By Carrie at The CLEAN cross posted from www.powerpastcoal.org 
Today, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held hearings on “The Future of Coal in Climate Legislation.” Considering that the Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Ed Markey, who fired up the crowd at Powershift with his talk about “change, baby, change” and a “green revolution,” one might have hoped that these hearings would be a critical look at our dirtiest fuel source. Yeah, not so much.
Of all the legislators and witnesses who spoke, NOT ONE of them spoke out against our reliance on coal in our energy future. Markey sang a very different tune than the one at Powershift as he expressed his support of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and wanting to help industry “realize its potential” to help global warming.
What happened to the champion of renewable energy we saw at the DC Convention Center? Investing America’s research dollars into unproven, expensive coal technology instead of renewables is a “green revolution?” In fact, the consensus among the Representatives who spoke was that coal is abundant, cheap and vital for our future, and that developing carbon capture and sequestration technology is essential to solve our climate crisis. The only discussion was how quickly can we do it, when will it be ready and how much will it cost?
If this concerns you, email Markey here.
Witnesses represented the National Resources Defense Council, energy companies NRG Energy and Powerspan, the University of Texas at Austin, the National Mining Association and Zurich Financial Services. All of the witnesses discussed CCS as if it were a viable solution. Only David Hawkins from the NRDC mentioned the problems with mountaintop removal and coal combustion waste, but followed it by saying that carbon capture and sequestration “could make coal and the climate compatible.”
Even when asked outright about NRDC’s co-sponsorship of the Reality Campaign’s commercials that assert “there is no such thing as clean coal,” and whether or not NRDC would support the coal industry if there was CCS, Hawkins responded that he would “like to be able to run a commercial that says ‘There is such a thing as coal with carbon capture.’” He failed to mention the environmental degradation of mining or waste disposal. There was no one there to talk about the poisoned water in Appalachia or the Native Americans being forced off their land for new coal mines. No one talked about mercury emissions or the health effects in communities who live near coal plants. No one talked about the TVA coal combustion waste spill or the leaky slurry dams that threaten lives and property.
There was a lot of talk about the cost of coal, but only in dollars and cents to consumers and energy companies. Not health costs, environmental costs or social costs, or the opportunity costs of lost green jobs and sustainable economies in the coalfields.
This is unacceptable. Our legislators NEED TO HEAR THE WHOLE STORY. No matter how much money we put into CCS, no matter how “safe” the industry says it is, COAL WILL ALWAYS BE DIRTY. It’s dirty when it comes out of the ground, it’s dirty when it comes out of the smoke stack (CCS does nothing about mercury or other emissions), it’s dirty when the wastes are disposed of.
Coal is dirty, period.
You can do something! Talk to your legislator! Between April 6 and 17th, legislators will be on recess, and most of them will be in their home districts. TheCLEAN.org is helping people to set up appointments with their legislators to talk about these critical energy issues. We have a right to talk to the people who represent us, and there is no more important time to make our voices heard on the true costs of coal, and that carbon capture is a waste of taxpayer dollars that doesn’t solve the whole problem. Congress needs to know that their constituents want REAL solutions, we want green jobs in energy efficiency and renewable energy, we want to POWER PAST COAL. To sign up to meet with your legislators, please go to www.theclean.org or email carrie@theCLEAN.org. Don’t miss this opportunity to speak the truth to your legislators, right in your hometown.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Congressman Markey is also sympathetic to LNG as the Everett terminal is in his district. Local jobs are a strong force even for politicians who are considered more ideological.
call me cynical but are you really surprised that you got sold out by a politician. I found it disturbing that so many of the keynote speakers at Powershift were politicians. Behavior as exhibited by Markey is exemplary of why we need a real grassroots opposition movement creating power in our communities, not reinforcing it in the halls of congress
Below is the email I just sent to Congressman Markey:
Dear Congressman Markey,
I am a college senior at Pacific University in Oregon – and though I am not a constituent of yours, I saw you speak at Powershift 2009 in Washington, DC roughly two weekends ago. I was impressed by your words at Powershift, and thank you for taking the time to address us students.
However, I have been disturbed to learn of the proceedings at the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment’s hearing on “The Future of Coal in Climate Legislation.” Apparently your position expressed at the hearing was very different from what you showed us at Powershift. Coal will never be source of “clean” energy, and it has no place in future US energy policy. Yet your subcommittee seems to take it as given that coal can be made clean through carbon sequestration. As a recent article in the Economist detailed, there is as yet no evidence that carbon sequestration can be made to work on a large scale. Furthermore, even if sequestration did prove feasible, it completely fails to address other environmental problems associated with coal, which are fundamental to the extraction of this fossil fuel.
On March 2nd, the final day of Powershift, thousands of us students rallied outside the nation’s Capitol, chanting “unicorns, leprechauns, clean coal” to highlight the fantastical nature of any assumption that coal can be clean. We students know that breaking our nation’s addiction to coal is the single most necessary step in the fight to stop global warming. We know that coal will never be clean, and that it has no place in a progressive climate policy capable of bringing about real change. I hope you do, too.
Coal is here to stay it is the only cheap source of energy the US and World has.
a grassroots movement needs to have two goals:
1) reform and rebuild our communities locally
2) take the power of people on the streets to the halls of power. in our case, to get comprehensive legislation that helps facilitate the transition to a clean energy future
we can’t have one or the other, we need both and we need our community building to have a political focus – that is how we are going to solve this big issue, is through big revolutionary changes in our energy policy.
Friends, there are about 430 members of the House closer to coal industry interests than Congressman Ed Markey. He’s the co-author of the only real proposal to put a moratorium on new coal plants that don’t sequester their CO2 (along with Waxman). He’s probably the biggest booster of the youth movement we have in Congress. Markey is also a co-sponsor of the Clean Water Protection Act (that would put an end to mountain top removal). And I should also add, Markey bumped off Rich Boucher (D-VA), a major ally of the coal industry, and replaced him as the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. In short, he’s the best friend you’ve got out there!
Are you really going to flame him because he did his job as a committee chair and held a hearing on an issue that his committee is expected to debate? Do you think that his efforts to ban coal plants that don’t sequester their CO2 would be helped or hindered by being unwilling to even discuss in his committee how to develop technologies to capture and store CO2? What do you really want Markey to do here?
We’ve really got to find a new tone in our repertoire, one in which we use to educate and explain our positions to our allies and friends. It’s most certainly not the same tone we employ when James Inhofe opens his mouth! We’ve got friends in real positions of influence now. That requires a different tact then when we were simply shouting at the Bush Administration and in the minority. Let’s think twice before flaming our closest allies.
In solidarity,
Jesse
Oh Jesse, if you think I was flaming Markey, you have never heard me mad. For the record, Markey, if you’re listening, this is my polite disappointment, which I think is an emotion I use when dealing with people I respect and plan to work with in the future.
We need to pay attention to our “friends” and hold them accountable. I thought the letter the fellow posted above was very respectful, polite and a great letter to send an ally.
Esp. since Markey will actually listen to us, isn’t it even more important to let him know when he disappoints us? If he respects us, he’ll want to know. I have enough respect for Markey that I’m calling him out. Having a hearing on CCS that features all people who love CCS isn’t a debate on the issue. It’s harmful and dangerous to not show both sides of the debate.
I’m not going to suck up to anyone, I don’t think it’s a useful technique anywhere in life.
danawv writes: Oh Jesse, if you think I was flaming Markey, you have never heard me mad. For the record, Markey, if you’re listening, this is my polite disappointment, which I think is an emotion I use when dealing with people I respect and plan to work with in the future.
OK, fair enough. Nick’s tone is also respectful, I agree (hi Nick!). My main question is what you expect from Markey? Expressing disappointment implies he didn’t do something you were expecting. And I’m not clear on what that is? He isn’t calling coal with CCS clean. He’s called for a moratorium on new coal plants that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. He’s called for an end to MTR and co-sponsored the Clean Water Protection Act. He’s held amazing hearings on MTR and the impacts of coal in his committees. And he’s the biggest ally we have. He’s also the chair of a real legislative subcommittee now, one that’s full of coal state reps who want a hearing to discuss CCS. He’s the chair and can’t ignore the completely. So what do you want him to do that he’s not doing already, is my question? Cheers,
Jesse
True, Markey is our best friend in the House. But best friends keep best friends honest. In case anyone missed the hearing, this isn’t exactly what I was expecting from Markey (taken from his opening remarks):
“Carbon capture and storage – or “CCS” – offers a path forward for coal, an opportunity for the U.S. economy and a bridge to a low-carbon future. CCS generally involves capturing CO2 emissions at the source, and disposing of the CO2 in deep geological formations. All indications are that CCS is a viable interim solution to the coal problem. CCS could also dramatically increase domestic oil production – by providing abundant CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Ultimately, CCS can go beyond geological disposal. For example, Silicon Valley-based Calera Corporation is proposing to convert captured CO2 into cement. That technology could be a game-changer – a win-win solution that would dramatically reduce cement’s carbon footprint while sequestering billions of tons of CO2 from power plants.
“All these advances are possible, but only if we enact the right policies to drive innovation. The economic recovery package passed last month includes $ 3.4 billion in advanced coal technology funding – much of which will be used for CCS demonstration projects.
“But ultimately, only climate legislation can provide CCS the boost it needs. To create jobs and unleash the private sector’s vast resources and ingenuity, we need regulatory drivers and strong incentives. An economy-wide cap on global warming pollution will provide the long-term investment incentive. But the cap alone will not ensure rapid deployment of CCS. To drive innovation, we must require new coal plants to use CCS by a date certain. At the same time, we must provide robust financial incentives for early deployment of this technology. This carrot-and-stick approach was included both in my iCAP legislation and in the discussion draft put forward by Mr. Dingell and Mr. Boucher last year.
“If we fail to bring CCS online quickly, we will have the worst of all worlds. Coal’s future here in the United States will remain dim, and the fleet of coal-fired plants being built in China and India will swamp whatever emissions reductions we achieve at home. But if we blaze this trail, the world will follow and we will reap the environmental and economic rewards of leadership. I trust that this morning’s hearing will help guide us in that endeavor.”