---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Fred Heutte <phred@sunlightdata.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Subject: E&E: 'Propaganda war' over coal escalates ahead of Hill climate debate
To:
COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS@lists.sierraclub.org
'Propaganda war' over coal escalates ahead of Hill climate debate
Anne C. Mulkern, E&E reporter
Ads displayed at Washington subway stops and airing on national
television call "clean coal" a myth. Tell that to President Obama, his
Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress.
Five months into an advertising war on coal, the phrase "clean coal" not
only endures, it has become political shorthand. Everyone -- from
Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota to Interior Secretary Ken
Salazar -- refers to clean coal or clean coal technology.
Environmentalists call the "clean coal" rhetoric dangerous, saying it
creates complacency about the need to move toward true carbon-free
energy. Policymakers, environmentalists say, know that coal remains one
of the most polluting sources of energy.
The word war over coal is escalating. There are billions of dollars at
stake, as Congress moves toward historic legislation that could decide
winners and losers in the green energy economy. Already, there are signs
of small victories by the coal camp.
"To a certain extent, it is a propaganda war," said Kenneth Green,
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington
think tank. "The coal industry believes the environmental community
wants to put it out of business. The environmental groups are afraid the
clean coal concept is appealing enough to lawmakers, it will stymie
their progress in getting rid of coal."
Coal's boosters and its critics are vying to shape public perception
about the fuel. For coal, winning the battle could mean securing
billions of dollars for years to come. Coal companies want federal money
for research on removing and sequestering carbon emissions and to
preserve their position as dominant players in the United States' energy
supply. Meanwhile, environmentalists are hungry to minimize the role of
polluting fossil fuels and capture federal money for wind, solar, other
renewable power sources and conservation efforts.
Both sides are spending tens of millions of dollars in the fight.
A coalition of coal backers spent about $38 million on advertising last
year and another $9.9 million on lobbying. That compares with the
$93,000 spent annually on lobbying from 2002 through 2007.
Groups that say "clean coal" is not economically viable have also
escalated their efforts. After coal supporters ran television ads last
fall, a coalition of environmental groups joined with Vice President Al
Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection and started the Reality
Coalition. It began airing ads declaring, "There's no such thing as
clean coal." That slogan is based on the fact that no commercial-scale
plant exists that removes and sequesters carbon emissions from coal.
The Reality Coalition will not reveal how much money it is spending but
said its advertising purchases are "competitive" with the coal
industry's buys.
At the heart of the battle are the phrases "clean coal" and "clean coal
technology" that linguists find particularly potent.
"The image is 'You can wash it, you can make coal clean,'" said George
Lakoff, a University of California, Berkeley, professor of cognitive
science and linguistics. "Technology is miraculous. All problems are
solved by technology."
Since most thought is subconscious, he said, that kind of message seeps
in and affects people's attitude.
Clean also means good, said Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at
Georgetown University and author of several books, including "The
Argument Culture." She said the coal fight is an example of what she
writes about in that book. People get two sides of an argument and do
not know which is correct, she said.
Who's winning?
For now, both sides in the coal fight are claiming the edge.
There is evidence the coal industry has made inroads. The phrase "clean
coal" made its way into four bills so far this year. Two have become
law, including the financial stimulus measure that allocates $3.5
billion for research on clean coal technologies.
Even when the phrase "clean coal" is omitted, coal is not left out.
"Clean coal" does not appear anywhere in the discussion draft of climate
legislation from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But the rough
draft talks about grants for research and development on carbon capture
and sequestration, which would be funded through assessments on energy
producers.
That language came as the result of talks between Energy and Commerce
Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.); Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who chairs
the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming;
and Rep. Rick Boucher, (D-Va.), a coal industry supporter.
The draft does not designate a dollar amount for those grants. Separate
legislation from Boucher proposes about $1 billion annually.
"Coal is America's most abundant domestic fuel, and today, coal accounts
for more than one-half of the fuel used for electricity generation,"
Boucher said when he introduced that bill. "Given our large coal
reserves, its lower cost in comparison with other fuels and the
inadequate availability of fuel alternatives, preservation of the
ability of electric utilities to continue coal use is essential."
Dealing with coal is necessary because it provides about half of the
country's electricity and because China, India and other developing
nations will keep using it despite the climate change concerns,
congressional aides said.
"We can do obviously great things with clean energy, but if we don't
figure out coal ... on the global warming side and the economics side,
we will potentially lose both those battles," said Eben Burnham Snyder,
spokesman for Markey's select committee.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu, meanwhile, has issued qualified support for
carbon sequestration research. Many see that as a significant shift. In
a presentation at University of California, Berkeley, before Obama
picked him to lead the Energy Department, Chu said, "Coal is my worst
nightmare."
"As Secretary Chu has said, we need to transform the way we use and
produce energy in this country to end our dangerous dependence on
foreign oil and reduce the threat of pollution," DOE spokeswoman Tiffany
Edwards said. "We will do that through investments in clean coal
technology to reduce our carbon footprint, while also developing the
next generation of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources."
Chu also has said it will take at least eight years before a research
project could show whether carbon capture would be commercially viable.
Poll shows movement
Those who accuse the coal industry of trying to falsely portray itself
as green acknowledge that the phase "clean coal" has slipped into
political speech. But they reject the notion that the coal industry is
ready to be part of the green energy economy.
When you look at the bigger picture of what Congress has done since
January, the real push is toward renewable power, said Brian Hardwick,
spokesman for the Reality Coalition.
The economic stimulus law provides about $80 billion for renewable power
programs, incentives, work on an electricity grid and conservation
efforts, Hardwick said. Meanwhile, there is $3.4 billion set aside for
research and development to see whether it would be commercially viable
to capture and sequester coal's carbon emissions.
"We're pretty happy with how that balance worked out," Hardwick said of
the stimulus.
The coal coalition also said it has seen a shift in its direction. In a
September 2007 national poll, opinion leaders opposed the use of coal by
a margin of 52 to 46 percent, said Joe Lucas, spokesman for the American
Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, or ACCCE, a partnership of
industries involved in producing electricity from coal.
But when the survey was repeated last October, 72 percent supported
using coal and 22 percent opposed, Lucas said. Both sides developed ads
they believed would influence voters, journalists and ultimately
policymakers.
The Reality Coalition hired famed advertising firm Crispin Porter +
Bogusky, which had done the "Truth" anti-smoking campaign. The coalition
then hired famed movie-director brothers Joel and Ethan Coen, who
directed a spot in which a man sprays an air freshener labeled "clean
coal." Dirt comes out of the container as a family of four coughs. The
strategy called for humor to pull people into a dry, technical subject,
said Mary Anne Hitt, deputy director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal
Campaign.
"We hopefully can point out what we consider to be the whole absurdity
of clean coal and also engage people on the issue who otherwise might
not be paying attention," Hitt said.
The coalition also put ads in Washington subway stations featuring a
mermaid and space alien holding coal and text declaring, "there's no
such thing as clean coal."
Obama featured in coal ad
But the pro-coal forces have a powerful weapon in their ad effort.
Barack Obama, while running for president, spoke about coal at a
campaign rally. A coalition representing coal interests repackaged his
words into a television ad that is still running.
"Clean coal technology is something that can make America energy
independent," Obama says in the ad. "This is America. We figured out how
to put a man on the moon in 10 years. You can't tell me we can't figure
out how to burn coal that we mine right here in the United States of
America and make it work."
After Obama said those words, the ad wrote itself, Lucas said.
Other observers, however, said parsing the president's words shows that
he is not saying clean coal exists today. The words in the speech sound
as though they were "very carefully calculated, calibrated words, with
the judicious use of double negatives. I don't think those words were
not chosen judiciously," said Joel Darmstadter, senior fellow at
Resources for the Future, nonprofit group that conducts research on
energy issues.
"Don't tell me that we can't," Darmstadter said, "is different from
saying, 'Yes, we can.'"
ACCCE designed its ads after using polling and focus groups.
The latest ad from the group shows a series of workers and tells viewers
how coal powers the U.S. economy, "jobs powered by affordable energy
generated by our most abundant fuel, coal, the source of half of our
electricity." The ad does not refer to clean coal except for a logo at
the end.
Hardwick, with the "no such thing as clean coal" ad group, said he
believes the ad shows the coal industry knows its "clean coal" ads are
not working.
And his response to the coal group's latest advertisement indicates
where the ad war could be headed. If the industry is going to promote
itself as an inexpensive energy source, he said, he will be asking
people to consider "the real costs of coal" -- including global warming
and natural resources destroyed by mining practices.
"As we look to how to build our energy future," Hardwick said, "we have
to determine if that's the way we want to go."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to:
COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp