Democracy is utterly dependant upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
Guardian article inaccurate and lightweight.
Fred Pierce's Guardian article is ridiculously lightweight and inaccurate. The big reference to a fact other than the author's unsubstantiated opinion is when he cites the M.I.T. study, The Future of Coal. He doesn't quote that study. He just makes up a claim that MIT is saying that "the first commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant wouldn't come on stream until 2030 at the earliest".
Pierce is sure the Chancellor of Germany is a deluded idiot, the Prime Minister of Australia doesn't understand that the CCS technology doesn't exist, President elect Obama is supporting clean coal because he is a dupe of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Obama is actually that stupid, he and the experts he surrounds himself with haven't gotten it that carbon capture is totally bogus technology made up by a coal industry PR man, etc.
This is the article you call "excellent".
What the M.I.T. study actually says: it calls for is the first commercial full scale demonstration of CCS technology immediately. This could be done immediately because there isn't any new technology to develop. All the pieces of CCS exist in other industries, hence building a full scale demonstration of the technology is just a matter of bringing them together in this new form, i.e. a coal fired electricity generating plant that captures its carbon dioxide emissions and sequesters them.
M.I.T. stated that what will determine the pace of CCS deployment is the "timing and level of CO2 emission prices", as well as on the "technical readiness and successful commercial demonstration of CCS technologies". After noting that there is no certainty about when carbon will be priced, to prepare for the day when a carbon price is high enough to enable industry to economically deploy CCS (stated by M.I.T. to be $30 per tonne of CO2) it states "there should be no delay"... "to demonstrate an integrated system of capture, transportation, and storage of CO2, at scale", calling it a "practical goal" now.
Your Guardian author, Fred Pierce, then takes this and describes it as MIT says no commercial plants will exist until 2030 "at the earliest". You tell me. How did he come up with that? Here's the actual report: http://web.mit.edu/coal/ Read the Summary Report, its only a few pages long. People who talk about long delays other people are forecasting CCS plants will take are estimating how long it will take for society to put a price on carbon high enough.
No one is actually reading the authoritative reports it seems. There is the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage, there is this MIT The Future of Coal study, and there is a later McKinsey study, Carbon Capture and Storage: Assessing the Economics. These are the authoritative reports anyone should read who wants to dump on CCS saying its all an industry scam.
Why not read your DeSmogBlog mandate again, read up a bit on CCS technology, then see if you can still blithely dump on carbon capture as if you were on cruise control without examining what any authoritative sources actually say yourself.
I'll believe in "clean coal"
I'll believe in "clean coal" when they invent "radiation free nuclear power".
The Power Of Coal As Killed Many
Clean coal. What a fantastic idea!
A well written post. Thank you for sharing. I am afraid to say I do not believe the hype about clean coal. I wish it were true, but I really do not believe it.
The world would benefit from cheaper energy, and digging for coal (with the technology we have today), would help warm and feed some people that really need it, but not at the expense of the damage that would be caused.
There is a beautiful small country called Wales (part of the UK), and South Wales gave up their lives for the sake of coal.
South wales was the world leader in the supply of coal. Ships had to wait up to 2 weeks before they they could be filled and sent on their way (because everybody got supplied from South Wales).
Grandfathers, fathers, sons and cousins all went down the mine to bring up the coal, and they have suffered because of it. The environmental issues alone destroyed the heart of South Wales.
The aftermath of health issues, bound tightly together with the loss of the community is something nobody should want to see again.
I appreciate the conditions would be a billion times better for workers, but what about the environment, how do we protect that? What magical wand do these people think they have!
We need an answer to this serious energy problem. It makes perfect sense to brain storm EVERY possible solution, I'm sure we all agree with that. But coal - - clean coal. I'm not sure.
I would be pleased and happy if it were so. Never the less, I will not be holding my breath!
Thank you for sharing.
Sincerely,
John