King Coal Fights an Uphill Battle Against Environmentalists

King Coal is already the subject of the next big battle pitting environmentalists against big business. People involved in the issue are trying to determine how we can limit the use of the dirtiest and cheapest form of energy, and whether the notion of "clean coal" is a credible science or panacea.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. made news this week when he charged President Obama and many politicians with been too cozy with coal producers. Though the message was overshadowed by his use of the phrase "indentured servants" when characterizing political backers of clean coal, the son of RFK has been a long-time critic. Here's what he wrote for the Huffington Post in late 2007:

In fact, there is no such thing as "clean coal." And coal is only "cheap" if one ignores its calamitous externalized costs. In addition to global warming, these include dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates.

Both sides of this debate have featured vociferous opposition to each other. Jeff Goodell, the author of Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future, will attempt to moderate a panel containing a scientist, two lobbyists and a venture capitalist next Tuesday at the Commonwealth Club of California.

Goodell presented the pros and cons of clean coal's main contention in a blog posting for Yale University last year. He wrote that coal's dirty byproduct -- carbon dioxide -- could be liquefied and injected underground, thereby theoretically making the fortified black rocks of energy scrubbed of their ozone-depleting hazards. The science and feasibility, he says, is somewhat dubious, though. "Unfortunately, CCS [carbon capture and storage] is more fantasy than reality at the moment," wrote Goodell.

He does agree with Kennedy on the implication that clean coal is politically expedient and neatly explained. "Politically, CCS is a godsend. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are eager to carry Big Coal (swing) states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio, where the promise of 'clean coal' is the easy answer to every hard question about energy security, global warming, and the economy."

One of the leading proponents of Clean Coal is Joe Lucas, the vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) and a member of Tuesday's panel. He was called an "obvious huckster" by David Roberts of the Huffington Post while lampooning his powers of persuasion. "It's old-fashioned street theater, showing you the con and charming you into nodding along anyway," Roberts said. "You kind of have to give him style points."

At a time when populist tendencies are heightened along with broad acceptance of environmental platforms, corporate leaders are being pressured like no time since perhaps the early 1930s. If Clean Coal is nothing more than hokum, the onus of proving its viability to the American public may have passed -- like about six months ago, when more accommodating ears resided in the White House. In the meantime, only the great promise of scientific discovery is their best hope.

Author Jeff Goodell will moderate "Clean Coal: Myth or Reality?" with S. Julio Friedmann, Carbon Management Program Leader, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Ray Lane, Managing Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers; Bruce Nilles, Director, Beyond Coal Campaign at Sierra Club and Joe Lucas, Senior Vice President, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. The program, April 28, begins at 6 p.m. Click here for more information.

Energy Pick Gets Rave Reviews, Yet Much Work Lies Ahead

CHU: 'COAL IS MY WORST NIGHTMARE'

After years of perceived scientific neglect at the upper rings of government, President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Nobel-winning physicist Steven Chu to lead the Department of Energy is drawing high marks, or as one blogger wrote, "I'm on board the Chu Chu train."

Praise for Chu's selection has been effusive. Joe Romm at Climate Progress called him "a great choice," as did Andrew Revkin on The New York Times blog Dot Earth. Brad Johnson at Think Progress' Wonk Room blog called him "a singular addition to Obama's Cabinet" and a posting from Science magazine also lays out how Chu might change the department.

The appointment brings both the prestige of the scientific world's highest honor along with adding an Asian-American to Obama's diverse cabinet.

Since last Friday, when word of possible candidates for the job began to leak, the name of Chu was little-known among big names who campaigned vigorously for Obama such as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. The choice shows a willingness by the incoming administration to address climate and energy issues confronting the country.

During a 2005 speech at The Commonwealth Club, Chu said national security has become synonymous with energy security and the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. is threatened by global warming. (Click here to listen the speech.)

“I believe this energy issue is the center of all of these concerns," said Chu, "thus, I think it is the single most important societal problem that science has to solve. There is no magic bullet to this problem.”

Traditionally, the role of the energy secretary has primarily focused on nuclear energy and weapons issues rather than the conservation and alternative energy programs Chu favors.

The lack of administrative experience on the scale of the Department of Energy's $25 billion budget and 14,000 employees has been one major argument for some detractors. Former New Jersey governor and head of the Environmental Protection Agency Christine Todd Whitman has cautious words for the appointee saying, "It's a big leap from the academic world to the administrative world."

A Wall Street Journal piece from today also reveals Chu's aversion to coal and the need to develop methods for clean-coal.

Comments Chu made during a lecture at Cornell University last April on the need for regulations to curb carbon emission will not endear him to conservatives.

"Free market forces aren't going to do this. You really need a combination of fiscal policies and downright regulations, and it has to be international. And above all, we need to put a price on carbon without any loopholes. People in the U.S. especially are working very hard to keep it below $20 per ton -- and then have additional loopholes -- because at that price you actually don't have to change anything."

Blogger Matthew Yglesias put a damper on the appointment of Chu; while lauding it, he also believes the position offers the chance at little but a "bully pulpit." Also, at the same posting an interesting video of Chu is offered.

Chu, 60, was both congenial and lighthearted during the question and answer segment of his Commonwealth Club speech on solving the world energy crisis.

He reflected on his denial to both Princeton and Yale after graduation as a being "the best thing to happen to him" and displayed sharp, self-deprecating humor when describing his mother's feelings about winning the Nobel Prize in 1997.

“It gained me some respect in my family, but not in my mother’s eyes. She still can’t figure out why my oldest brother—he’s the one with the most degrees—and so my mother, who is getting along in the years, is still trying to figure out why didn’t Gilbert get the Nobel Prize. Why did Steven get the Nobel Prize? So, she’s finally come to the solution that Steven must be better at the politics of getting something like that. So, you can’t win.”

Wonder what Mother Chu is thinking today?

Post from Poznan

The first thing I noticed upon arrival in Poznan, Poland, for the United Nations Climate Summit was the acrid smell of coal in the air. Coal, among the dirtiest of fossil fuels, accounts for 95 percent of Poland's electricity and the hazy skies here evoke sooty images from a Dickens novel. This heavily industrialized part of central Europe is so polluted it is called the Black Triangle.

One of Europe's largest coal mines is just a few miles down the road, and there is a smokestack right across the street from the sprawling Soviet-era conference center. That's a fitting reminder for the 11,000 people who are gathered to discuss pathways to a low carbon global economy.

If the dreary setting, and the massive magnitude of the climate challenge, were not enough, the UN conference opened as the global economic crisis continues to deepen. "The bottom line is we are not going to be in the position we were two years ago" to provide technology and financial resources to tackle climate change, U.S. Senator John Kerry said in the United States before the conference opened here December 1st. Kerry is head of the US Congressional delegation arriving here next week and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, which will consider the treaty expected to emerge at the next annual summit in Copenhagen next December.

Despite the dark horizons and modest expectations of this year's gathering, there are bright spots. A briefing by the World Resources Institute, a Washington think tank, noted that much of China's $586 billion economic stimulus package is geared toward improving energy infrastructure and efficiency. China realizes that juicing the economy can be done while making smart investments in a new generation of energy infrastructure and efficiency. Other countries are seeing the same double play and the amount of capital being pumped into alternative energies and sustainable economic development is now many times greater than it ever has been.

Still, much more needs to be done. There is a broad international consensus on that. How much more? Some energy advocates and NASA's climate pioneer James Hansen say the end goal should be an atmosphereic carbon concentration of 350 parts per million. Others say 450 ppm is the number that will avoid catastrophic disruptions in our climate and way of life.

Many companies and politicians don't want to commit to a specific target. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, a London-based association of corporate titans such as Dupont, IBM, and mining giant Rio Tinto, dodges the sensitive question of a hard figure. But it does say significant cuts are necessary. "The current economic crisis reinforces business interests in a clear, comprehensive framework" for cutting carbon emissions after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, council member George Weyerhaeuser, Jr., told the conference.

What will the new global climate deal be? That won't be known until next December, but if it has any hope of solving the climate crisis it must dramatically cut emissions from coal plants such as the ones that power (and choke) this town. Poland's prime minister, Donald Tusk, says he supports fighting climate change, like just about every politician these days. And like nearly every politician, he thinks his constituents should get a special break, arguing Poland should be exempt from European Union plans to curb carbon emissions. Multiply that attitude by 160 participating countries and one begins to gauge the enormity of what must happen. Fast.

Greg Dalton, Commonwealth Club vice president and head of its ClimateOne program, is attending climate talks in Poznan, Poland.