Last week, congressional investigators uncovered a forged letter sent to the office of Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), criticizing the House’s climate change bill. According to the Washington Post, this letter was forged to appear as if it had come from an American Legion post in Virginia when in fact it was drafted by a lobbyist for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity opposing clean energy legislation.

As an Iraq war veteran and a state legislator, I object to the exploitation of the good name of our veterans and one of our nations’ most distinguished veterans organizations to serve the interest of for profit special interest groups.

On Thursday, the very same day this falsified letter came to light, I joined with a real group of veterans, over 150 from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and others. As part of Operation Free, we came from across the country to join former Senator John Warner to call on the United States to end its dependence on dirty fossil fuels, and take action to combat the national security threat of climate change. As Senator Warner, a veteran of WWII and Korea, said:

Terrorism and insurgency are fed by famine, poverty and failing states. There is a direct link between famine, poverty and failing states and climate change.

That is why we as veterans care about the energy policy – it impacts our national security.

I traveled to DC because I believe the Senate needs act on the Waxman-Markey bill quickly, and pass serious climate change legislation this year. The dishonest tactics of special interest groups are despicable at all times. But when our nation’s security and the good name of real soldiers are put on the line in the name of greed and profiteering, it’s a whole new level of unacceptable.

Duke Energy left the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy on Tuesday over differences with “influential member companies who will not support passing climate change legislation in 2009 or 2010,” the company said.

Duke Energy left the right-wing National Association of Manufacturers in May for similar reasons, but Duke’s CEO, Jim Rogers, still sits on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — alongside right-wing climate deniers Don Blankenship, Harry Alford, and George Argyros — which is spending tens of millions of dollars to kill clean energy jobs.

Members of business coalitions like the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) and Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP) have advocated for the establishment of a mandatory carbon market (”cap and trade”) to promote investment in clean energy while reducing global warming polution. In the meantime, business coalitions like the National Association of Manufacturers, ACCCE, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) are running Astroturf campaigns to kill clean energy legislation.

However, Duke is not the only company that has been playing both sides of the field:

– Members of USCAP and ACCCE: General Electric, Alstom Power and Caterpillar

– Members of USCAP and NAM: Dow Chemical, Ford, Chrysler, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, and Caterpillar

– Members of USCAP and API: Siemens, Dow Chemical, Shell, General Electric, ConocoPhillips, and BP America

– Members of USCAP and the Chamber of Commerce: Alcoa, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, and Siemens

– Member of BICEP and the Chamber of Commerce: Nike

Other ostensibly green companies on the boards of NAM and the Chamber include AT&T, Procter & Gamble, Verizon, Corning, Ford, Honda, Toyota, 3M, Intel, and IBM.

The coalition also plans to deploy teams to question senators at town hall meetings, advertise at state fairs and other summer events and visit lawmakers’ offices back home.

ACCCE’s campaign, representing coal interests from General Electric to Peabody Energy, requires the efforts of multiple Astroturfing companies, including primary contractor Hawthorn Group, as well as known fraud shop Bonner & Associates, and marketing firm R & R Partners.

The “ACCCE Army” will be joining right-wing Astroturf efforts funded by the oil and gas industry to disrupt Congressional town hall meetings across the nation. Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, both bankrolled by oil and gas giant Koch Industries, are orchestrating the “tea party protests” and have hired dozens of field staff to spread misinformation about clean energy and health care reform. Yesterday, FreedomWorks released its “August Action Recess Packet” for disrupting town hall meetings:

It is essential that we don’t let the pressure up. While Senators and Representatives are home for their August recess they need to hear from you, regardless of party. Many hold town hall meetings that are open to the public, check our map to see if there is one nearby and take our questions to ask them on the record whether they can risk losing even more jobs under Cap and Trade or if they plan on raising taxes for government run health care. In addition to attending town hall meetings, please call and visit district offices asking the same questions.

As Media Matters Action explains, the FreedomWorks energy talking points are just as fraudulent as ACCCE’s “clean coal” campaign.

Obviously, anything like this, where someone is claiming your letterhead and then claiming your position is just outrageous. They also did JABA, the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, which is one of these great service organizations in our community that helps our seniors. And for them to get dragged into something like this really is, I think, a blow to folks in the area. But it’s also just a turn-off again to these sorts of corporate-lobbying tactics.

Watch it:

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the chair of the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, today sent a letter to ACCCE requesting information about its role in the affair, including the full details of all of the fraudulent letters sent on its behalf:

The deliberate inaction prior to the House vote and the extended silence after the vote — some 40 days after ACCCE knew what had happened — raises serious concerns.

I can take you to places in eastern Kentucky where community services were hampered because of a lack of flat space — to build factories, to build hospitals, even to build schools. In many places, mountain-top mining, if done responsibly, allows for land to be developed for community space.

The concept of “responsible” mountain-top mining is laughable, as Mountain Justice explains:

Traditional mining communities disappear as jobs diminish and residents are driven away by dust, blasting and increased flooding and dangers from overloaded coal trucks careening down small, windy mountain roads. Mining companies buy many of the homes and tear them down. Dynamite is cheaper than people, so mountaintop removal mining does not create many new jobs.

Mountaintop removal generates huge amounts of waste. While the solid waste becomes valley fills, liquid waste is stored in massive, dangerous coal slurry impoundments, often built in the headwaters of a watershed. The slurry is a witch’s brew of water used to wash the coal for market, carcinogenic chemicals used in the washing process and coal fines (small particles) laden with all the compounds found in coal, including toxic heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. Frequent blackwater spills from these impoundments choke the life out of streams.

ACCCE’s Joe Lucas — who can’t even admit that coal pollution contributes to global warming — is giving new meaning to the idea of the Flat Earth Society.

The group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity acknowledged this afternoon that it had contracted Bonner & Associates earlier to perform “limited outreach,” but the advocacy group denounced the firm’s actions.

ACCCE’s choice of Bonner comes a little surprise, as Bonner has built a reputation as one of the most effective and amoral Astroturf companies inside the Beltway, having generated “grassroots” campaigns on behalf of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries.

When not paying for Astroturf fraud, ACCCE was the top lobbyist on climate change and clean energy last year, spending $10.5 million on powerhouse lobbyists such as the Podesta Group and Guinn Gillespie. ACCCE has been praised for the “sophistication” of its public message of supporting mandatory emissions limits in theory while virulently opposing the passage of any actual legislation.

In addition, ACCCE has a $20 million budget for online campaigns for “shaping public attitudes” in favor of coal, has run tens of millions of dollars of television and radio ads, has handed out “clean coal” t-shirts and baseball caps, and even promoted “Frosty the Coalman” carols.

More about ACCCE from the Wonk Room Resource Library.

No amount of PR spending or jazzy jingles can obscure the actual facts about coal: it’s a dirty killer of jobs, health, and the environment. Arch Coal, as can be seen from the Factuality video itself, is profiting obscenely from the literal stripmining of our planet:

Arch Sold Three Billion Dollars Of Coal Pollution In 2008. Arch sold 139.6 million tons of coal in 2008, about 12% of the United States supply, making $354.3 million on nearly three billion dollars of revenue. Employing only 4300 people, Arch produced over 32,000 tons of coal and made $82,400 per employee. Arch Coal’s CEO Steven Leer pulled in $6.56 million.

Arch Coal Is A Top Global Warming Polluter While Doing Nothing To Solve The Threat. The burning of Arch’s coal in 2008 generated about 223 million tons of carbon dioxide, approximately three percent of all U.S. emissions, and 52,000 tons per employee. Despite having made $929 million since 2003, Arch Coal is not investing in a single project to develop the technology needed to capture and store coal’s global warming pollution, according to a Center for American Progress analysis.

Arch Coal Is A High-Rolling Lobbying And Political Spender. Arch Coal spent $970,000 last year lobbying Congress, and has already spent $240,000 this year. Arch gave $116,750 to House members in 2007-2008, and $73,250 to Senate members in 2007-2008.

The average American carbon footprint is about 20 tons a year; the average Chinese carbon footprint is 3 tons a year. As he makes about two percent of Arch Coal profits, CEO Steven Leer’s footprint is over four million tons of global warming pollution a year.

The Vice President, Paid and Digital Media is responsible for implementing proactive digital media and traditional media placement strategies as a component of an integrated national communication program designed to 1) support coal-based electricity advocacy initiatives and 2) increase the public’s awareness of and appreciation for the use of coal to generate electricity.

This position, according to recruiting firm Korn/Ferry International, will oversee the public relations and media placement firms under contract and manage an annual media budget in excess of $20 million: more than $3 million for “digital media programs” (like the “Clean Coal Carolers” and a “Blogger Brigade“) and greater than $17 million for “media placement.”

ACCCE’s planned digital onslaught is just one component of a comprehensive, national public relations campaign to misinform the public about coal. In 2008, ACCCE spent over $45 million on its deceptive messaging, including $10.5 million to lobby Congress. The PR firm Hawthorn Group has bragged about its “grassroots campaign” for ACCCE involving “sending ‘clean coal’ branded teams to hundreds of presidential candidate events” and “giving away free t-shirts and hats emblazoned with our branding: Clean Coal.”

The Wonk Room received the job description when Korn/Ferry approached Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Associate Director for Online Advocacy, Alan Rosenblatt, about the job. Alan tells the Wonk Room:

While some may work just for money, progressives work for values. Which might explain why this headhunter was naive enough to recruit me despite the fact I work for an organization that opposes her client.

Download the Korn/Ferry job description for ACCCE’s Vice President of Paid Digital Media here.

CPI found that the top climate lobbying shop was the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a coal-industry front group that spent $10.5 million lobbying Congress:

No group exemplifies the sophistication of the current debate more than the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity — a new lobbying organization unveiled just weeks before the vote last June on the Warner-Lieberman bill. Representing 48 mining firms, coal-hauling railroads and coal-burning power companies, ACCCE spent $10.5 million lobbying Capitol Hill on climate in 2008 — more than any other organization solely dedicated to the issue. In addition to the group’s president, Steven Miller, a one-time aide to former Democratic Kentucky Gov. Brereton Jones, and vice president Joe Lucas, who was an aide to former Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary, ACCCE has at least 15 outside lobbyists, including former White House Counsel Quinn. The big effort is not surprising, since electricity is the largest single source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the most carbon-intensive fuel, coal, provides half the nation’s power. But ACCCE’s position is that it supports a mandatory federal program to curb the emissions its own members produce — as long as the policy meets ACCCE’s set of principles for keeping electricity affordable, domestically produced, and reliable. And that means encouraging, in ACCCE’s words, “robust utilization of coal.”

Check out the “The Climate Change Lobby” site, including a searchable database of lobbyists and a sampling of top players.

• It contributes to energy independence, allowing us to use coal that is right here in America
• It stimulates the economy and could create almost 7 million job-years of employment and over $1 trillion in sales
• It will help fight climate change and aid other environmental goals by promoting technologies to reduce carbon dioxide and major air pollutants

Only by a gross distortion of industry-friendly estimates could $4.6 billion for coal technology really “create almost 7 million job-years of employment and over $1 trillion in sales.” The “7 million job-years” figure comes from “Employment and Other Economic Benefits from Advanced Coal Electric Generation with Carbon Capture and Storage,” a BBC Research report commissioned by ACCCE. In fact, the report says only that the construction of 100 gigawatts of advanced coal plants — about 200 plants over a fifteen-year span — would generate that much job activity. The construction expenditures for a single plant with CCS is estimated at “approximately $2.0 to $2.1 billion.” So the $4.6 billion in the Senate plan is enough for the construction of only two plants and about 6,000 construction and manufacturing jobs. Two hundred plants would cost a staggering $393 billion. The ACCCE email “is a bit confused,” Doug Jeavons, the author of the BBC report tells the Wonk Room:

The nearly 7 million job-years estimate is associated with full scale development of about 100 gigawatts of advanced coal CCS capacity, not just the proposed $4.6 billion in the stimulus plan.

Furthermore, the technology to build such plants does not yet exist. As NV Energy announced when they indefinitely postponed the construction of a coal-fired plant in Ely, Nevada:

The company will not move forward with construction of the coal plant until the technologies that will capture and store greenhouse gasses are commercially feasible, which is not likely before the end of the next decade.

To make CCS technology commercially viable, the federal government needs to do more than throw billions of dollars at the coal industry with lax provisions. As the Center for American Progress recommends, there should be a federal greenhouse emissions performance standard put in place for new plants, and a cap-and-trade system to make polluters pay for their emissions.

You can get into the debate. If you are interested in becoming an active member of ABEC’s Blogger Brigade just send me an e-mail to abroadhurst@balancedenergy.org and let me know you’re interested. One of our team members will give you a call and walk you through the process. It’s really easy – and for those of you who don’t already Blog, it is fun! You can join the online debate that’s already going on and you and others can remain anonymous (if you want to) at the same time! We’ll even set up a little competition to see how many Blog entries each person can make.

Notwithstanding the strange capitalization of “Blog,” this is the latest in a series of netcentric efforts from the coal public relations people. They’ve launched a Facebook page, Twitter feed, and have littered blogs with comments defending coal.

No matter how large ABEC’s “Blogger Brigade” gets, they still won’t be able to hide the toxic and dirty reality of coal. Yesterday morning, a dike at the Kingston coal-fired power plant in Harriman, Tennessee broke, letting loose a deluge of about 500 million gallons of coal slurry into tributaries of the Tennessee River, destroying twelve homes and derailing a train.

Watch the startling news footage:

Now that’s something worth blogging about.

Full email:

You may have heard some people say that “clean coal” isn’t real. Not true. Did you know that over the last 30 years, the coal-based electricity sector has invested more than $50 Billion in technologies to reduce traditional emissions regulated by federal and state clean air act laws? That is one reason that our air is cleaner than ever.

How do we make it cleaner and deal with carbon emissions? Well, there are more than 80 carbon capture and storage demonstration and research projects, predominantly underway in the U.S. The coal-based electricity sector is moving aggressively toward bringing advanced clean coal technologies to the marketplace domestically and abroad. That’s a real solution folks, not just a dream. Experts agree: because coal is affordable and abundant right here in the U.S. coal is going to continue to be part of our energy mix for years to come.

Absolutely we need to continue to develop renewable sources of energy, and coal is one of a mix of fuels used to produce electricity (although half of our electricity right now across the country is generated with American coal). Coal is here to stay so we have to find a way to continue to make it cleaner.

Learn more about these projects and about carbon capture and storage.

Want to do more? Tell people about our solutions for continuing advancements in cleaning up coal to improve our environment. Cleaner air is our goal yet there are people who don’t believe that clean coal technology exists. They don’t believe Americans have the will or the way to continue to make advances. They just say “no” but don’t provide any viable alternatives.

You can get into the debate. If you are interested in becoming an active member of ABEC’s Blogger Brigade just send me an e-mail to abroadhurst@balancedenergy.org and let me know you’re interested. One of our team members will give you a call and walk you through the process. It’s really easy – and for those of you who don’t already Blog, it is fun! You can join the online debate that’s already going on and you and others can remain anonymous (if you want to) at the same time! We’ll even set up a little competition to see how many Blog entries each person can make.

Happy holidays to you and yours and best wishes for a safe and prosperous 2009.

Sincerely,

Amy Broadhurst
Americans for Balanced Energy Choices

Yesterday, the Center for American Progress released “Clean Coal Smoke Screen,” which documented that the coal and utility companies that belong to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) have invested only a paltry percentage of their profits to develop technologies to reduce global warming. ACCCE attempted to push back by releasing a list of research efforts to capture coal’s global warming emissions:

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) today released a list of more than 80 carbon capture and storage demonstration and research projects, predominantly underway in the U.S., proving again that the coal-based electricity sector is moving aggressively towards bringing advanced clean coal technologies to the marketplace domestically and abroad.

In fact, this list did not prove that ACCCE members are “moving aggressively” in carbon capture and storage research. A quick review of the list found that most of these research projects are undertaken by the Department of Energy in cooperation with non-ACCCE entities. The projects on the ACCCE list fall into the following categories (projects before 2001 are not included here):

– 18 with ACCCE members in a joint CCS-related project

– 18 are joint National Energy Technology Lab and regional Carbon Sequestration and Leadership partnership projects

– 13 are joint DOE-university projects

– 12 projects are joint projects between DOE and non-profit or non-ACCCE for-profit partners

– 8 projects are joint DOE-U.S. energy lab projects

– 10 are foreign projects

– 6 are joint projects by the DOE or National Energy Technology Labs and regional Carbon Sequestration and Leadership partnerships; while the partnerships in this group include ACCCE members, these particular projects did not include ACCCE members as primary sponsors

– 1 with an ACCCE member partner in a non-CCS project

– 1 project is funded by the DOE only

– 2 are private projects by non-ACCCE members

Only 18 out of 89 projects on ACCCE’s list are CCS-related projects involving investment from ACCCE members. Sixteen of the 18 were recognized in the Center for American Progress analysis, which relied on information provided by ACCCE members. Two additional recently announced projects that were not on the ACCCE list were accounted for by the Center for American Progress as well. All the ACCCE list proves is that the federal government has undertaken many CCS projects with little monetary involvement from the “coal-based electricity sector.”

Our study found that ACCCE companies made 17 times as much money in 2007 alone as their total multi-year investment in CCS research –- a fact not refuted by ACCCE’s press release. Despite this miniscule investment in carbon capture and storage, we fully expect ACCCE and its member companies to continue to urge Congress to delay and weaken greenhouse gas reduction proposals, and to use taxpayer dollars to fund the research the coal industry should be doing themselves. Hopefully, Congress will not be fooled by the clean coal smoke.

America’s coal industry is blowing smoke on the American public, misleadingly hyping its commitment to cleaning up its act. A series of feel-good ads this year showcased a variety of people straight from central casting saying “I believe in…Clean Coal. America’s Power.” These ads were sponsored by the American Council for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), an industry group comprised of 48 coal and utility companies. ACCCE spent at least $45 million on advertising this year to convince Americans that coal is a clean panacea to the world’s problems.

Despite the ads’ claims, an analysis by the Center of American Progress determined that ACCCE’s companies spend relatively few dollars conducting research on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the experimental but promising technology that would allow power plants to capture 85 percent or more of their carbon dioxide emissions and permanently store them underground in geological formations. CAP’s analysis found that the 48 ACCCE companies made a combined profit of $57 billion in 2007 while investing over several years only $3.5 billion in CCS research.

ACCCE companies combined made $17 in 2007 profits for every $1 invested in CCS research over several years. This is a very generous estimate, because the analysis includes several projects that haven’t yet begun. Nonetheless, the research funding over a number of years is dwarfed by the profits for a single year. The 18 CCS projects by ACCCE companies have a lifetime cost of $5.7 billion, or one-tenth of the ACCCE companies’ profits in 2007 alone. Of this total cost, the ACCCE companies would eventually spend $3.5 billion on these projects, based on our analysis of publicly available data. The Department of Energy would provide an additional $1.9 billion. [CAP, 12/22/08]

With such relatively small investments in CCS research, it’s no wonder that it may take many years to develop and commercialize the technology. The lack of investment reinforces the notion that the real purpose of the clean coal campaign is to postpone requirements to reduce emissions.

“Clean coal” is misleading industry shorthand for advanced coal technologies that reduce coal’s environmental and health impact. Technology to reduce global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants — the most critical “clean coal technology” — is still experimental. Yet the coal mining and electric utility industries spent over $125 million combined in the first nine months of 2008 to lobby Congress to delay global warming pollution reductions until advanced coal technology is ready.

ACCCE’s lead spokesperson Joe Lucas has responded defensively to criticism of their “clean coal” propaganda by claiming the critics oppose technology development:

For those Monday morning quarterbacks who suggest that the coal industry should put more money behind the research and development of advanced carbon capture and storage technologies (instead of advertising), I say this — what have they done lately? Most of these groups have a long-standing record of opposing funding for cost-shared projects to bring new advanced technologies to the marketplace.

In fact, the Center for American Progress is able to separate policy from public relations. We have urged federal investment in CCS, including in the 2009 economic stimulus and recovery package. CAP also supported a major demonstration project blocked by the Bush administration. Unlike ACCCE, however, we do not believe that the adoption of binding domestic greenhouse gas reductions requirements should wait until the development and commercialization of CCS. A cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gases would actually speed the development of CCS by creating a market for the technology.

Read the full report, “The Clean Coal Smoke Screen.”

Digg it!

Unfortunately, to call today’s coal “clean” requires a handful of mind-erasing psycho-somethings and a magic carpet ride to Fairyland. It’s true — the potential to burn coal far cleaner than in decades past is now here. Scrubbers, injectors, activators, and a host of other doohickeys and thingamabobs can be installed in smokestacks to trap and remove mercury, sulfur dioxide, and other toxins before they muck up the air we breathe. But the best devices are expensive and only in use at a few power plants across the country.

Lawrence also notes the problem that captured pollutants still need to be disposed of, often by “storing it in collecting ponds that can end up polluting rivers and groundwater. And that doesn’t even take into account the horrible effect that strip-mining has had on southern Appalachia, or the ecological impact of transporting mountains of coal around the nation.”

From the article also comes this excellent diagram:

The text of the diagram:

1. 30 percent of Appalachian coal comes from mountaintop removal mining, destroying watersheds, ancient mountains, and communities.
2. Trucks, trains, and ships all use fossil fuels to transport the coal to the plants, sometimes thousands of miles and across oceans.
3. The coal is burned at the plant to heat water in steam turbines to generate electricity. Higher temperatures means more efficiency.
4. The plant emits carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and particulate matter. Scrubbers and devices catch some pollutants, but CO2 cannot be trapped with existing technologies.
5. Ash is stored in a pond adjacent to the site. Some of it is recycled into cement and wallboard; some seeps into ground and surface water.
6. Power lines carry electricity to homes and businesses, where a little piece of Appalachia powers your TV (in high def).
   

If “support for the use of coal for generating electricity” were on the ballot today, it would win by a landslide.

His choice of words is unfortunate, as landslides are only one of the many deadly hazards of coal mining, especially under the lax safety enforcement of the Bush administration.

ACCCE is celebrating a poll that showed their $50 million propaganda campaign influenced “adults with $80,000 or more in household income and a four-year college degree or more and a professional or managerial job title or a business owner and a high degree of involvement in politics and policy matters.”

However, all the PR spin in the world can’t affect scientific reality. America’s coal plants produce about 49 percent of U.S. electricity but account for 83 percent of power-sector emissions. And we need to reduce net emissions to zero as fast as humanly possible to preserve our civilization from catastrophic global warming.

The tobacco industry spent hundreds of millions of dollars to obscure the scientific fact that their product is an addictive, deadly drug. After decades of debate, after millions of Americans had their lives unnecessarily shortened, our government crafted policies that protected tobacco farmers and reduced the tobacco industry’s grip. Even so, the needless deaths continue, all to protect the profits of a very powerful few.

Our current situation with the coal industry is similar, but the stakes are even more grave. No matter what actions Washington D.C. takes, the 80,000 people in the coal mining industry — 0.02% of the U.S. population — should be taken care of. These workers deserve better than they are getting today, as the union-busting coal barons ignore safety regulations and cut benefits. But make no mistake — the burning of coal is burning up the planet.

The world is not going to stop using coal for decades, even if the United States were to move entirely to a fossil-free power grid. If we can develop the technology needed to economically capture the emissions of coal plants, and I hope we can, then the coal industry will have the opportunity to rake in billions of dollars in profits for a few more generations.

The saddest thing about the ACCCE campaign is not its facile dishonesty, but that we continue to have a political discourse that places more weight on perception than reality.

Joe Lucas, an ACCCE lobbyist, gloats:

With just nine days left in the campaign, we still don’t know who will be running the country, but we know what will: American coal.

ACCCE is spending about $50 million to pollute our national discourse with the toxic myth of “clean coal.” The coal and oil industries have spent nearly $1 billion on an army of lobbyists, advertisements, and campaign contributions this year.

We have reached a new low in our democracy when corporate polluter flacks are willing to publicly state that their industry runs this nation.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal credited the American Council for Clean Coal Electricity’s (ACCCE) president, Stephen Miller, for convincing politicians, the media and the public that “clean coal” is a cure all for global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants:

Mr. Miller, 55 years old, is president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a Virginia group funded by the country’s major coal-burning utilities, coal producers and railroads that haul coal. Over the past year, his organization has spent nearly $40 million on television and radio spots and other outreach efforts to bolster public support for coal, and to reinforce fears that limits on its use will raise living costs.

ACCCE’s TV ads feature a diverse group of American archetypes saying “I believe” in achieving energy independence, using new technologies, and other similar platitudes. Only at the end does it mention that the ad is about “clean coal.”

What does ACCCE mean by “clean coal”? To the degree it means anything, it’s a euphemism for reducing greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants via carbon capture and storage (CCS), a promising but unproven technology. In fact, the International Energy Agency yesterday released a report that determined that CCS is a long way from commercialization:

Many questions remain. To date, only four full-scale CCS projects exist in the world; none of these projects captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from a coal-fired power plant….[yet] current CCS spending and activity levels are nowhere near enough to achieve the G8 [reduction] goals.

In other words, CCS is a promise, not a cure for global warming. However, ACCCE would like to make a US program of binding greenhouse gas emissions reductions dependent on the commercialization of CCS.

Since CCS commercialization is at least a decade away, ACCCE’s interim answer to the threat posed by global warming would be to continue voluntary measures. Since US emissions have increased by 200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent under the voluntary measures favored the Bush Administration, it is clear that this approach doesn’t work. ACCCE would leave coal-fired power plants essentially uncontrolled, even though they are responsible for about nearly all US power sector and one-third of total US greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead of ACCCE’s voluntary approach, the Center for American Progress recommends that a mandatory global warming cap and trade program include a new source pollution performance standard for all new coal fired power plants. This would require an 85% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions — the level CCS could achieve. This plan would use some revenue from the auction of “greenhouse gas allowances” to offset the additional expense of building a coal fired power plant with CCS. By mandating emissions reductions based on CCS, there would be a much larger incentive for public and private investments in CCS research and deployment. There would also be a market for this technology.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned that the world must act now to stop global warming. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” Yet ACCCE would delay reductions for a decade. If ACCCE were serious about global warming, it would support the CAP proposal. But it does not. The real goal of ACCCE’s “clean coal” campaign is to convince public officials to delay binding reductions for a decade. The US — and the rest of the planet — cannot afford to wait.

UPDATE: WLNS-TV in Lansing, Michigan reports on ACCCE’s continued push to claim “clean coal” is good for jobs:

Advocates paid a visit to downtown Lansing in a push for energy independence. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity discussed energy, the economy and the environment during a campaign stop in the capital city. The group says clean coal could work to offset Michigan’s staggering unemployment rate.
Chuck Coolidge, ACCCE Outreach Director: “Right now, Michigan is actually utilizing the vast majority of coal use that’s keeping their electricity rates at some of the lowest in the nation. They gain to get those rates even cheaper and employ more jobs and things like that.”

The coalition believes clean coal can provide affordable and reliable electricity to millions of Americans.

We estimate that the coal and oil industries spent an astounding $427.2 million over the first six months of 2008 to influence public opinion and public policy.

These industries are on track to spend about a billion dollars influencing energy policy this year, with their “clean coal” and “drill drill drill” messaging. They are supporting pollution-friendly candidates and spreading false doubt about the seriousness of global warming.

This total includes the $12.2 million dollars spent in six months by Newt Gingrich’s billionaire-and-coal-funded 527 corporation, American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF), on its “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign, and the $40 million that coal industry front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (now part of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) pledged to spend influencing the public. It also includes John McCain’s million-dollar haul from the oil and gas industry.

The Public Campaign Action Fund’s estimate of $427.2 million fails to include the expenditures of pollution-agenda front groups that are “organized under sections of the Internal Revenue Code that do not require the public disclosure of their spending.” These groups include the likes of:

• Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth
• American Council for Capital Formation
• American Energy Alliance
• American Enterprise Institute
• Americans for Prosperity
• American Future Fund
• Business & Media Institute
• Coalition for Affordable American Energy
• Competitive Enterprise Institute
• FreedomWorks
• Heartland Institute
• Institute for Energy Research
• National Association of Manufacturers
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Therefore the Public Campaign’s estimate is rather conservative.

Congressman [sic] Bachmann, I want to talk to you first about this because those pictures we just showed, we took from an airplane. You were with us on that airplane. You went up there to get a sense for yourself about the impact of drilling in ANWR.

Watch it:

During the interview, Velshi asked Bachmann what lesson she learned from their joint trip. Her response:

Ali, I came away with the idea that this is the most perfect place on the planet to drill.

Bachmann’s bizarre response — she also called the ecologically unique refuge the “most convenient, quickest place” to drill, despite also saying it is “permanently frozen in darkness three months of the year” — comes as no surprise, as she is one of the biggest boosters of Big Oil propaganda in Congress. Just in the past two months, she’s claimed that caribou love pipelines, falsely blamed Democrats for blocking renewable energy incentives, and repeated the lie about China drilling for oil off the Florida coast. In this segment, Bachmann introduces a new lie, claiming “this area was specifically set aside for drilling by President Jimmy Carter for drilling.”

This is simply false. As Carter explained in a 2000 New York Times column calling for expanded protections of Alaskan lands from drilling:

Then, even more than today, much attention was focused on high energy prices; oil companies — playing on Americans’ fears — sought the right to drill in protected areas. While the House held firm, the Senate forced a compromise, without ever putting the fate of the refuge to a vote. Thus, the law I signed 20 years ago did not permanently protect this Arctic wilderness. It did, however, block any oil company drilling until Congress votes otherwise. . . The simple fact is, drilling is inherently incompatible with wilderness.

Velshi did not question Bachmann about any of these false statements. Velshi also failed to mention global warming even once, despite the extreme warming taking place in northern Alaska, driving wildlife toward extinction and threatening a global climate meltdown.

Freshman representative Bachmann is a hard-line conservative funded primarily by right-wing organizations like the Club for Growth ($92,630), TCF Financial ($38,400), and Koch Industries ($17,500), the right-wing corporate polluter. She has also received $20,250 from right-wing billionaire Stanley Hubbard, one of the the top funders of Newt Gingrich’s “Drill Here, Drill Now” organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF).

CNN’s campaign coverage continues to be funded by the coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE).

UPDATE: Velshi’s Arctic Refuge piece first aired July 24, but he did not disclose that the trip was with a delegation of 11 conservative representatives led by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). However, prior to the trip, he did say in a July 15 interview with Rep. Bachmann:

I should tell you, I’m hoping to join you on that trip this weekend. We’re still trying to work that out.

Evidently, his wish was granted.

Coal is affordable and reliable. Electricity from coal costs about half as much as electricity from other energy sources. In fact, twenty-two of the nation’s 25 lowest-cost power plants use coal to generate electricity. And the price of coal has remained stable over the years, especially when compared to other energy sources. The cost of electricity from coal has risen only four percent since 1979, while costs for energy from oil have risen over 50 percent and the costs for energy from gas have increased more than 200 percent during the same time period.

Unfortunately, it is an dirty illusion that coal is our “cheapest power source” — even if the terrible costs of its pollution are ignored. A time bomb of a price explosion is ticking, with massive increases in the cost of coal-powered electricity to come, year after year after year. In the coal spot markets, high-quality Appalachian coal has nearly tripled in price in the past year:

Average Weekly Coal Commodity Spot Prices (Dollars per Short Ton) Business Week Ended August 8, 2008

These price increases in the spot market are driven by surging international demand, the collapse of the dollar, fuel surcharges in transporting coal, investor speculation, and climate-change-related “wild weather” that played havoc with Australian exports of coal. These seemingly disparate influences are are all tightly interlocked by our global dependence on fossil fuels.

Because coal contracts are purchased on a multi-year basis, changes in the market can take years to hit the consumer. But the first signs of this massive price shock are starting to appear. Coal-country utility American Electric Power, a backer of ACCCE, stated on Thursday that it “must raise electricity rates 45 percent for its nearly 1.5 million customers in Ohio over the next three years, to cover soaring coal prices and the cost of modernizing its systems to keep them reliable.” Joe Hamrock, AEP Ohio president and chief operating officer declared:

The fact is that coal has doubled in cost in the last year alone, dramatically affecting AEP Ohio’s costs.

The coal companies who also fund ACCCE — when they talk to investors, not consumers — are gleeful about how the high prices of coal will guarantee “significant earnings increases for many years to come.” As Gregory H. Boyce, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company, explained when he announced record second-quarter profits last month:

The structural changes driving demand much higher than supply, across all coal markets, look to be very long-lived. We are just beginning to benefit from the repricing of legacy coal supply contracts at higher levels, which could drive significant earnings increases for many years to come.”

As it revels in record profit, King Coal is bankrolling a fossil-dependent future of energy poverty and pollution: Peabody Energy is also the top corporate funder of Newt Gingrich’s “Drill Here, Drill Now” 527 corporation, American Solutions for Winning the Future.