Category: Coal

Categories
Coal Energy United States of America

April 30, 2001 – Dick Cheney predicts 1000 new power plants

Twenty two years ago, on this day, April 30, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney has a fever dream in Toronto calling for 1300 new power stations

In an April 30 speech, Cheney said that the U.S. needs to build at least 1,300 electric power plants (averaging 300 megawatts) between now and 2020, “more than one new plant per week.” Cheney downplayed the potential for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources – suggesting that conservation is just “a sign of personal virtue” and that relying on renewables would threaten “our way of life.”

http://www.nirs.org/alternatives/1300powerplants.htm

[This gets him in trouble, he bravely sends out his wife Lynne the next day to “clarify.” He can’t do it himself because of ‘laryngitis’]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 374ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the de facto Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, says that he wants 1000 new coal fired power stations. This is an echo of Nixon’s project independence in 1974, which Cheney will have been well aware of, since Cheney had been serving in the Nixon White House at this point. The context was that Cheney’s puppet George Bush had announced that he was not going to continue negotiations around ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, in effect, they thought, killing it. That wasn’t the case, because the Russians eventually signed but I’m getting ahead of myself.

What I think we can learn from this

Old white men don’t learn. And they have visions of power, in both the literal and metaphorical sense, to be grand numbers, “look at my works, ye mighty and despair.” And the way that these visions are promulgated loudly and long, is partly designed to demonstrate to them and their supporters, their power, but also to demoralise those awful environmentalists who believe that – and this is the heresy –  there are limits to what humans both should and indeed can do to the planet without serious consequences.

What happened next

Cheney’s vision of 1000 power stations did as well as his vision of Iraq as a peaceful American dependency full of grateful Iraqis (*)

(* or maybe we should not take his public pronouncements as evidence of naivete, but rather a willingness to lie…)

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Activism Agnotology Business Responses Coal Industry Associations United States of America

April 27, 2007 – Coal-bashing campaign by gas company ends

Sixteen years ago, on this day, April 27, 2007, a US gas company had to stop smearing coal…

Washington – The founder of a group that ran a series of newspaper ads attacking the coal industry for selling a product that they called “filthy” says the campaign is ending.

The effort, promoted as pro-environment, was sponsored by a rival energy company, a natural-gas-production company, and sparked a round of protests from members of Congress and trade associations.

Fialka, J. 2007. Ad Campaign Bashing Coal Is Ended After Uproar. Wall Street Journal, 27 April.

This had started in early February 2007–

“the ads were placed anonymously by a two-week-old group called the Texas Clean Sky Coalition. Only one of the nation’s largest gas producers, Chesapeake Energy Corp., acknowledged helping finance the advertising campaign — which easily cost several hundred thousand dollars.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 386.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that a natural gas company had been trying to use climate concerns to boost its own product. And this is something that the gas industry has been looking at with more or less interest in –  throwing coal under the bus, framing coal as the dirtiest fuel. Therefore gas automatically becomes sort of some kind of “transition fuel”.

What I think we can learn from this

 It’s a seductive myth. That, yes, we need a long term transition. But while we’re getting there, gas can help. What we learn is that this fossil fuel industry is not in any sense united, though, we should note that people who do gas and oil tend to have the same bosses.

What happened next

Didn’t the guy who founded Cheseapeake Energy do suicide by Porsche? Yes, yes he did.

And threw loads of money the Sierra Club’s way to help them fund their anti-coal campaigns…

https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/03/03/108926/how-chesapeake-ceo-aubrey-mcclendon-helped-push-coal-to-the-brink/

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

April 16, 2008 – Aussie trades unions, greenies, companies tried to get CCS ‘moving.’

Fifteen years ago, on this day, April 16, 2008, trades unions and greenies and companies tried to get CCS ‘moving.’

“In April 2008 the Australian Coal Association (ACA) proposed — in conjunction with WWF Australia, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Climate Institute in Australia — that the Rudd Labor government establish a National Carbon Capture and Storage Taskforce. The taskforce, they proposed, “would be charged with developing and implementing a nationally coordinated plan to oversee rapid demonstration and commercialisation of 10,000 GWh of carbon capture and storage (CCS) electricity per year by 2020.”

https://www.gem.wiki/The_Australian_Coal_Association%27s_Proposed_Carbon_Capture_and_Storage_Taskforce

Here’s a picture of the top of the press release

And here’s a link to a pdf – https://www.sourcewatch.org/images/b/b4/ACA_Media_Release_160408.pdf

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

While trying to become Australian Prime Minister, the Labor Party’s Kevin Rudd had used climate change as an issue with which to paint incumbent Prime Minister John Howard as an uncaring dinosaur. Rudd had also used “carbon capture and storage” as a way of calming the nerves of coalminers in vital states (Queensland and New South Wales).  Now a coalition of pro-coal types and “greenies” were trying to get some money.  And money they would get…

What I think we can learn from this

Wanna win elections? Make big promises. Whether they can be kept or not will depend…

Technological salvationism fantasies need institutional and organisational backing.  Lots of it.  Players know this, and get the taxpayer to fund it.

What happened next

Rudd threw 100 million Australian taxpayers’ dollars at the creation of a “Global Carbon Capture and Storage institute”.

Those projects all up and running by 2020, then twelve years in the future? Yeah, nah.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Coal United States of America

April 2, 2008 – Senator Barack Obama blathers about coal

Fifteen years ago, on this day, April 2, 2008, Senator Barack Obama, trying to become the Democratic Presidential candidate, made some suitably vague comments about coal while on a campaign stop…

April 2, 2008 Scranton Times quotes Obama as saying “And I saw somebody with a clean coal technology hat. We have abundant coal.”

Page 202-3 Climate Coverup

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387.3ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

The coal industry was trying to paint itself as somehow ‘green’ (fantasies of carbon capture and storage).  Electorally, bits of Pennsylvania and West Virginia were going to be crucial. So finding a way of seeming like you were supporting potential voters, while not alienating others, well, that’s the bread and butter of politics as normal, isn’t it, especially in winner-take-all systems…

What I think we can learn from this

The electoral road to salvation is long and slow…

What happened next

Obama got the gig, Made one effort at doing anything on climate, then gave up, quite like Bill Clinton and the BTU tax back in 1993.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

References

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-and-clean-coal/

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

March 23, 1993 – UK “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper published.

Thirty  years ago, on this day, March 23, 1993, the UK government released its “The Prospects for Coal” White Paper

Main conclusions were:  

subsidy to be offered to bring extra tonnage down to world market prices, 

no pit to be closed without being offered to the private sector,  

no changes to the gas and nuclear sectors,  

increased investment in clean coal technology, 

regeneration package for mining areas increased to £200 million

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 358.6ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was  that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had defeated the miners’unions using the police, MI5, the media and so on. Coal mines were being closed, left and right. And mining communities were being torn apart. It was unclear what if any future coal had in the energy mix. And of course, by this time, greenhouse gas concerns were present. And so the white paper comes out in that backdrop and the hope is that there will be such a thing as “clean coal.” 

And by 1993 the IEA was organising symposia on clean coal and sequestration and set forth why we needed it (AOY links).

What I think we can learn from this

Technologies that are on the backfoot especially if they are long lasting, don’t go down without a fight as a real rearguard action. And Bruno Turnheim wrote an entire PhD thesis about this. 

What happened next

Coal continued to dwindle, looked like it might possibly make a comeback, and then didn’t.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

Categories
Activism Coal United States of America

March 2, 2009 –  Washington DC coal plant gets blockaded

Fourteen years ago, on this day, March 2, 2009, protestors blockade a coal plant

The blockade lasted nearly four hours, forming what organizers called the largest display of civil disobedience on the climate crisis in U.S. history. 

Police were out in force, but no one was arrested.

The 99-year-old plant is responsible for an estimated one-third of the legislative branch’s greenhouse gas emissions. It no longer generates electricity for the legislative buildings but provides steam for heating and chilled water for cooling buildings within the Capitol Complex.

Environmental and climate celebrities led the protest action, including NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen, who released a video on YouTube in February urging people to join him March 2 at the demonstration to send a message to Congress and the President that, “We want them to take the actions that are needed to preserve climate for young people and future generations and all life on the planet.”

2009  Capitol Coal Plant protest – demonstrators blockade one of the five gates to the Capitol Power plant. March 2, 2009.http://www.capitolclimateaction.org“

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/climate-action-03-02-2009.html

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 387ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that there is always ongoing effort to shut individual energy projects. And these can be dismissed as NIMBY. But it’s really important to fight those battles because how else are you gonna stop local madness and build the confidence, competence and credibility to stop the national and international madness?. And also to try to have an influence on national policy, obviously. 

What I think we can learn from this

We need to remember and celebrate resistance not just dissent, but actual resistance.

What happened next

Read it and weep – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Power_Plant

The emissions kept climbing.

But this is extraordinary, from a 2015 article in Politico, “Inside the War on Coal”

Beyond Coal’s pivotal moment came at a meeting in Gracie Mansion about, of all things, education reform. Michael Bloomberg, the Wall Street savant-turned media mogul-turned New York City mayor, was looking for a new outlet for his private philanthropy. It quickly became clear that education reform would not be that outlet.

“It was a terrible meeting in every way, and Mike was angry,” recalls his longtime adviser, Kevin Sheekey. “I said: ‘Look, if you don’t like this idea, that’s fine. We’ll bring you another.’ He said: ‘No, I want another now.’”

As it happened, Sheekey had just eaten lunch with Carl Pope, who was starting a $50 million fundraising drive to expand Beyond Coal’s staff to 45 states. The cap-and-trade plan that Obama supported to cut carbon emissions had stalled in Congress, and the carbon tax that Bloomberg supported was going nowhere as well. Washington was gridlocked. But Pope had explained to Sheekey that shutting down coal plants at the state and local level could do even more for the climate—and have a huge impact on public health issues close to his boss’s heart.

“That’s a good idea,” Bloomberg told Sheekey. “We’ll just give Carl a check for the $50 million. Tell him to stop fundraising and get to work.”

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..

Categories
Australia Coal

Feb 26, 1998 – Australian “clean coal” is on the way (again).

Twenty five years ago, on this day, February 26, 1998, yet more promises of clean coal were made in Australia, by eerie coincidence the world’s number one coal exporter…

RESEARCH laboratories where scientists will work to make Australian coal the “cleanest” in the world, will be opened by Premier Bob Carr today.

The Ian Stewart Wing of the chemical engineering laboratories at Newcastle University form part of the co-operative research centre for black coal utilisation.

The centre, partially government funded, was established in 1995 to carry out world class research to maximise the value and performance of Australian black coal resources

Anon. 1998. Tests for green coal. Daily Telegraph, 26 February.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.1ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

At a Federal level, Prime Minister John Howard was resolutely anti-climate action (even after extracting an amazingly generous deal at Kyoto).  At the state level, New South Wales and Queensland wanted to export more and more coal, obviously.

The CSIRO, having been lukewarm/opposed to renewables for yonks, was talking up the prospects of “clean coal.”  

What I think we can learn from this

Research and Development organisations are largely captured by powerful/rich actors, via various mechanisms that are not hard to understand but unless understood ‘in the round’ can be dismissed as ‘conspiracy theory’.  New technologies find it very very hard to get traction…. (Mark Diesendorf has written extensively about this, by the way).

What happened next

Clean coal is still coming, just like full communism was under Brezhnev, and just like nuclear fusion is. Now, about that bridge you were interested in buying from me you know, the one in Sydney… I can bribe the official writing the tender documents, but I need some cash from you up front…

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Australia Coal

February 25, 1981 – National Party senator nails the climate problem

Forty two  years ago, on this day, February, 25, 1981, Stan Collard, National Party senator (yes, you read that right) worried about climate change aloud, in parliament.

“Our steaming coal exports are mounting. I have no objection to that, except for one thing. I ask: Just how much further can we go with burning these masses of coal and pouring the pollutants, including carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere? One thing that we are not sure of, of course, is the ultimate greenhouse effect that it will have on this continent, maybe even in our lifetime. I think we must consider quite reasonably just where to cry halt to the burning of masses of steaming coal and where we can bring in one of the cleanest methods of power generation, that is, nuclear power generation, until something cleaner and better comes along. I reject the suggestion that the Government is lacking in its planning, but I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate.”

Senator Collard, 25 February 1981 – Hansard..

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 340.5ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

By the early 1980s anyone who read a proper newspaper (The Canberra Times, for example) would have been aware of the potential problem. See for example November 24, 1977 – Canberra Times reports “all coal” plan would “flood US cities” or September 15, 1980 – Australian scientists hold “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” symposium in Canberra… If you were pro-nuclear (and iirc Collard was), then the visit of nuclear guru Alvin Weinberg to Australia in 1979 was probably significant.  The problem was ‘in the air’, basically.

What I think we can learn from this

The National Party used to have intelligent serious people in it. Now, it seems, not so much.

What happened next

Collard was ignored Obviously.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Coal United Kingdom

February 14, 2015  – No love for coal from UK politicians

Eight years ago, on this day, February 14 , 2015, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband put aside their differences in order to focus on something they could all agree on: getting rid of unabated coal from our energy system. This level of agreement is almost unprecedented in the run-up to a general election and demonstrates the extent to which action to stop coal emissions has become a no-brainer.  See more here.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 398.2ppm. As of 2023 it is 419ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

Cameron, Miliband, and Clegg, all for various reasons, wanted to seem to be doing something on climate and coal was now largely friendless. It was being dug up in so few places that the employment implications were not there. So it was an easy win.

What I think we can learn from this

This sort of political bipartisanship, well tri-partisanship, will only happen if there’s a lot of public pressure, or an election coming, or if the issue can be circumscribed as “something must be done”, or a technology/sector is friendless enough to be beaten up.

What happened next

Cameron won the 2015 election outright and we started to see a rolling back of the weak climate actions that the Liberal Democrats had forced the Conservatives into – not that they’d ever been that hale and hearty to begin with

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

Categories
Coal South Africa

January 21, 1960 – at least 435 coal miners killed in apartheid South Africa incident #BusinessAsUsual   #Racism   #Profiteering   #GlobalApartheid

Sixty-one years ago, on this day, January 21, 1960, 435 workers were buried alive when a mine in Coalbrook, Free State collapses. (South Africa) 

In the words of scholar Alan Copley,

“At least 435 miners died when a large section of the mine collapsed on 21 January 1960. The Coalbrook Disaster can be attributed in large measure to the rise of the racist, capitalist apartheid state in South Africa after 1948. As the first major crisis of 1960 in South Africa, it dramatised and foreshadowed many of the debates that ensued during that year about the nature of the apartheid state. Key causes of the disaster were the exponential increase in demand for coal following the opening of the Taaibos power station in 1954 on the one hand, and the cumulative effects of unsound mine labour practices based on race on the other.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 316..9 ppm. As of 2023 it is 419. .

The context was Apartheid and profits squeeze, of course.

What I think we can learn from this

There is no such thing as free energy. Someone is going to be on the pointy-end. The less they look and sound like you, the easier it is for you to ignore their existence, their suffering.

Personal note – I remember in 1986 (or possibly 1987) being the cause of frustration and exasperation of a very smart fellow student at my posh school, who was a big fan of nuclear. When I talked about the dangers (this was just post-Chernobyl) he pointed to all the people who died digging up coal.  I said that was different and irrelevant.  He got irritated (rightly) and was told off by his father.  My bad, Tim, my bad (which is not to say I am now pro-nuke).

What happened next

More apartheid, for decades. At a global level, it’s apartheid pure and simple. You might even call it, um, Global Apartheid.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Do comment on this post.

References

Cobley, A. (2020) Powering Apartheid: The Coalbrook Mine Disaster of 1960, South African Historical Journal, 72:1, 80-97, DOI: 10.1080/02582473.2020.1728577