Rachel's Democracy & Health News  [Printer-friendly version]
December 4, 2008

A DANGEROUS GAME

[Rachel's introduction: A new "reality coalition" has challenged the
coal industry to "live up to the promise of so-called clean coal."
But how serious is this new coalition?]

By Peter Montague

Five big enviro groups have just launched a new campaign to force the
coal industry to put up or shut up about "clean coal."

The Alliance for Climate Protection, League of Conservation Voters,
National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), and Sierra Club this week launched the "Reality Coalition," an
advertising campaign to -- in their own words -- "tell a simple truth:
in reality, there is no such thing as 'clean coal.'

The first "Reality" print ad shows a solitary door labeled "Clean Coal
Facility Entrance." Behind the door, though, lies a barren field. "In
reality, there's no such thing as clean coal," the ad says.

Reality's first TV ad follows the same premise and can be viewed at 
http://www.thisisreality.org/.

The "reality coalition" is responding to the coal industry's own
multi-million dollar ad campaign claiming that "clean coal" is the
answer to global warming.

The coal industry defines "clean coal" as power plants that capture
roughly 85% of their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, turn the CO2 into
a liquid, transport it via pipeline to a "suitable location," and bury
it a mile or so below ground, hoping it will stay there forever (thus
passing today's problem on to future generations).

Surprisingly, the "reality coalition" accepts the coal industry's
definition of "clean coal" -- merely capturing most CO2 emissions and
burying them in the ground. This is a very narrow definition of
"clean."

How dirty is coal? Let me count the ways.

A new report from Greenpeace International discusses the following
problems created by dependence on coal:

Effects of mining coal: Deforestation, soil erosion, water
shortages, coal fires, greenhouse gas emissions, lower water tables,
destruction of mountains, dust particles and debris in surrounding
communities, destruction of surrounding plant life, pollution of
nearby water bodies through runoff, displacement of communities due to
mining, coal fires, landslides and contaminated water supplies, plus
black lung disease.

Effects of burning coal: Water shortages from cooling of power
plants and "washing" of coal, air pollution and smog, serious mercury
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, acid rain, and widespread lung
disease from fine and ultrafine particles.

Effects after burning: Abandoned mines, destroyed communities,
altered landscapes, soil damage and water pollution from acid mine
drainage, destruction of fish and aquatic animals, collapsing mines
causing structural damage to nearby roads, bridges and buildings,
kidney disease, and cancer, plus every year U.S. coal plants produce
120 million tons of toxic coal combustion wastes laced with lead,
arsenic and cadmium, most of which gets buried in the ground, creating
toxic time bombs.

But the "reality coalition says only, "Coal cannot be considered clean
until its carbon dioxide emissions are captured and stored."

And: "No matter how much they say it in their advertising, coal can't
truly be clean until the plants can capture the global warming
pollution."

Surely a coalition of major environmental groups can see that there is
more to cleaning up coal than merely burying CO2 in the ground.

The "reality coalition" seems to be playing a dangerous game. The way
the "reality" campaign is framed, it invites the coal industry to meet
the challenge by merely creating a few "demonstration" projects, which
will then be used to claim that "clean coal" has arrived. Indeed, one
small "demonstration" plant is already operating in Germany, and coal
executives are already claiming it "demonstrates" that "clean coal" is
real.

The "reality coalition" has not defined what would constitute an
"adequate demonstration" of "clean coal." If the goal is to bury
trillions of tons of CO2 in the ground and keep it there for, say,
2000 years -- how could you demonstrate success? Yes, you can stick a
pipe in the ground and pump liquid CO2 into it for five years. But the
day you declare the demonstration a "success," leakage could begin the
next day. So how can such a demonstration ever be declared a success?

And if a demonstration occurs under laboratory conditions for a few
years, does that mean that trillions of tons of CO2 can then be
"safely" pumped into the ground for the next 50 years in China, India,
Russia and who knows where else? Are regulatory authorities in those
countries even as vigilant as the sleepy agencies we tolerate in the
U.S.?

Unless we specify what constitutes an adequate demonstration of carbon
dioxide burial, and show that humans have the capacity to monitor
operations for the duration of the hazard, arguably a few thousand
years -- which is something humans have never done before -- we
will be allowing the coal industry to define what constitutes a "clean
coal" success story. It's like asking a den of foxes to define
"adequate safety" in the henhouse.

Pardon me for being skeptical, but one member of the "reality
coalition" -- Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)-- since 2005
has been the main cheerleader for the coal industry's plan to
demonstrate "clean coal" without defining (a) what constitutes
"success," and (b) what sort of institutional framework could provide
adequate regulatory oversight for the duration of the hazard. Indeed,
NRDC's reckless slogan has been "CO2 capture and storage: Just do
it!" Has this leopard changed its spots?

The rubber will meet the road the next time the coal industry and its
friends in government (like Barack Obama and Joe Biden) ask Congress
for $20 or $30 billion to pump CO2 into the ground for a few years as
a "demonstration" of clean coal. If the "reality coalition" doesn't
oppose such give-aways to the coal industry, we'll know they're not
serious about making the coal industry demonstrate that clean coal is
technically feasible and economically viable. In the meantime,
it's a dangerous game they are playing. A dangerous game.