Student Activists Accuse Newt Gingrich of Flip Flopping on Global Warming

The Washington Examiner reports:

Student activists who favor global warming legislation are accusing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of changing his position in anticipation of his testimony today before House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“We think the hearings should include unbiased scientists and not someone who has taken money from the coal industry,” Andrew Nazdin, a junior with the University of Maryland said. “We favor climate change legislation that includes a 100 percent auction under cap and trade. If the polluters have enough money to pay Gingrich, they should have enough money to pay for their own pollution.”

Nazdin is a chief organizer with the Energy Action Coalition, which is staging a rally outside of the Rayburn House Office Building. Dressed in bright green shirts, hard hats and placards the youth activists hope to publicize Gingrich’s ties to the coal industry.

In April 2008 Gingrich promoted national action against global warming in concert with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The student energy coalition claims he has now changed his position after his organization accepted donations from coal interests.

“Young people from across the country are asking Congress to pass bold climate and energy policy that creates investments in clean, renewable energy and makes polluters pay for their mess,” Nazdin said. “We have no more time to wait and everything to lose if we do.”

Here's the 2008 video mentioned in the story, from an advertisement sponsored by the Alliance for Climate Protection's We Campaign.



So what happened to that Can Do American spirit that Newt seemed to embrace back int the day (i.e. just 12 months ago!)? Appearing at today's hearing (check out the hash tag #powershift09 on Twitter for live coverage and commentary of the hearing), the former Speaker of the House was all "we can't do it, we don't have the technology, it'll cost to much," etc. Yes We Can gave way to No, No, No.

Well, according to Energy Action Coalition, this is what happened:

[I]n July [2008], [Gingrich's] 527 group, American Solutions for Winning the Future, received a quarter-million dollars from Peabody Coal and hundreds of thousands more from coal and oil companies. By late August, the 527 group had launched its deceptive, anti-environmental, pro-dirty energy “Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.” campaign.

Here's the story of the Drill Here, Drill Now campaign launched after Gingrich's organization received generous contributions from the coal and oil industries:



As 1Sky's bloggers write:

Gingrich has been a paid shill for the oil companies which, while already making record profits, want more of the status quo. Both the oil companies and Gingrich want us to stay dependent on oil. Of course they do. ExxonMobil is the most profitable company in the world according to the most recent Fortune 500 list.

Finally, as Miles Grant pointed out while the Drill Here, Drill Now debate was raging, despite his new visibility as a "leader" of the now minority-Conservative movement, Gingrich remains highly unpopular with the American public:

If there's anyone who proves time may not necessarily heal all wounds, it's Newt. Nearly a decade after he resigned from the House with an approval rating of just 28 percent, a 2007 poll showed remarkable 54 percent of Americans still held an unfavorable opinion of Gingrich. Cheney was only slightly less popular, rated unfavorably by 57 percent of those polled.

Alas poor Newt, maybe the Conservatives need to find a more credible and popular obstructionist blowhard spokesman...

Read more!

Intel Oregon: Outstanding Achievement in Corporate Greenwashing

“Intel remains committed to the principle that Oregon continues to lead on the critical issues of carbon reduction and climate change. I hope and believe there will be legislation this year that delivers on that goal.” – Jonathan Williams, Government Affairs Manager for Intel Oregon

When the Wall Street Journal devotes page space to the concept of industry greenwashing, you know you’re looking at what might just be a change in public consciousness. More and more people are turning a critical eye to corporations that trumpet their own environmental concernedness far and wide, then turn around and pollute the air, destroy biodiversity, or fight government policies that would raise environmental standards. Nowhere is that more true than in my own environmentally-inclined state of Oregon. None of our Oregon-based companies quite made the Journal’s list of the “Top Ten Greenwashers in America.” But if you drew up a similar list specifically for corporations with close ties to the Northwest, you’d have to put Intel Corporation somewhere near the top.

While Intel, the largest computer chip manufacturer in the world, is technically based in California, Oregon is the company’s largest center of manufacturing in the US. And unsurprisingly, the Oregon branch of Intel has pulled out all the stops attempting to paint itself as “green.” But over the last year, I’ve worked with other student activists to look at just how Intel’s policies in Oregon match up with the company’s green rhetoric. And this is what we’ve found:

As the largest private employer in Oregon, Intel wields immense political power in this state. Yet as the Oregon legislature debates some of the most progressive climate policies in the country this year, Intel has been conspicuously silent. And for Intel, silence means giving a thumbs-up to those who would like to gut Oregon’s promising clean energy future. Why? Because Intel is one of the largest members of Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities (ICNU) – a group that has consistently lobbied against progressive climate policy in Oregon. This year, ICNU has joined forces with a variety of other corporate interest groups to form Oregonians for Balanced Climate Policy – actually an anti-environmental conglomeration of the worst polluters in this state that now represents the single most powerful opponent to climate policy in Oregon.

Let’s be clear: Intel doesn’t control everything that ICNU or Oregonians for Balanced Climate Policy does. But if Intel doesn’t speak out loud and clear and tell Oregon legislators that it supports bold climate policy, then by default it allows the corporate anti-sustainability advocates to have their way, lending them its support through membership in business groups like ICNU. When you belong to the largest alliance of polluting industries in the state, then doing nothing is really doing something: something negative.

Last month students from the Cascade Climate Network, myself included, offered Intel the chance to put some backbone in its rhetoric by joining us as we lobbied for a cap on Oregon’s global warming pollution. Over thirty Oregon college students turned out for a day of lobbying our members of the legislature on March 31st, and we asked Intel to be there with us. This would have been a way for the company to clearly show that its membership in ICNU (and ICNU’s involvement in Oregonians for Balanced Climate Policy) wouldn’t keep Intel itself from sticking up for a future based on clean energy. But Intel lobbyist Jonathan Williams declined our invitation to push for Senate Bill 80 – the bill that would put a gradually-decreasing cap on Oregon greenhouse emissions.

“I cannot get involved in legislation before I understand the implications of that legislation for Intel,” said Williams. “I remain unclear about the effect a revised SB 80 would have on Intel, [so] I cannot participate in any discussions on the issue.” Thinking this was probably fair, and giving Intel the benefit of the doubt, I suggested the company might simply join us in pushing for a cap on carbon, with the understanding that they couldn’t get behind a specific policy at this time. Williams turned down that offer as well, and there was no sign of Intel on our pro-climate lobby day. More than that, my communications with Jonathan Williams seemed to confirm Intel’s position on Senate Bill 80 – called the “centerpiece of our climate agenda this year” by Oregon’s Healthy Climate Partnership – is officially a non-position. And I’ve already explained what “neutrality” really means for a company with Intel’s corporate ties.

So what are we student activists to do? By documenting our lobby day offer to Intel and the company’s refusal to support a cap on greenhouse emissions, the youth climate movement in Oregon has compiled what to my knowledge is the first definitive evidence of Intel’s turning down a specific opportunity to do the right thing. Corporate greenwashers tend to be experts at slipping out of sticky public-relations debacles, and finding ways to blame the problem on someone. But it’s going to be hard for Intel to convincingly refute this one. Now we youth activists must do what we’ve done well again and again: call out a not-so-good corporate citizen on its own bogus rhetoric. Click here to tune into the campaign. Let the show begin.

Read more!

"Clean" Coal and "Healthy" Cigarettes - Coal Industry Huckster Won't Admit Burning Coal Causes Climate Change

Joe Lucas has a hard job. He's the PR huckster that heads up the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the front group that shills for the coal industry.

As you can see in the video below, no matter how many times he watches "Thank You for Smoking," Lucas just can't quite pull off the irresistibly charismatic charm of Aaron Eckhart's Nick Naylor, the movie's lead character who spins Big Tobacco's lies so effortlessly. To be fair, when your industry keeps bumbling around, letting off billion gallon toxic coal sludge spills, indescrimantly blasting the tops off of entire mountains, and buying off West Virginia judges, it's hard to stay ahead of reality.

While he can't pull off the style, Lucas sure is taking notes from Big Tobacco when it comes to his talking points: in an interview on CNN last night, Mr. Lucas refused to answer a simple yes or no question about whether or not the burning of coal contributed to climate change.

His answer? "I'm not a scientist." Nice dodge!

Well Joe, neither am I, but I can read, and I'm pretty sure the science is in. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which I'm pretty sure includes two or three scientists) stated with greater than 90% certainty that greenhouse gas emissions like the CO2 spewed from coal plants causes climate change. Check out the video below the fold (Lucas's BS is about 2:00 mins in)...



Mr. Lucas was spurred to defend himself in a comment at Grist, where Kate Sheppard calls attention to his shenanigans.

There are two sides to every story, and that is certainly the case when it comes to the CNN interview discussed above.

When the interview aired, CNN played only part of a quote in which I said "I'm not a scientist" when asked whether or not emissions from coal plants contributed to climate change.

Here's what you didn't hear: I pointed out that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a whole list of things about which there is great certainty, other things about which there is some certainty, and still other things about which there is less certainty. We do know that there has been an increases in greenhouse gas emissions and that some warming has taken place.

According to the IPCC, the exact extent that human-made emissions will contribute to climate change is less certain. However, the remaining uncertainties do not provide a reason to not take action.

Especially when you take into consideration the advances that we are making with advanced clean coal technologies to capture and store CO2 from power plants.

By focusing on technology to ensure a cost-effective means of meeting new emissions standards, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy independence, create jobs and keep energy costs affordable for American businesses and families.

Ah shucks Joe...

...you almost, almost admitted that the industry you shill for is the leading contributor to climate change. Almost. It was a great effort, and I really appreciate it. Really.

While you're here, Joe, I'm wondering if you can tell me what "advance clean coal technologies" you are working on to stop the unequivocally dirty and horrendously devastating impacts of the mountaintop removal coal mining your industry practices? I assume since you are a proponent of "clean" coal, you are in support of the Clean Water Protection Act introduced in Congress yesterday, which would reinstate sane environmental protections that, you know, prevent the dumping of entire mountains on top of streams and valleys. I assume you'll join me in championing the Clean Water Protection Act to help clean up the coal industry...

And of course, when you say scientists are "less certain" that "human-made emissions will contribute to climate change" what you really mean is that they are more than 90% certain (rather than 100% certain I guess). Well you are right there. Remember though: this is scientific consensus, and expressions of scientific certainty don't get much stronger than that. Gravity is still a theory, after all.


Hat tip to Josh Dorner at HuffingtonPost, Kevin Grandia at DeSmogBlog and Kate Sheppard at Grist for being all over this one like a PR huckster on a steaming pile of industry bull$ite

Read more!

EPA to Regulate CO2, or How Coal Plants Die

By Susanna Murley, originally posted at CCAN

In the death throes of the Bush administration, then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson put the agency on record stating that CO2 is not a pollutant that should be regulated by the Clean Air Act. This week, the current EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced her intent to overturn that memorandum, putting the EPA on the path toward regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

As a result of this decision, coal plants are dropping like flies. The latest victim comes out of Oklahoma. Opposition groups cite the EPA decision and public outcry, but the reps from the company building the plant say it’s “purely a business decision.” With more and more planned coal plants biting the dust due to “business decisions,” how much longer can coal companies insist that building new coal plants our best option?

But this hilarious video from 2006 reminds us that the fossil fuel industry isn’t confined to the truth when defending its turf. (No, it’s not a spoof. It’s real.)



Virginia is in the midst of a heated battle against two proposed coal plants. Given that the EPA now seems to be interested in actually protecting the environment, and coal plant proposals across the country are being withdrawn, it’s hard not to wonder: Is Virginia next?

One thing is for certain: regulations are coming. With this most recent EPA decision, the skyrocketing price of coal, and mounting concerns over global warming and mountaintop removal, there is ample reason for the courts to send the Wise County Plant back to the state regulatory agencies for review. Surely the recently proposed $6 billion Surry plant will have to be reconsidered given the new regulations.

With these new regulations from the EPA, utilities like Dominion (which proposed the Wise County plant) and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (which proposed the Surry plant) will not only have to clean up emissions of sulfur, mercury and nitrogen, but will also have to limit emissions of carbon dioxide. There is, of course, no way to significantly reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from coal plants – the much anticipated capture-and storage technology everyone keeps talking about is decades and billions of dollars away from being a reality. It makes you wonder: How will ODEC and Dominion make their coal plants “clean” when you can’t “clean” the CO2 out of dirty coal? With a lot of money, a giant PR campaign and a little magic dust sprinkled on for good measure.

As the truth about coal begins to dawn on Virginia, it’s up to us to say enough with dirty expensive coal. In the face of such economic uncertainty it seems like an unsound investment for Virginia to be gambling our future. Now is the time to work towards securing a clean and efficient energy for the Commonwealth and the nation.

[Following in the spirit of the hilarious real-life ad from CEI... do you know the game two truths and a lie? Well here's three coal ads. Two are real life. One is fake. Can you tell which one? Post your guess in the comments.]

Read more!

What If We Took the Coal Industry's "Clean Coal" Promises At Their Word

The coal industry has an image problem. They know it. And they've been spending millions of dollars on a PR ad push to convince the world that a "cleaner" variety of coal is around the corner. They can make something called "clean coal" a reality, they say.

Well, what if we took the coal industry's "clean coal" promises at their word?

First things first, we'd certainly want to get started right away on cleaning up the dirty realities of today's current coal industry practices, right? I mean, if there's some high-tech, new cleaner variety of coal coming soon, no sense continuing all these antiquated old dirty coal practices.

This video from Think Progress paints a clear picture of just one of the dirty realities of today's coal technologies:


[Note to the Reality Campaign people: this is the kind of ad you should be running!]

So if coal is going to be "clean" some day in the future, then I assume the coal industry would support new regulations to clean up and safely store all the toxic coal ash their power plants produce in the meantime, right? After all, the massive coal ash disaster in Kingston, Tennessee this December released over a billion gallons of toxic coal sludge across acres upon acres of beautiful eastern Tennessee. Studies now find high levels of toxic arsenic in the sludge that has already condemned several homes and sullied the waters of two tributaries of the Tennessee River. That sounds pretty clearly like dirty coal, not that "clean" coal stuff we've been promised, so we'd better get started on cleaning it up.

Similarly, the coal industry shouldn't mind when states like Washington and California - and maybe even the US EPA - enact emissions performance standards that ensure that the only new coal plants that can be built are those new plants that capture and store their carbon dioxide emissions you keep promising. After all, if "clean coal" is right around the corner, we wouldn't want to build any more of those dirty old-fashioned coal plants, right? So I hope you'll support us when we push for a ban on coal plants that spew millions of tons of global warming pollution into the skies.

And while the coal industry works on making good on their promises of "clean" coal, I'm sure they won't mind when states like Georgia, North Carolina and the US Congress consider (and hopefully pass soon) bans on the clearly dirty and devastating practice of mountain top removal coal mining.

You'll also support us, right, if we decide to keep our mountains intact and build wind farms instead that will provide more energy and more jobs than blowing up the mountains to get at the coal inside? That's what the Coal River Mountain Wind activists are proposing in West Virginia, and I assume since you support a clean energy future, you'll be happy to stop blowing up mountains and support clean wind power at Coal River Mountain instead.

Finally, while we wait for you to make good on that promise of "clean" coal at some point in the future, I really hope you don't mind if we turn to the clean, renewable energy sources that are already real today. Just this week alone, the Coal River Wind advocates in West Virginia were joined by folks in Michigan and Montana who also decided they'd rather get started on clean renewables and stop using dirty coal while they wait for you to roll out that fancy new "clean coal" stuff. And it's those real clean energy sources that are ready today that tens of thousands of young people will storm Washington D.C. to demand at the upcoming Power Shift 2009 summit in Washington DC, February 27th-March 2nd.

After all, the reality is that "clean coal" is still just a promise. And even if we take the coal industry at their world, it's all the more reason to get started today, cleaning up the dirty mess of today's coal technologies and deploying the clean, renewable energy sources that are already a reality today. Let's get started.

Read more!

This is "Clean Coal": Massive Coal Sludge Spill Dwarfs Exxon Valdez Disaster

Let's see how the "clean coal" PR hucksters at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity try to spin this tragic news: a retention pond holding toxic coal ash slurry burst Monday in Roane County, Tennessee, releasing over half a billion gallons of potentially toxic sludge that swept into the nearby town of Harriman and contaminated tributaries of the Tennessee River. The resulting flood damaged 15 homes, injured one man as it knocked his house of its foundations, and has left over 400 acres of land covered by several feet of coal ash, mud and contaminated water (see video below).

Coal ash and slurry is the normal byproduct of coal-fired electricity generating, and is usually stored in giant retaining ponds near coal plants. The resulting coal slurry is frequently contaminated by heavy metals, mercury and arsenic.

Yesterday's tragedy struck at the coal ash impoundment associated with the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston coal-fired steam plant and released about 2.6 million cubic yards of slurry, the Tennessean reports. That's enough to fill nearly 800 Olympic-sized swimming pools, and is over 40 times more contaminated sludge than the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill.

As usual, a picture is worth a thousand words - and a video is worth even more; you can see scenes from the environmental disaster at the photo gallery here and the video below:



Greenpeace has called for a criminal investigation into the disaster, noting that similar spills in the past have resulted in felony charges.

"Every facility like this is supposed to have a spill contingency plan to prevent this kind of disaster," said Rick Hind, Greenpeace Legislative Director. "The authorities need to get to the bottom of what went wrong and hold the responsible parties accountable."

The coal industry has a long and not-so-stellar record of coal slurry disasters.

"This is the kind of scary thing that people living with coal worry about every day," notes Dana, a West Virginia-based activist with the Student Environmental Action Coalition.

At ItsGettingHotInHere.org, Dana writes:

In February 1972, Buffalo Creek Sludge Impoundment, [burst and released] a mere 132 million gallons, killed 125 people, left 5,000 homeless and thousands more with post traumatic stress disorder. In 2000, a 2.2 billion gallon coal waste dam failed in Martin County, Kentucky. The largest dam in the hemisphere is the Brushy Fork Sludge Impoundment, which holds 9 billion gallons of toxic coal waste.

So, this is the history coalfield residents hold in our hearts when we open our emails and see “Slurry Pond Bursts.”

The Sierra Club's Bruce Nilles, writing at DailyKos, notes:

"There are literally hundreds of these sludge impoundments across the United States. As coal has dominated Appalachia, it has left behind a toxic legacy for residents, a legacy that will haunt the region for decades. For example, in Sundial, West Virginia, an elementary school sits just 400 yards downhill from a massive impoundment containing 2.8 billion gallons of toxic coal sludge."

Greenpeace notes that, like Exxon Valdez, the millions of gallons of coal sludge released Monday could take years to clean up, and some of the damage to the ecosystem could be irreparable.

"If the Exxon Valdez was a symbol of pollution 20 years ago, the Tennessee Coal Spill of 2008 is the symbol of it today," said Kate Smolski, Senior Legislative Coordinator for Greenpeace.

Smolski added that these local impacts represent only a small fraction of coal's negative impact.

"The really sad thing about this spill is that it's only a small example of the damage coal causes," Smolski added. "Add in global warming, tens of thousands of annual premature deaths from power plant pollution, and hundreds of mountains leveled across Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia, and that's the real picture of coal."

Monday's tragic slurry spill puts the lie to the coal industry's recent multi-million dollar "clean coal" PR blitz. You simply can't argue with reality - at least not for too long.

See related posts:

• Breaking: A Coal Sludge Spill Bigger than Exxon Valdez (Bruce Nilles at DailyKos)
  
• Coal Ash Slurry Pond Bursts in Tennessee (DanaWV at ItsGettingHotInHere.org)
  
• Massive Coal Ash Spill in Tennessee puts the lie to Clean Coal (Kevin Grandia at DeSmogBlog)
  
• Real-life coal disaster pops coal industry pr bubble (Pete Altman at NRDC's Switchboard)
  
• Dam Breach in Tennessee Releases Tsunami of Toxic Coal Sludge (David Sassoon at SolveClimate)
  
• “Clean” coal ash flood may make new Superfund site (Brian Angliss at ScholarsAndRogues)
  
• Coal Front Group Sets Up Dirty ‘Blogger Brigade’ To Fight Reality (Brad Johnson at the Wonk Room)
  
• Greenpeace Calls for Criminal Investigation into Coal Ash Spill (GreenpeaceUSA release)

Read more!

Rachel Maddow Pillories Bush's Loot and Run Tactics and Coal Industry Greenwashing

Picking up on topics we've been covering here at WattHead recently - including both the Bush Administration's 11th hour loot and run environmental strategy and the greenwashing shenanigans of the coal industry - MSNBC's Rachel Maddow pilloried both Bush and the coal industry yesterday in her regular weeknight segment, the Rachel Maddow Show. Bravo to Maddow for highlighting both of these dastardly moves:

Read more!

Coal Industry Front Group Cans Clean Coal Carolers

What happened to those adorable clean coal carolers?!

After just three days of online absurdity, the coal industry front group, "America's Power" canned the anthropomorphic singing chunks of coal from their website amidst a torrent of netroots pressure.

After getting kicked around by the blogosphere for a few days, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity's absurd and more than slightly disturbing and sacrilegious effort to win the hearts and minds of Americans with doctored Christmas carols was eventually pilloried by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC:

"How about turning the most famous song in the English language about the birth of Jesus into a commercial for the coal industry? ... Where are all those war on Christmas people when you need them?!"

Today, the coal front group pulled the clean coal carolers from their website and took down the facebook page (which had been joined by about a dozen new Facebook members with names like "Asthma Al" and "Black Lung Billy" soon after it was launched!). The group's blog only had this to say by way of explanation: "We had fun this week with the Clean Coal Carolers and hope you enjoyed them. Now it's time for them to head home for the holidays."

Well WE certainly had some fun with them too, and I think we all know why they took down the clean coal carolers (right, like they planned to only have them online for three days and pull them 13 days before Christmas... Sure...). At least today, chock this one up as another win for the netroots and a loss for multi-million dollar industry-sponsored greenwashing. Happy Holidays!

(Luckily, someone caught the "Frosty the Coal Man" video on youtube for posterity before it's hilarity was lost forever. Check it out below the fold...)

Read more!

"Clean" Coal Front Group Hucks "Frosty the Coal Man" and Other Brazen Assaults on Christmas Spirit

When you peddle a product that blows the tops off of whole mountains, is the leading contributor to global warming and toxic air pollution, and is facing an increasingly effective grassroots and legal assault, what are you to do? Well, apparently what you do is dress up your ugly product in cute Christmas garb, pen some songs to the tune of favorite seasonal carols, and then sit back and wait for the public to rush to your side.

At least that's the apparent logic behind the coal lobby's new "Clean Coal Carolers" web page, (and FaceBook group) where - I'm not making this up! - you can dress up little, floating, anthropomorphic chunks of coal in scarves and ear muffs and have them sing versions of your favorite carols, brazenly updated to shill for the mythic "clean coal" the industry is peddling these days. "Silent Night" is now "Clean Coal Night" and "Frosty the Snowman" is the "portable and adorable" "Frosty the Coalman."

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out this excellent response today:

Ah, if only fun outerwear and corny songs could erase coal's dirty statistics. The 1,430,000 tons of coal burned in a typical 500 megawatt coal plant produces:

• 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are no regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.
• 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and buildings.
• 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of smog, and also a cause of acid rain.
• 500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard, causing lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not regulated, but may be soon.
• 220 tons of hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when they don't burn completely, they are released into the air. They are a cause of smog.
• 720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas and contributor to global warming.
• 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. A scrubber uses powdered limestone and water to remove pollution from the plant's exhaust. Instead of going into the air, the pollution goes into a landfill or into products like concrete and drywall. This ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic metals like lead and mercury.
• 225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Mercury emissions from coal plants are suspected of contaminating lakes and rivers in northern and northeast states and Canada. In Wisconsin alone, more than 200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. Health officials warn against eating fish caught in these waters, since mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and other ailments. Acid rain also causes mercury poisoning by leaching mercury from rocks and making it available in a form that can be taken up by organisms.
• Trace elements of uranium. All but 16 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been detected in coal, mostly as trace elements below 0.1 percent (1,000 parts per million, or ppm). A study by DOE's Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater than those from nuclear power production.

For more information on coal, go to "How Coal Works."

To put visually, it does this:


and this:


and this:

And regardless of how incrementally cleaner burning coal gets, you'll still have to dig it out of the ground, a process that will never be clean. And now, more and more coal is being mined through the process known as mountain top removal, which blows the tops off of entire mountains in Appalachia and dumps the remains onto streams and valleys to get at the coal underneath - a process that destroys ecosystems, communities and coal mining jobs, which are replaced by the less labor intensive (and more explosives intensive) mining practice.

As long as coal mining does this...


...it'll NEVER be anything close to "clean," and to use the Christmas spirit to peddle lies is about as dastardly a move as you'd expect to see coming from industry front groups.

Check out Coal-Is-Clean.com/Coal-Is-Dirty.com, ThisIsReality.org, and ILoveMountains.org for the truth on coal.

Read more!

Coal is NOT the Answer

It's time for the truth. The truth about coal. The coal industry has spent over $40 million on misleading advertising that touts coal as the next great thing to solve the energy crisis. It’s time for a reality check. Check out the video below and the websites CoalIsNotTheAnswer.org and Coal-is-Dirty.com to learn more about the deception of the coal industry and how it stands in the way of real solutions such as wind and solar.



Ever wonder if all these "clean coal" ads really means we're winning? Mighty King Coal is playing defense. Keep up the great work...

Read more!

Repower America? ABC Says They'd Rather Take Dirty Oil Money

ABC refused to run a Repower America ad from the We Campaign because it apparently threatened their cozy relationship with oil and coal companies and the dirty money they are throwing at corporate media for slick greenwashing ads. Here's the scoop...

If you're like me, you've been obsessively watching each of the presidential debates over the past weeks. If so, you must have noticed the ever-present oil and coal company ads proclaiming their commitment to overcoming today's pressing energy and ecological problems with new innovative solutions: aka, their dirty old products repackaged and resold as "clean" and "green."

CNN's debate coverage has been sponsored by a coal industry front group, and CBS has ExxonMobil fronting the bill. Perhaps the slickest of the ad campaigns, Chevron's "Human Energy" ads are playing everywhere, trying to imply that the oil company is really on your side in the effort to conserve energy - aka buy less of their product! As if!

In short, it seems like this year's presidential election is essentially "brought to you by your friends at ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and Peabody Coal."

To counter this flood of dirty oil money taking over the network and cable news channels, the We Campaign has been running Repower America ads, calling on America's leaders to truly repower our nation with 100% clean energy. The Repower America ads are running on several networks, including CBS, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, and MSNBC... but not on ABC!

ABC, the only network to reject the ad, had no problem running any of the oil and coal industry spots during their debate coverage. But when the We Campaign wanted to buy an ad slot during ABC's news magazine, 20/20, the network flat out refused to air the ad!

Why would they turn down the We Campaign, which was offering to pay top dollar for prime airtime? Because the ad had this to say:



That's right, We's ad called the oil and coal companies out for spending gobs of cash - on ads, lobbyists and more - to block efforts to truly Repower America, and ABC apparently couldn't run an ad questioning their main cash cow! That'd just be bad business, I guess.

ABC had a bogus official excuse, of course (republished here courtesy of We via the Wonk Room):

Per our Guidelines, national buildings may be used in advertising provided the depictions are incidental to the advertiser’s promotion of the product or service. Given the messages and themes of this commercial, the image of the Capital building is not incidental to this advertising. Please replace the image with one that is not of another national building or monument. Thank you.

Here's the offending image, on screen for just about one second:

Right, the offensive part of this image was that it depicted the Capitol Building, not that it called out one of ABC's biggest sources of dirty dirty cash... sure... And an ad about oil companies spending gobs of cash on lobbyists to block federal legislation has nothing to do with the Capitol Building... Good excuse ABC!

The We Campaign quickly sent out a letter to it's 1.6 million members saying:

I sent a letter asking ABC to reconsider their decision and put our ad on the air, but still we haven’t heard back more than a week later. I think they need to hear from all of us. Can you help? Please send a message to ABC and tell them to air the Repower America ad this Friday on 20/20. Just click here:

http://www.wecansolveit.org/ABC

We’re working to get 100,000 public comments to ABC before 20/20’s next airing.

Our Repower America ad has a clear and simple message — that massive spending by oil and coal companies on advertising is a key reason our nation hasn’t switched to clean and renewable sources for our energy.

The petition already has over 173,000 signatures and counting. So head on over to WeCanSolveIt.org and tell ABC that if they're going to take dirty oil company money, they'd better take some dirty environmentalist money as well, and run the darned ad!

Kate Sheppard at Grist has more muckraking on ABC's indefensible decision to block the Repower America ads...

Read more!