SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Coal Industry's $47 Million PR Spending Spree
Nov 20, 2009
The coal industry's major lobby group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, shelled out a stunning $47 million last year on lobbying, advertising and "grassroots outreach"
efforts to fight climate legislation and tout the benefits of "clean
coal." Its efforts to actually develop clean coal technology, however,
were a lot less impressive.
ACCCE's most recent IRS filing, obtained by Greenwire
(sub. req'd), lists the contributions to the coalition by the nation's
biggest coal companies. Arch Coal Inc., Consol Energy Inc., and Peabody
Energy Corp. each chipped in $5 million; Foundation Coal Corp. gave $3
million, Southern Co. $2.1 million, and American Electric Power Co.
Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. (which has since left the group) gave $2 million. ACCCE is among the biggest spenders when it comes to influencing the debate on climate and energy.
But for all their expensive efforts to sell the public on the
wonders of clean coal, ACCCE isn't working quite as hard to make the
technology a reality. The coalition's members have committed the
comparatively paltry sum of $3.6 billion to research the technology
between 2003 and 2017, according to an April report from the Center for American Progress.
That's just $257 million on average each year to develop the technology
to capture and sequester carbon. To put that in perspective, ACCCE's
members made a combined total of $297 billion in profits between 2003
and 2008-meaning, as the report notes, that they're spending less than
two cents on clean coal research for every $1 of profit.
In fact, the climate legislation
that ACCCE fought-and fought dirty-to defeat in the House would devote
far more money toward developing clean coal than the companies have.
(Its "grassroots" efforts hit the news after one of its subcontractors,
Bonner and Associates forged letters
to Congress opposing a climate bill.) If the Waxman-Markey legislation
becomes law, it would hand the coal industry $60 billion for so-called
carbon capture and storage (CCS) research and development through 2025.
The House measure provides an additional $1 billion each year for
demonstration and deployment of this technology, to be funded by a fee
on consumers. Plus, early adopters of CCS would get bonus carbon
credits for every ton of carbon dioxide sequestered by electric
utilities.
Yet just days after Waxman-Markey passed the House, a number of
ACCCE's biggest funders were complaining to the Senate in public
hearings that the bill doesn't give enough money to the coal industry.
They also griped that carbon capture and storage technology is more
than a decade away from viability, so it would be unreasonable to
demand big emissions cuts from the sector anytime soon. "I don't think
CCS will be widely deployed until 2020 or after," Chris Hobson, senior
vice president of research and environmental affairs at Southern
Company, told senators in July. You'd never guess that from the coalition's website though, which still proudly proclaims: "The technology isn't 20 years away-some of it is here today."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Mother Jones
Kate Sheppard
Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter for Mother Jones, focusing on energy and environmental politics from Washington, D.C. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. Her work has also been featured in the Washington Post, The Guardian, The Center for Public Integrity, In These Times, and Bitch.
The coal industry's major lobby group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, shelled out a stunning $47 million last year on lobbying, advertising and "grassroots outreach"
efforts to fight climate legislation and tout the benefits of "clean
coal." Its efforts to actually develop clean coal technology, however,
were a lot less impressive.
ACCCE's most recent IRS filing, obtained by Greenwire
(sub. req'd), lists the contributions to the coalition by the nation's
biggest coal companies. Arch Coal Inc., Consol Energy Inc., and Peabody
Energy Corp. each chipped in $5 million; Foundation Coal Corp. gave $3
million, Southern Co. $2.1 million, and American Electric Power Co.
Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. (which has since left the group) gave $2 million. ACCCE is among the biggest spenders when it comes to influencing the debate on climate and energy.
But for all their expensive efforts to sell the public on the
wonders of clean coal, ACCCE isn't working quite as hard to make the
technology a reality. The coalition's members have committed the
comparatively paltry sum of $3.6 billion to research the technology
between 2003 and 2017, according to an April report from the Center for American Progress.
That's just $257 million on average each year to develop the technology
to capture and sequester carbon. To put that in perspective, ACCCE's
members made a combined total of $297 billion in profits between 2003
and 2008-meaning, as the report notes, that they're spending less than
two cents on clean coal research for every $1 of profit.
In fact, the climate legislation
that ACCCE fought-and fought dirty-to defeat in the House would devote
far more money toward developing clean coal than the companies have.
(Its "grassroots" efforts hit the news after one of its subcontractors,
Bonner and Associates forged letters
to Congress opposing a climate bill.) If the Waxman-Markey legislation
becomes law, it would hand the coal industry $60 billion for so-called
carbon capture and storage (CCS) research and development through 2025.
The House measure provides an additional $1 billion each year for
demonstration and deployment of this technology, to be funded by a fee
on consumers. Plus, early adopters of CCS would get bonus carbon
credits for every ton of carbon dioxide sequestered by electric
utilities.
Yet just days after Waxman-Markey passed the House, a number of
ACCCE's biggest funders were complaining to the Senate in public
hearings that the bill doesn't give enough money to the coal industry.
They also griped that carbon capture and storage technology is more
than a decade away from viability, so it would be unreasonable to
demand big emissions cuts from the sector anytime soon. "I don't think
CCS will be widely deployed until 2020 or after," Chris Hobson, senior
vice president of research and environmental affairs at Southern
Company, told senators in July. You'd never guess that from the coalition's website though, which still proudly proclaims: "The technology isn't 20 years away-some of it is here today."
Kate Sheppard
Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter for Mother Jones, focusing on energy and environmental politics from Washington, D.C. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. Her work has also been featured in the Washington Post, The Guardian, The Center for Public Integrity, In These Times, and Bitch.
The coal industry's major lobby group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, shelled out a stunning $47 million last year on lobbying, advertising and "grassroots outreach"
efforts to fight climate legislation and tout the benefits of "clean
coal." Its efforts to actually develop clean coal technology, however,
were a lot less impressive.
ACCCE's most recent IRS filing, obtained by Greenwire
(sub. req'd), lists the contributions to the coalition by the nation's
biggest coal companies. Arch Coal Inc., Consol Energy Inc., and Peabody
Energy Corp. each chipped in $5 million; Foundation Coal Corp. gave $3
million, Southern Co. $2.1 million, and American Electric Power Co.
Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. (which has since left the group) gave $2 million. ACCCE is among the biggest spenders when it comes to influencing the debate on climate and energy.
But for all their expensive efforts to sell the public on the
wonders of clean coal, ACCCE isn't working quite as hard to make the
technology a reality. The coalition's members have committed the
comparatively paltry sum of $3.6 billion to research the technology
between 2003 and 2017, according to an April report from the Center for American Progress.
That's just $257 million on average each year to develop the technology
to capture and sequester carbon. To put that in perspective, ACCCE's
members made a combined total of $297 billion in profits between 2003
and 2008-meaning, as the report notes, that they're spending less than
two cents on clean coal research for every $1 of profit.
In fact, the climate legislation
that ACCCE fought-and fought dirty-to defeat in the House would devote
far more money toward developing clean coal than the companies have.
(Its "grassroots" efforts hit the news after one of its subcontractors,
Bonner and Associates forged letters
to Congress opposing a climate bill.) If the Waxman-Markey legislation
becomes law, it would hand the coal industry $60 billion for so-called
carbon capture and storage (CCS) research and development through 2025.
The House measure provides an additional $1 billion each year for
demonstration and deployment of this technology, to be funded by a fee
on consumers. Plus, early adopters of CCS would get bonus carbon
credits for every ton of carbon dioxide sequestered by electric
utilities.
Yet just days after Waxman-Markey passed the House, a number of
ACCCE's biggest funders were complaining to the Senate in public
hearings that the bill doesn't give enough money to the coal industry.
They also griped that carbon capture and storage technology is more
than a decade away from viability, so it would be unreasonable to
demand big emissions cuts from the sector anytime soon. "I don't think
CCS will be widely deployed until 2020 or after," Chris Hobson, senior
vice president of research and environmental affairs at Southern
Company, told senators in July. You'd never guess that from the coalition's website though, which still proudly proclaims: "The technology isn't 20 years away-some of it is here today."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.