energy sources like Wind, Solar, Geothermal, and the Ocean and River Current Capturing devices (see post #10) would be Competitive with Coal.
C02 Needs to be Taxed. Cap and trade is one way.
We’re messing with the Climate…Serious business!
December 10th, 2008 at 6:50 pmUmm how do you know who I work for, it happens to not be anyone related to the energy industry. I post under this name at a lot of sites, and have posted recently on Lord Yglesias blog. I registered here a few months ago, and consider my self a liberal, and not a progressive, but hey thanks. I happen to care deeply about the climate change issue, but I feel as though progressives and others with no knowledge of how electrical distribution grids work and how electrical generation systems are actually designed and engineered are inhibiting real change by focusing on silly pipe dreams like Wind and Solar. Asking Al Gore what to do about climate change is like asking George Steinbrenner how to build a baseball team.
My point is that if you block the development of all coal plants because you associate coal with emissions you also block development of new clean coal plants. Every emission standard that congress has imposed on the coal industry they have met, although at a price. Of course they are going to lobby against new emissions standards, it will cost them $$, but it is congress you should be getting mad at, not the coal industry.
Instead of blocking all new coal power plants why not create an incentive system to replace dirty coal plants with clean coal plants?
Why not implement some cap and trade system with a gradual reduction in emissions allocated to the market so that dirty coal plants become economically infeasible, and there is a financial driver for clean coal technology.
Why do progressives constantly slander clean coal technology and say that it is impossible and a lie? Do they say the same things about the solar industry which basically a pipe dream for the last 50 years? Nope.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:00 pmWhy do progressives constantly slander clean coal technology and say that it is impossible and a lie? Do they say the same things about the solar industry which basically a pipe dream for the last 50 years? Nope.
JFK’s ‘We Choose to go to the Moon…’ speech- 9/12/62
Apollo 11’s landing on the Moon- 7/20/69
Obama’s ‘We Choose renewable energy…’ speech- ??
Pipe dreams have a way of becoming reality when they are given serious attention and government support.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:24 pmClean Coal is like endlessly re-engineering the Redstone Rocket… it’ll get better and better but it’ll never get you to the moon.
Those two statements contradict each other. Why do you say renewables are possible when people have been pursuing it for the last 50 years (see Redstone Rocket), yet clean coal is not possible and basically no one has touched that?
December 10th, 2008 at 7:41 pmCoal is old technology- we’ve done it. (see Redstone Rocket or Betamax)
December 10th, 2008 at 7:46 pmI’m not saying it’s impossible to make coal burn cleaner, I’m saying even if you do you’re still burning coal.
We need something else, new renewable sources of energy. (see Satun V or DVD’s)
And to argue that we have been pursuing solar or wind in any serious way over the last 50 years is laughable… kinda like selling coal with a cartoon.
Traditional coal plants are to clean coal plants what windows are to solar panels. They rely on completely different technologies.
In traditional coal plants you pulverize the coal and shoot jet into a giant vortex where it burns in the presence of air, that heat is then transfered to a working fluid, usually steam, which drives a turbine.
In clean coal plants you would probably turn the coal into a syngas (CO and H2) in a limited O2 environment at high T and P. You would then shift the CO with H2O into CO2 and H2, then separate the CO2 and the H2, sending the H2 off to be combusted into pure clean water which directly drives a turbine. The added benefit of this type of plant is that it is much easier to reduce traditional pollutants such as Hg, SO2, NOx, etc.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:00 pmFine.
Lets allocate Research Dollars to this syn-gas method, and see if it works without releasing CO2.
We should not be reluctant to do RESEARCH on all sorts of Promising Energy Solutions.
But we should not be building Lots of new coal plants until we can actually DEMONSTRATE an Economically Viable Clean Coal Technology.
As I recall, Lots of Taxpayer money was WASTED on a Coasl/Syn-fuel Boondoggle involving Former Pennsylvania Sen. Santorem which involved hosing down piles of coal with kerosine …a total waste of money.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:18 pmHere it is:
There’s gold in them thar halls of congress. Gold that starts out as coal and ends up, after being sprayed with diesel or some other substance, as a synthetic fuel tax break. Unfortunately for those exploiting this provision of the tax code, recent increases in oil prices threaten to trigger an end to the tax break bonanza. However, GOP senator Rick Santorum slipped a provision into the hurricane relief bill to ensure the tax breaks would continue ….
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/02/spray_and_pay.html
December 10th, 2008 at 8:33 pmIt’s refreshing to see someone posting here who actually thinks about an issue and provides good arguments.
I, too know quite a bit about coal and I agree it’s a big mistake to simply put a moratorium on new, coal-fired power plants! Of course, this is the typical knee-jerk response from “progressives” and those who really don’t understand how our modern technological economy really functions.
The real solution to the clean coal issue is simply to recognize that CO2 is NOT the villain here. It is not a pollutant and isn’t causing catastrophic global climate change!
December 10th, 2008 at 8:36 pmBadger, two things. Broadly corrupt politicians and corrupt businessmen exist everywhere – just look at the EtOH industry.
Second synfuel is not the same thing as syn gas or syncrude. Synfuel is turning coal into a liquid fuel, usually diesel, sometimes utilizing syngas. The South Africans, and SASOL, utilize a process with syngas to actually make large quantities of synfuel. In WWII the germans made lots of aviation fuel using a DCL process where you break apart some carbon-carbon bonds and insert Hydrogen, but keep the general structure of the coal in tact. Synfuel is a real possibility if economic and national security reasons merit it, but unless you capture the CO2 in production and capture the tailpipe emissions from whatever is using the synfuel, CO2 emissions would go up. What man on dog santorum was doing was not synfuel, it was a corrupt bargain.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:47 pmHi Tim.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:56 pmSo you know about coal too? Wow!
Might you share how you gained all your expertise Tim? Thanks. It is so interesting to be able to talk to qualified individuals.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:57 pmdbadass,
I worked for a utility and spent 20 years at a coal-fired power plant. In fact, I was part of the startup team.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:28 pmAnd what exactly did you start up?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:17 pmI catch many fish, still I am not a fisheries manager…
> and those who really don’t understand
> how our modern technological economy
> really functions.
You think because you work for a coal plant that you understand the “technological economy”?
hhahahaha.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:25 pmremind us what sort of educational pedigree you have again?
dbadass,
Do you want to discuss the issue or just play word games?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pmAre there any issues related to word games?
What are words for?
December 10th, 2008 at 11:25 pm.
I can’t help but notice how X-mas is looking more and more like an Oktoberfest!
.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:35 amIf the Frosty we know has two eyes made out of coal, does this Frosty have two eyes made out of snow?
December 12th, 2008 at 9:41 pm