Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE COAL TRUTH: DEBATE EDITION.
One can't talk about coal without noting its influence in this campaign season. A very obvious place we see its thrust: the industry is once again
ABEC's website is registered to the coal industry trade organization Center for Energy and Economic Development, which is one of the leading advocates of keeping coal in the US energy mix, even as it becomes increasing obvious that it is no longer sustainable in the environmental or economic sense. ABEC spent $1.3 million on billboard, newspaper, television and radio ads in the first three states to host Democratic primaries, not to mention all the money they've dropped on sponsoring the CNN debates. The rest of their friends in the coal industry have dropped at least $35 million this primary season in hopes of rallying public support, and they're going at it even harder in coal states, with ads like these. They're worried that all this talk about curbing climate change, since all the candidates support some manner of cap on carbon, poses a danger to them, and they want to ensure that the voting public is as misinformed about it as possible. They have much to fear; coal currently accounts for half of our energy, which is not going to be a tenable mix in a world with a price on carbon.
So it's no surprise they're sponsoring yet another debate. The real question is, will anyone ask the candidates about where they stand on coal? It's the underlying question of everything related to climate change. We can't migrate to a new energy economy and effectively reduce our emissions without radically reducing our reliance on coal, but in not a single debate thus far have we heard the word mentioned outside the industry's endless ads. Of course, this could be simple neglect of the issue on the part of questioners, but I'm sure the industry sponsorship doesn't help encourage discussion on the subject.
--Kate Sheppard
COMMENTS (4)
The real question is, will anyone ask the candidates about where they stand on coal? It's the underlying question of everything related to climate change.
Since both candidates' climate change plans would put a high enough price on burning coal that coal use would be diminished considerably over time, I think you're asking the wrong question.
The right question is, how do they get their climate change plans through Congress without their being gutted by legislators doing the bidding of the coal industry and other bad actors?
Everything right now comes down to that. I think Edwards gave the most evidence of seeing that clearly - that on this issue, on universal health care, on just about anything important, the influential industries would only give ground when forced to, and it was going to take one hell of a fight to make them do so.
It wasn't clear what his plan was for the fight either, but alone of the three major candidates, he at least addressed the reality that that fight must be joined.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 22, 2008 7:26 AM
While we are flattered that there are some people out there who are convinced we can dictate the questions of the debate, the reality is we are merely a sponsor of advertising for the program. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. Just as purchasing an ad in a newspaper doesn’t skew the editorial content of that paper, the same is true here.
Rather than try to keep the issue of climate policy from coming up, as some folks have suggested we are doing, we are putting our effort to ensure that the issue does come up on the campaign trail. In fact, here’s the question we’d love to see get asked in one of the debates: “How do you plan to help America meet its growing demand for affordable and reliable electricity while addressing the climate change issue?”
Isn’t that the question we’re all asking?
Posted by: david, with ABEC | February 22, 2008 9:47 AM
here’s the question we’d love to see get asked in one of the debates: "How do you plan to help America meet its growing demand for affordable and reliable electricity while addressing the climate change issue?"
Isn’t that the question we’re all asking?
No, David, actually it isn't.
The trope that our well-being depends on a perpetually increasing supply of electricity and other energy is a wrongheaded and potentially destructive idea.
The real question is "within the confines of preventing climate change from getting out of hand, how do we maximize our well-being?"
I have no interest in consuming an ever-increasing quantity of electricity and petroleum. What I want to do is maintain a comfortable lifestyle. I'd strongly prefer to do that while consuming less electricity, not more.
And there's no reason why I can't. More efficient use of energy is the low-hanging fruit of minimizing climate change. Build houses to take advantage of passive solar heating so their heat pumps don't have to work overtime. Replace incandescents with compact flourescents. Give me a gizmo that tells me what electricity I'm using in real time, so I can tell when I'm using it in ways that add to my comfort and pleasure, and when I'm just wasting it in ways that I'd not noticed. You get the idea.
You want to sell more electricity; that's what a power industry shill does. But you're lying about the terms of the debate. I want a more comfortable lifestyle. Only you and your kind are insisting that that means I must burn more kilowatts.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 22, 2008 2:16 PM
Energy Independence Now!
No more Oil Wars!
Stop funding the terrorists!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end recession and spur the economy.
Posted by: poetryman69 | February 23, 2008 2:15 PM