After seeing so many one sided newspaper articles about coal, I'm happy to read one that gives space to both environmental groups and coal industry spokespersons. But, I was a little disappointed in this line:
"Some industry sources say that environmentalists oppose coal-based electric power because they are trying to cause a severe energy crisis to force consumers to dramatically change the way they live in order to drastically reduce their energy use..."If no one in the coal industry was brave enough to put their name behind that canard then it shouldn't have been printed without a quote from at least one major environmental leader making that argument. Otherwise, this stoops to the level of talk radio conspiracy theorists who think global warming is a diabolical hoax perpetuated by Dr. Evil liberals bent on controlling the world.
The above line is an important part of the fossil fuel industry's campaign against environmental regulations. They want the public to believe that the biggest polluters in the country really do care about the environment deep down in their hearts and that they're doing their best to be good stewards. Every new project is presented as "green" regardless of its environmental impact. Simultaneously, they would like us to believe that all environmentalists are crazies who want everyone to live in trees and are too irrational to be trusted with policy decisions. That's why Fox News and talk radio hosts pick up on and over-expose every story about any strange thing a hippie environmentalist in California does, but rarely, if ever, have the leaders of major environmental groups on their show.
Peabody spin is usually the easiest to debunk so I'll pick on a few things their spokesperson is quoted as saying. Every time Peabody is challenged on the environmental damage which will be caused by the Prairie State coal fire plant they make statements similar to this one from the article:
“Prairie State has and will meet all standards under the U.S. Clean Air Act and state regulations,” the Prairie State spokesman says. “Prairie State has prevailed throughout the process in the courts wherever it was challenged,” he adds.I find it audacious that they brag about meeting the minimum legal standards as though this is some sort of accomplishment after George Bush put his coal and oil industry corporate cronies in charge of the EPA and king coal has invested millions in political campaign contributions to keep air regulations watered down.
On Feb. 27, 2008, Prairie State issued a press release celebrating the expiration of the time limit for the Sierra Club to appeal an appellate court ruling upholding Prairie State’s permits. “Prairie State’s environmental profile has continued to prevail in the courts of law and public opinion,” says Rick A. Bowen, Peabody senior vice president of Btu conversion and strategic planning. “Each environmental review has brought stronger affirmation of Prairie State’s advanced environmental controls.”
The other message I get from this line of defense is that Peabody is interested in doing no more than what they're required to do by law. When the Sierra Club started negotiations with CWLP over the new coal power plant in Springfield it was done with the understanding that the utility already had a decent environmental record including updating pollution control equipment before they were legally required to do so. That's the difference between a utility that feels some sense of responsibility to the public and a private one that thinks of nothing but what its profit margin will be each quarter. Peabody is telling us that we have to make sure good environmental regulations are passed and enforced because many companies will do only what we force them to do by law, no matter how much their actions may harm public health and the environment.
The other argument from Peabody is that the Prairie State plant helps the environment because its cleaner than older plants. It will have lower emissions than outdated plants but it can't be considered a replacement because they still haven't committed to shutting down their older units. Unless they do that then they aren't reducing the overall amount of pollution in the air. And if we're supposed to believe that Peabody cares in the least about air pollution then why haven't they already updated their aging plants with modern pollution control equipment?
The article includes a curious line I see used recently by the coal industry and its stooges like John Shimkus did last week. In this case its Alan Dershowitz who argues for coal fire power plants as a source of American "energy independence." I'm not aware of there being a problem with our energy being produced outside our borders since coal, natural gas, solar and wind can all be produced domestically. Energy independence is an issue as it relates to our dependence on oil but it's out of place in discussions about coal fire power plants. Coal-to-liquid fuel technology, which hasn't been proven to be environmentally or economically viable, won't be utilized at these proposed plants. This looks like a sly misappropriation of a popular term.
The end of the article clues people in to the diabolical plot of the Sierra Club. It includes energy conservation and efficiency measures that allow us to do more with less power; using our renewable domestic resources like wind and solar; and updating or shutting down older coal plants that have the highest emissions.
As the grandiose promises of new jobs and a revived coal industry that were to accompany the FutureGen project look increasingly like an empty mine, it's important to note that two new wind farms are proposed for Taylorville and Logan county. Millions of new green-collar jobs will be created across the country and its up to Illinois citizens to decide if we want those jobs here or if we're going to keep settling for the empty promises of pandering politicians who answer to the coal lobby. Southern Illinois' economy will recover when people realize that the region no longer needs to be dependent on the coal industry for jobs.