In an extremely good (and highly recommended) article, Environmental News Service reports that there is some serious cash supporting getting environmental organizations in line behind so-called "Clean Coal" (what should be called: Less Dirty Coal) and massive investments to explore the potential for carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is a long-shot, which puts off implications and investments and responsibilities and consequences 'out into the future', thus is loved by industry and politicians, but it shouldn't be liked by anyone really concerned about reducing future risk.
Carbon Sequestration and Not-As-Dirty Coal
Well, there is a lot of throwing around of the term "Clean" Coal (or, as I prefer to refer to it, Not-As-Dirty Coal).
You have, perhaps, heard the phrase clean coal. This contradictory term was coined by carbon sequestration advocates as a public relations ploy. In clean coal, the word clean is narrowly defined to mean coal that contributes less carbon to the atmosphere in the short term, compared to typical coal combustion.
In sum, clean coal is an advertising slogan without substance.
Now, of course Not-As-Dirty Coal won't stop Mountain Top Removal, mountains of fly ash, etc., even if it would (somewhat) lower particulates (maybe). Not-As-Dirty Coal will not stop coal's contribution to Global Warming, at least not until there is carbon sequestration. Now, there is something important to realize, it is not "until" but "if" there is sequestration. We are living, all of us, a massive science experiment as to the implications of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The only thing: we're living in the test tube and there is no escape hatch. And, well, Carbon Sequestration is a gambit, a gamble in that experiment. Can we (collectively) figure out a way to sequester massive amounts of carbon dioxide, for millenia to come, without leaks?
Now, sadly, some of the great voices in environmentalism are speaking up to say that sequestration is good. That it has been proven. Well, as to the first, I don't know, perhaps. But, as to the second, we do not have meaningful proof of the ability to scale up carbon sequestration to handle the billions of tons of carbon that coal-fired electricity contributes to the atmosphere each year. We simply don't.
Whose hands might be dirty?
So, who are we talking about perhaps having some dirty hands?
Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, the Izaak Walton League, the Clean Air Task Force, the Michigan Environmental Council, and others have received substantial grants to advocate for carbon sequestration.
Who has been giving the money? The Joyce Foundation. Now, about the Joyce Foundation, their AboutUs:
The Joyce Foundation supports efforts to protect the natural environment of the Great Lakes, to reduce poverty and violence in the region, and to ensure that its people have access to good schools, decent jobs, and a diverse and thriving culture. We are especially interested in improving public policies, because public systems such as education and welfare directly affect the lives of so many people, and because public policies help shape private sector decisions about jobs, the environment, and the health of our communities. To ensure that public policies truly reflect public rather than private interests, we support efforts to reform the system of financing election campaigns.
Can one wonder where all this "Clean Coal" advocacy fits into the equation? Well, it is the first item under "environment" in their programs:
Energy from clean coal. Because fossil fuel emissions create pollution and foster climate changes that threaten the Great Lakes, the Foundation has a long-standing interest in the energy infrastructure of the region. Investment and policy or regulatory decisions about proposed new coal-burning power plants will shape not only our electricity system for the future, but the future of the Lakes as well. We are committed to promoting policies that encourage (through incentives and regulatory structures) the development of clean coal technologies and to ensuring that state agencies approve only those projects that meet state-of-the-art standards for minimizing air pollution and have significant promise for reducing or capturing carbon emissions. The Foundation supports efforts to engage state officials and power plant developers to build the cleanest possible plants to meet the region's electricity needs.
Well, the Midwest has a lot of coal and, well, working on figuring out paths to reduce its polluting impact could, well, could be laudable. But, "significant promise" does not mean can or will be able to "reduce or capture carbon emissions".
Now, let us look at one example from the Environmental News Service, the National Resources Defense Council for example:
The Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, which earned its reputation as a shadow government by watchdogging EPA, now shares EPA's giddy optimism toward carbon sequestration. In a letter to a California legislator, NRDC's George Peridas asserts that carbon sequestration can be "perfectly safe."
And NRDC lawyer David Hawkins was quoted recently saying carbon sequestration can be carried out with "very very small risks."
NRDC has a $437,500 grant from the Joyce Foundation to promote carbon sequestration on industry's behalf.
This does seem quite damning. To be honest, I don't know the full context of Hawkins' quote and, well, the relationship of that quote to funding. And, well, whether NRDC scientists would agree with Hawkins. But, well, it doesn't seem quite right, does it?
Or, how about some others, looking at the Joyce Foundation's grant list.
Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development Inc.
Minneapolis, Amount: $99,400.00
gpisd.net To brief Midwest lawmakers and regulators about how advanced coal technologies are currently deployed in Europe and encourage their support for similar adoption here.
Clean Air Task Force Inc.
Boston, MA, Amount: $55,000.00 To support a delegation of Midwest policy makers, industry representatives, and environmental groups to visit European coal gasification projects and meet with European counterparts.
Clean Air Task Force Inc. Boston, MA, Amount: $60,000.00
URL: www.catf.us
To retain local counsel and technical experts to appear in the licensing hearings for a proposed IGCC project.
Izaak Walton League of America Inc., St. Paul, MN, Amount: $350,000.00, URL: www.IWLA.org To continue to encourage the deployment of advanced coal generation in Minnesota and to promote policies that enable and encourage carbon capture and storage.
Union of Concerned Scientists Inc., Cambridge, MA, Amount: $75,000.00 URL: ww.ucsusa.org To support its efforts to study and highlight the financial risks of future carbon dioxide emission limits.
CUB Consumer Education and Research Fund, Chicago, IL, Amount: $75,000.00 >
Length: 1 year
URL: cuboard.org
To promote new policies supporting coal gasification and carbon sequestration for new electric generation in Illinois. Clean Air Task Force Inc.
Boston, MA Amount: $787,500.00
Length: 21 mos.
URL: www.catf.us
To promote Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle for the next generation of coal plants in the upper Midwest. Clean Wisconsin Inc.
Madison, WI Amount: $500,000.00
Length: 1 year
URL: www.wiendecade.org
To oppose conventional coal plants proposed in Wisconsin and promoting coal gasification with sequestration as an alternative. The Wisconsin Citizens Utility Board would be a partner in the intervention and campaign.
Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development
Minneapolis, MN Amount: $437,500.00
Length: 21 mos.
URL: gpisd.net
To support the efforts of its Coal Gasification Working Group. National Wildlife Federation
Reston, VA Amount: $122,700.00
Length: 21 mos.
URL: www.nwf.org/
To build support in Indiana and Michigan for coal gasification as an alternative toconventional coal-burning power plants. Indiana Wildlife Federation and Michigan United Conservation Clubs would be partners in this effort. National Resources Defense Council; URL: www.nrdc.org
For its efforts to oppose the construction of new conventional coal plants and promote alternative plants using coal gasification with carbon sequestration.
Ohio Environmental Council, Columbus, OH, Amount: $113,750.00
Length: 21 mos.
URL: www.theoec.org To support its ongoing efforts to promote Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle in Ohio and to oppose the permitting of a conventional coal plant proposed by AMP-Ohio, a municipal utility consortium.
Resources for the Future Inc. Washington, DC, Amount: $75,000.00
To conduct a quantitative assessment of the risks to shareholders and electric utility ratepayers of investing in various coal combustion technologies.
Rockefeller Family Fund New York, NY Amount: $50,000.00
To support ongoing coal advocacy activities of the Renewable Energy Alignment Mapping Project.
University of Wisconsin-Madison Center on Wisconsin Strategy Madison, WI, Amount: $175,000.00 URL: www.cows.org
To build support among labor leaders in Wisconsin and other Midwest states for coal gasification as an alternative to conventional coal power plants.
Does being on this list mean that all (or even any) of these organizations have dirty hands when it comes to less-dirty coal? No. Actually, absolutely not. There are a lot of, even on the face, valuable questions being asked and addressed through some of these grants. And, well, there are many great people working at these institutions, with some serious dedication to improving the environment.
But, questions can be raised.
Appearances can be suspicious.
One might ask: Where there's smoke, is there fire?
NOTES
Again, recommended, INSIGHTS: Carbon Sequestration by Peter Montague at the Environmental News Service.
Related material at Energy Smart.