Americans for Balanced Energy Choices: Belching Lies About Coal
Posted by keith on March 21st, 2008
Americans for Balanced Energy Choices: it sounds sensible enough, balancing the different kinds of energy with the need to massively reduce the amount of energy consumed. Except that ABEC is doing nothing of the sort. Like the Oregon Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute (notice that they are all “institutes”, a nice homely monicker, but also rather close to “institution”) before it, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices is a very public front for the coal industry.
The idea of such setups is to provide a friendly face for something that is inherently unfriendly: the coal industry in the USA is responsible for 36 percent of all national carbon emissions. This has been the same since 1990, despite the headline claims that the coal industry is getting cleaner – and that is precisely why I have changed the image above from the ABEC website to read 0.0% CLEANER rather than the absurd 70% CLEANER on the original front page. You can find out more about their claim here.
Except you can’t, because they don’t justify the “70% cleaner” claim in any way: maybe it’s sulphur dioxide, maybe it’s sooty ash, maybe it’s something else – it most certainly isn’t carbon dioxide, the pollutant that really matters!
So, who are these Americans who want “balanced energy choices”. Do I have to spell it out?
AMEREN Corporation, American Electric Power, Arch Coal, Inc., Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., Basin Electric Power Cooperative, BHP Billiton, Buckeye Industrial Mining Co., Buckeye Power, Inc.,Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., CONSOL Energy Inc., CSX Corp., Detroit Edison, Duke Energy, First Energy Corporation, Foundation Coal Corp., Hoosier Energy, Norfolk Southern Co., Peabody Energy Corp., Southern Co. , Tri-state Generation & Transmission Assn. Inc., Union Pacific Railroad, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative.
Hmmm, wonder what all of these companies have in common?
ABEC is what is known as an “Astroturf”:
Campaigns & Elections magazine defines astroturf as a “grassroots program that involves the instant manufacturing of public support for a point of view in which either uninformed activists are recruited or means of deception are used to recruit them.” Journalist William Greider has coined his own term to describe corporate grassroots organizing. He calls it “democracy for hire.”
(from Sourcewatch)
I urge you to explore these Astroturfs when you find them: you can have great fun working out what they don’t say. As for ABEC — they are downright dangerous, and deserve every bad-mouthing they get.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am
[…] [Read the rest at The Unsuitablog] […]
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
[…] the rest at The Unsuitablog] Powered by Bookmarkify™Popularity: unranked […]
March 24th, 2008 at 7:59 am
It is true that coal plants are 70 percent cleaner.
The calculations are based on five pollutants: carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter.
Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculates environmental performance per unit of energy produced. That is, the relationship of emissions per billion kilowatt-hours.
From 1970 to 2000, the value for that ratio fell from 30,510 short tons per billion kilowatt-hours to just 8,040 short tons per billion kilowatt-hours — a reduction of 73.66%.
As for carbon dioxide… coal will remain the backbone of the U.S. electricity system for decades if not centuries, and incorporating carbon capture and sequestration is essential to our future.
The issue of global warming is probably the single biggest challenge facing America’s energy sector.
But the fact remains… there has never been an environmental challenge facing the coal-based electricity sector for which technology didn’t provide the ultimate solution – and those who are familiar with the advancements in carbon capture technology recognize that meeting the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector is not likely to be the exception to that rule.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I suppose I have to give you some credit for responding, David, and thanks for confirming that there has been NO reduction in carbon dioxide (the pollutant that, as you say, really matters); it would be good if your site also said that.
The ultimate solution for the problem facing the coal-based electricity sector is to shut down coal-fired power stations that don’t use CCS. I don’t support CCS because it scares the c*** out of me that tonnes of CO2 will be pumped underground to emerge, who knows where; but I’m prepared to make an exception for this case. Here’s the deal: shut down all coal-fired power stations without CCS now, and you can do whatever else you like. Sure, Americans would have to use less energy for a while but, hey, that’s part of the solution too. Ok?
Keith
March 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
You’re right Keith – Americans would have to use less energy….cause guess what..we’d all be in the dark!!
Your notion of shutting down a source of energy that provides half of our electricity is both naive and shortsighted.
Why don’t you try telling the estimated 60 million households who make less than $50000 a year that are spending nearly a quarter of all their income on energy costs that we will take away the last affordable energy resource that keeps the lights on and render them homeless???????
Stupidity at its finest….
Great work.
[Yes, Matt, it’s really stupid trying to give humanity a future — guess I’ll have to stop that then. Those poor souls on $50000 a year : that means they spend $12500 on energy! Jesus wept: what are they doing, heating a ballroom? My combined gas and electricity costs are about £600 ($1200 a year) and we are a family of four. In the next 12 months I’ll get that down to below $1000. How very un-American of me.
Keith]
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:07 am
[…] might be able to take some kind of credit for this, but whether The Unsuitablog was the catalyst or not, there is now a new web site called The Alliance for Burning Every Chunk of Coal (ABECC) […]
April 24th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Mining often, like many industrial endeavors can cause air pollution. When mining the excess which is not used is piled up and often causes leaching into the ground, those other minerals released are more concentrated than much of the normal downstream waters.
[Absolutely – so naturally your company are no longer using coal that leaves tailings?
Keith]