‘Clean Coal’ Front Group Opposes Global Warming Bill with Billions for Clean Coal
‘Clean Coal’ Front Group Opposes Global Warming Bill with Billions for Clean Coal
This post was co-written by Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Alexandra Kougentakis, a Center for American Progress Action Fund Fellows Assistant.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity — a front group of big utilities and coal companies — has long professed “support for a mandatory federal plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” But now that the House of Representatives is poised to vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, ACCCE’s true colors are showing — coal black
In a new ad in Politico (see right), that was published yesterday, ACCCE describes the greenhouse gas pollution reductions in H.R. 2454 as a “high risk proposition.”
America’s Power Army, ACCCE’s grassroots arm, sent an email to its members urging that they “e-mail your Member of Congress today and tell him or her to add consumer protections to the climate change bill.” Never mind that the bill DOES safeguard consumers and broad sectors of the economy from higher prices. Potential increases in energy costs are mitigated through the distribution of allowances, as well as through an Energy Refund Program for low-income ratepayers.
A top priority for ACCCE is money for research for clean coal technology – carbon capture and storage. H.R. 2454 has $60 billion for CCS. The EPA estimates that this funding would make CCS commercially viable by 2015. Yet ACCCE still opposes the bill.
In addition to the vast amount of CCS money, H.R. 2454 has a number of provisions consistent with ACCCE’s “Climate Principles.” Four of the principles demand federal support for carbon capture and sequestration technology, which H.R. 2454 strongly meets through both funding and public-private sector partnerships.
The table after the jump indicates each of the climate principles with the degree of its fulfillment by H.R. 2454.
| ACCE Principle | H.R. 2454 includes similar measure? |
| Guarantee, through public-private sector partnerships, aggressive, near- and long-term investments in new, advanced technologies that 1) avoid or reduce CO2 emissions; 2) capture, transport, and safely store CO2; and 3) use CO2 in beneficial ways, whenever practical. | Yes |
| Establish a legal, regulatory and long-term liability framework to safely store CO2. | Partial |
| Promote the deployment to other nations of advanced U.S.-developed technologies to avoid, reduce, capture, transport, and safely store CO2. | Yes |
| Promote the deployment to other nations of advanced U.S.-developed technologies to avoid, reduce, capture, transport, and safely store CO2. | Yes |
| Ensure that any mandatory requirements (cap levels, compliance deadlines, etc.) be reasonable and recognize that many of the technologies needed to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions from new or existing fossil-fueled generating stations are not yet commercially available. | Yes |
| Protect American consumers and the U.S. economy through effective cost-containment measures. For example, if a cap-and-trade program were to be implemented, it would be essential to have fair and equitable allocation of emission allowances, as well as to establish a ceiling price for carbon that is certain and reasonable. | Yes |
| Allow broad use of verifiable actions to offset manmade greenhouse gas emissions. | Yes |
| Afford full credit for verifiable early actions that avoid, reduce, or capture and store manmade greenhouse gases. | Partial |
| Avoid a patchwork of conflicting standards or duplicative programs through the adoption of a uniform federal program. | Partial |
| Encompass economy-wide domestic actions and cover all major manmade greenhouse gases. | Yes |
| Preserve reliability of the electricity generation, transmission, and distribution system. | Yes |
| Promote energy security and reliability by encouraging maximum utilization of domestic resources to generate electricity. | Partial |
| Maintain America’s competitiveness in a global economy. | Yes |
ACCCE’s opposition to H.R. 2454 contradicts their millions of dollars of ads about using “clean coal” to slow global warming. Despite such proselytizing about clean coal, the 48 ACCCE companies invest relatively few dollars in research to develop carbon capture and storage. An analysis by the Center for American Progress found that for every dollar of profit in from 2003-2008, the ACCCE companies invested less than two cents in carbon capture and sequestration research.
ACCCE’s opposition to H.R. 2454 comes the same week that the U.S. Global Change Research Program documents the harms from global warming in “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” The report warned “Unless the rate of emissions is substantially reduced, impacts are expected to become increasingly severe for more people and places.”
H.R. 2454 would require such pollution reductions and prevent the devastating impacts of a 9-11ºF rise in temperatures – but it must first pass Congress. ACCCE joins big oil and other polluters in efforts to block solutions. ACCCE, ads and rhetoric aside, is a big part of the problem in the battle against global warming.
3 Responses to “‘Clean Coal’ Front Group Opposes Global Warming Bill with Billions for Clean Coal”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
I loled, and tweeted :D
Which wonks know the names of potential primary challengers to Senate blue dogs? Actblue told me they would put up a page for them as soon as they announce, but I’d love to have a few bucks in even sooner if you have any ideas. Rumors okay for this one, as long as your wonk credentials are satisfactory.
June 20th, 2009 at 2:44 amDan and Alexandra:
Let’s be clear. Yes, we do believe changes are needed to HR 2454. One change that we’re seeking is placing a cap on compliance costs to guarantee that consumers are protected against higher energy costs. Are you saying that the Center for American Progress wouldn’t support such a cap? Why? Don’t you agree that affordable energy is needed to help spur economic recovery and help American working families who are already having a hard time making ends meet?
I’ll agree that several good changes have already been made to the House version of the bill. For instance, allocating allowances (as opposed to auctioning) will reduce consumer costs. Despite these changes, we’re not quite there yet. As the ad says, we are for a bill that will ensure access to affordable, reliable energy, promote greater energy independence, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by bringing new technologies to the marketplace (principles that I believe ACCCE and American Center for Progress would both agree on). This is the type of bill we can and will support. While ACCCE has been very clear on detailing our climate principles, the Center for American Progress’ website says nothing about the type of climate bill you would support — other than you just want a bill. You have provided no specifics. Well, if you just want something “badly” … sometimes you end up with something that is “bad” (or at least not so great).
If you doubt that ACCCE will support a bill, join us in calling for changes to HR 2454 that will truly ensure that it meets the principles that we have laid out — and then maybe there will be a version of the bill that we can all support.
June 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 pmAs a consumer making less than $25,000 a year (and as a citizen born and raised in West Virginia – home to some the most destructive mining practices in the world), I am comfortable with an increase in energy costs if I can ensure that my energy is coming from clean and sustainable sources.
Unfortunately, I am in the minority, thanks to the fact that many Americans have been blindsided by the rhetoric of coal companies and “clean coal” advocates. Until we see through the claims that the main goal is making energy affordable for families in a time of recession, we will be unable to see the real issues: coal is not and never will be a clean or sustainable energy source, American energy consumption is far too high and needs to be reduced (what a better way than by increasing the price to make Americans conserve?), and that coal industries and their lobbyists have sacrificed their seat at the table for environmental and social/economic issues by destroying our natural landscape and poisoning the communities in which they mine.
I am baffled and disgusted that in spite all of the information that has been made widely available about the detrimental impacts of coal mining and coal-produced energy, we still continue to let these companies and lobbyists have a voice in our legislation on environmental reform and protection.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:05 am