Last week, the New York Times called the messages of our outreach campaign “cheery.”
That was an Interesting word choice, since we’ve backed up claims of progress with a strong record of achievement and we have spoken realistically about the challenges that lie ahead.
So while I think the New York Times editorial writer is showing a clear lack of understanding about the commitment our coalition is making to the future of coal, I can’t help but wonder how the newspaper would describe the new ads by the thisisreality.org group (or, as I like to call them, the “we don’t need coal folks”)?
Our campaign is clear about our policy goals. We promote policies that:
- ensure access to reliable energy
- promote energy independence
- keep the cost of energy affordable for working families and American businesses
- create new jobs by investing in advanced technologies to further improve the environmental performance of energy production across the board – including technologies to capture and store CO2 from coal-based power plants.
That’s what we’re for.
But what are the folks who are sponsoring the “anti-clean coal technology” spots asking people to see, feel, and do at the end of their messages? What are they for?
Is it really that we won't need fossil fuels in 10 years? (If so, what proof do they give to support that claim?) Also, why are they so optimistic about overcoming the obstacles associated with the increased use of renewables, but so pessimistic about the future of advanced clean coal technologies that will capture and safely store CO2?
Given that coal accounts for about half of the electricity we rely on each day, and every credible forecast shows coal use growing to meet increased energy needs both here at home and around the world, I suspect most people agree (and polling shows that I’m right on this one) see that coal will be a part of our energy future for a long-time to come.