A 1991 ad from a coal front group called Information Council on the Environment.

The coal industry has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to convince people that it can create an environmentally friendly product. However, whether it be the technological and cost barriers associated with capturing and storing carbon dioxide or the devastating impact of mountaintop mining on groundwater, ecosystems and human health, the concept of “clean” coal is a proven myth.

The coal industry’s push to brand coal as “clean” seems like a new phenomenon. In fact, as a new database of coal advertisements shows, this messaging strategy has been used by the industry since at least the 1920′s.

The database was put together by Greenpeace’s Quit Coal campaign. It features ads questioning global warming, obscuring the impact of acid rain, and railing on Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

Here’s an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal from 1979 in which American Electric Power touts clean coal as the solution to “help make the America we see ahead a better America.”

It’s not just modern environmental laws that have forced the coal industry to re-brand itself. Here’s an ad from the New York Times from 1921 touting the superiority of clean coal:

Read more

Coal and utilities groups launched a deep-pocketed campaign last month to defeat a November ballot initiative that would raise Michigan’s renewable energy standard for utilities to 25 percent.

The coalition — Clean Affordable Renewable Energy (CARE) for Michigan — has the backing of utilities companies DTE and Consumers Energy, the Detroit and Michigan Chambers of Commerce. Campaign filings show that a coal front group, American Coalition for Clean Coal, is also supporting the campaign against increased renewable energy for the state.

The industry-led group has raised nearly $6 million in its first few months, primarily from the state’s largest utilities companies. By comparison, proponents of the renewable energy standard have raised $2.2 million. MLive provides the details:

Consumers Energy and DTE Energy contributed most of the money. Each gave more than $2.9 million, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary. DTE also made nearly $200,000 in in-kind contributions and Consumers gave $81,000 in in-kind contributions.

DTE and Consumers both used shareholder dollars to fund the campaign.

Twelve other individuals and companies made donations, including $25,000 from Southfield-based builder Barton Malow and $20,000 from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity in Washington, D.C., according to a campaign finance report filed today.

This campaign is only the tip of the iceberg of what fossil fuel interests are spending this election cycle. ACCCE has a broad $40 million ad campaign this year, spending on ads like ones in May that accuse the Environmental Protection Agency of attempting to raise electricity prices.

Economically, the Michigan initiative makes sense — the costs are much lower than anyone, even utilties, expected and the benefits abound. But the CARE campaign, helped along by none other than big coal, are looking to distort the broad, bipartisan support for renewables.

by Donald Brown via Climate Ethics

For over a decade the coal industry has funded campaigns designed to convince Americans that coal can be burned without adverse environmental impacts. These campaigns raise troubling ethical issues. In fact, as we shall see, these campaigns have often been misleading and deceptive in several different ways.

This deception is classic propaganda because propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented. Although many entities on both sides of an issue who are trying to persuade the general public to think a certain way will frequently resort to the use of propaganda, as we shall see, deceptive propaganda is particularly morally odious when it engages in lying or lying by omission. A lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. The clean coal propaganda has frequently engaged in propaganda that must be understood as lying by omission, if not outright lying. It is also lying by omission about something which is potentially very harmful, making the lies even more morally abhorrent

Given that academies of science around the world have concluded that climate change is a huge threat to millions of people around the world, that coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels currently used for electricity generation in regard to climate change, that there are no commercial scale coal-fired power plants in the United States now nor likely to be in wide-spread commercial operation for decades capable of actually removing heat trapping gases, a fact not revealed in TV commercials funded by the clean coal campaign, this campaign which implies that coal is “clean” is deeply misleading about likely harmful and dangerous human activities. In other words, this is deception with huge potential adverse consequences for life on earth and ecological systems on which life depends.

Some TV commercials funded through clean coal campaigns visually or verbally reference clean coal without acknowledgment that coal combustion could be considered clean only if new unproven technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal combustion are widely deployed. Other commercials contain often vague references to clean coal technologies that could in theory reduce greenhouse gas emissions if commercial scale of these technologies is determined through future research to be environmentally benign and economically feasible. None of these commercials, however, reveal that there are serious open questions about whether geologic carbon sequestration or other unproven greenhouse gas emission reduction technologies for use with coal combustion will be proven to be environmentally acceptable and economically viable at commercial scale. The New York Times reported this month that there is new evidence that carbon capture and storage, the technology most frequently considered to be the best hope for reducing greenhouse gases from coal combustion, may not be economically viable because of cheaper and abundant amounts of natural gas. (Wald, 2012)

Claiming that coal is clean because it could be clean if a new technically unproven and economically dubious technology might be adopted is like someone claiming that belladonna is not poisonous because there is a new unproven safe pill under development that sometime in the future might be economically affordable and that may be taken with belladonna to neutralize belladonna’s toxic effects.

Who has been behind this campaign? According to Source Watch, these campaigns were initially created by the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) in 2000. CEED also created Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign aimed at emphasizing the importance and downplaying the environmental impacts of coal-fired power production. CEED was founded by Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, Southern Company, and DTE Energy (Source Watch, 2012a). ABEC’s members also have included mining companies, electric utilities, and railroad companies. The CEED was merged with Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) to form a new coal industry front group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, on April 17, 2008 (Source Watch, 2012a).

Read more

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) — the coal-industry front group that greenwashes coal pollution and fights climate action — is seeking a new president. After 17 years at the helm, president Steve Miller is retiring a millionaire.

On Craigslist, a job posting for Steve Miller’s replacement to be the president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity has appeared:

Are you a motivated go-getter who hates to let facts stand in the way of profits? Are you good at making something out of nothing? Do you sleep soundly at night, no matter what you’ve done? Do you reject the global anti-capitalist “science” conspiracy? Are you comfortable around unicorns, centaurs, and other so-called “mythical” creatures? Do you have experience in the tobacco industry?

If you answered yes to those questions, we want to hear from you. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is seeking a new President of our trade association to continue our work promoting a product that doesn’t actually exist: clean coal electricity. The ideal candidate would be able to alter the long-standing ironclad laws of chemistry to create clean coal (through magic or otherwise), but we’ll settle for someone that can say it exists with a straight face.

The apocryphal job posting continues with “key responsibilities” like “denying climate change over and over again.” Compensation? “Look, let’s just say you’ll be in that 1% those hippies are always talking about and Mitt Romney will not be uncomfortable around you.”

Miller was paid $1.65 million in 2010 as the group spent $45 million on lobbying, ads, Astroturf efforts, and campaign contributions. ACCCE spent $10.5 million lobbying Capitol Hill on climate in 2008 — more than any other organization solely dedicated to the issue. ACCCE’s accomplishments under Miller include clean coal carols, impersonation of veterans’ groups, and fomenting Tea Party disruptions of town hall meetings.

Download a copy of the parody “job posting” for ACCCE’s next president.

As Herman Cain talked about “people who have been abused by the EPA” at the Tea Party debate last night, the coal front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity ran a new ad with the same theme. “Today too many Americans are just trying to hang on to their jobs,” the ad says. “So why is EPA in a rush to push regulations that would saddle Americans with more energy costs and throw even more of us out of work?”

Of course, the only reason coal has gotten “cleaner” in the last 40 years is because of the EPA.

The other main sponsor of the debate was ExxonMobil, which ran ads promoting the safety of fracking and tar sands.

This week, the U.S. Senate will debate and vote on how much to cripple the EPA’s efforts to protect civilization from global warming. The Republicans have attached the Upton-Inhofe bill to deny the existence of global warming pollution as a Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) amendment (S. Amdt. 183) to Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) unrelated small-business bill (S. 493). A Democratic amendment from Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) would exempt the greenhouse pollution of industrial agriculture and other polluters (S. Amdt. 236). An amendment from Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) would prevent the EPA from enforcing rules for two more years (S. Amdt. 215). NRDC’s David Hawkins covers the Clean Air Act phobia well:

It’s a sad state of affairs when members on both sides of the aisle in Congress seem to think it is a good idea to attack the Clean Air Act – the landmark law that Richard Nixon signed and George H. W. Bush strengthened. Yet the hits on the Clean Air Act just keep on coming in this Congress in spite of the Act’s incredible record of cutting deaths and illness caused by air pollution – a record that has earned the strong support of the American people and the admiration of others around the world.

No amendments to force the EPA to take stronger action have been submitted. Rockefeller’s toxic amendment is cosponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-VA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Tim Johnson (D-SD), and Kent Conrad (D-ND). McConnell’s climate denial amendment is cosponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Pat Toomey (R-PA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Johnny Isakson (R-GA).

The usual suspects are out en masse pounding the drums to demonize the EPA and at least implicitly deny the existence of global warming:

– The Koch brothers’ Americans For Prosperity attacks “higher energy costs and lost jobs that would result from the EPA distorting the Clean Air Act.”

– Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal: “the EPA plan will appreciably lower the U.S. standard of living.”

– The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is running radio ads in Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and other states that dis the Clean Air Act as a “40-year-old law.”

– the Competitive Enterprise Institute: “EPA regulations actually impose costs far in excess of benefits.”

– the National Association of Manufacturers is running radio and television ads in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania that attack “costly new regulations.”

The target senators are McCaskill, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Carl Levin (D-MI), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA).

Call your Senators and ask them to vote against any legislation that would block the EPA from limiting greenhouse pollution: 202-224-3121

Our guest blogger is Bryan R. Lentz (D-PA), a state representative from Pennsylvania’s 161st district and an Iraq war veteran.

Last week, congressional investigators uncovered a forged letter sent to the office of Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), criticizing the House’s climate change bill. According to the Washington Post, this letter was forged to appear as if it had come from an American Legion post in Virginia when in fact it was drafted by a lobbyist for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity opposing clean energy legislation.

As an Iraq war veteran and a state legislator, I object to the exploitation of the good name of our veterans and one of our nations’ most distinguished veterans organizations to serve the interest of for profit special interest groups.

On Thursday, the very same day this falsified letter came to light, I joined with a real group of veterans, over 150 from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and others. As part of Operation Free, we came from across the country to join former Senator John Warner to call on the United States to end its dependence on dirty fossil fuels, and take action to combat the national security threat of climate change. As Senator Warner, a veteran of WWII and Korea, said:

Terrorism and insurgency are fed by famine, poverty and failing states. There is a direct link between famine, poverty and failing states and climate change.

That is why we as veterans care about the energy policy – it impacts our national security.

I traveled to DC because I believe the Senate needs act on the Waxman-Markey bill quickly, and pass serious climate change legislation this year. The dishonest tactics of special interest groups are despicable at all times. But when our nation’s security and the good name of real soldiers are put on the line in the name of greed and profiteering, it’s a whole new level of unacceptable.

Electric utility giant Duke Energy has quit the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) because of the coal group’s unethical opposition to President Obama’s clean energy reform agenda. For the last few years, Duke has been one of the most prominent industry voices calling for the regulation of industrial global warming pollution, but has also supported the efforts of various right-wing lobbying groups to prevent such action. ACCCE, in addition to promoting “clean coal” Christmas carols, employs right-wing public relations firms to paint the American Clean Energy and Security Act as a job-killing energy tax through whatever means necessary — even blatant forgery. According to the National Journal, Duke has finally recognized that the time has come to choose energy reform over old pollution:

Duke Energy left the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy on Tuesday over differences with “influential member companies who will not support passing climate change legislation in 2009 or 2010,” the company said.

Duke Energy left the right-wing National Association of Manufacturers in May for similar reasons, but Duke’s CEO, Jim Rogers, still sits on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — alongside right-wing climate deniers Don Blankenship, Harry Alford, and George Argyros — which is spending tens of millions of dollars to kill clean energy jobs.

Members of business coalitions like the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) and Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP) have advocated for the establishment of a mandatory carbon market (“cap and trade”) to promote investment in clean energy while reducing global warming polution. In the meantime, business coalitions like the National Association of Manufacturers, ACCCE, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) are running Astroturf campaigns to kill clean energy legislation.

However, Duke is not the only company that has been playing both sides of the field:

– Members of USCAP and ACCCE: General Electric, Alstom Power and Caterpillar

– Members of USCAP and NAM: Dow Chemical, Ford, Chrysler, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, and Caterpillar

– Members of USCAP and API: Siemens, Dow Chemical, Shell, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, and BP America

– Members of USCAP and the Chamber of Commerce: Alcoa, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, and Siemens

– Member of BICEP and the Chamber of Commerce: Nike

Other ostensibly green companies on the boards of NAM and the Chamber include AT&T, Procter & Gamble, Verizon, Corning, Ford, Honda, Toyota, 3M, Intel, and IBM.