Our response to the ad critcism

Recently, one of our advertisements featuring President Obama’s remarks in favor of clean coal has come under scrutiny from Greenpeace. To answer any lingering questions about the content of the ad, I thought I’d post my official response to Greenpeace from January 29:

Mr. Mike Clark
Executive Director
Greenpeace USA
702 H Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20001

Dear Mr. Clark:

I am in receipt of your letter addressed to Steve Gates, our national communications director. Your letter expresses concerns related to our current television ad which features comments made by President Obama regarding the role of clean coal in America’s energy future. While I can appreciate that you might not support the President’s position on this matter, we do.

Throughout the 2008 campaign, President Obama spoke on numerous occasions about American coal’s role in a diverse energy portfolio that creates jobs, promotes energy independence, and, through the use of advanced technologies, allows us to make good on the commitment to reduce the environmental footprint of energy production in this country – including technologies that will allow for the capture and safe storage of CO2 for coal and other fossil-fueled power plants. President Obama’s views were expressed in town hall meetings, on the campaign’s website, in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, and in televised debates with Senator McCain.

President Obama has not wavered from that support as evidenced by remarks he has made during the transition, as well as in passages on the updated www.whitehouse.gov website (where the Administration continues to note the fact that investments in clean coal technologies create jobs for American workers).

Our decision to run this ad is in direct support of the Obama Administration’s stated goal to provide funding for five commercial-scale advanced clean coal projects that demonstrate carbon capture and storage capabilities.

In regard to the challenge you raise about the ad’s content, even your own letter acknowledges that President Obama has noted that investments in clean coal technologies (along with other energy resources) creates jobs. That is, in essence, the precise language we used to substantiate this claim with television networks airing the spot. Therefore, I find your request to be without merit.

Mr. Clark, while Greenpeace may not agree, President Obama and his administration recognize that all of our available domestic energy resources – including American coal – will be needed to meet our country’s growing energy needs. You should read Secretary Chu’s comments during his confirmation hearing if you are unaware of his recent statements on this subject. If you don’t agree that investing in the advanced clean coal technologies that capture and store CO2 is a part of the Obama Administration’s energy agenda, then I suggest it is Greenpeace that is trying to misrepresent the President’s energy plan.

In closing, Greenpeace does a disservice to First Amendment-protected political discourse when it makes unfounded allegations in situations where it simply disagrees with the views of another organization, and forwards such allegations to a law enforcement agency (FTC) that clearly lacks jurisdiction over advertisements advocating particular political or policy positions.

I welcome the debate about how American coal provides low-cost, reliable, and increasingly clean energy for American families, and we support the President’s plan to invest in the next generation of clean energy technologies – including advanced technologies to capture and store CO2 from coal-based power plants. That is why you will continue to see this and other advertisements run in the future.

Very truly yours,

Joe Lucas

Senior Vice President – Communications

Comments

[Joe Leingang]

Bravo! Well said, and considerably more civil than I might have been.

[Hillary]

Of course we have clean energy sources: clean goal and nuclear energy.
Why try to placate Greenpeace, a violent organization. They have bombed to make their point.

When Americans see Al Gore an an environmental expert, instead of atmospheric scientists such as Dr. Lindzen of MIT, you know know they will have a difficult time accepting any rational argument.

[victor c.]

dont't know if ya'll got the memo., despite what obama says in your ad., but from all other reports, sources, the "bamster" intends to "kill" coal.

[victor c.]

hey,... i meant coal is good!, essential, to our nation's indedendent energy development.as well as nuclear (1st), oil, nat. gas, coal, wind and solar,(hydro, can'practically (or in good conciense) dam any more rivers.?)

[victor c.]

pardon, i do recognize my "tipentoofast mispellings. "nuclear", whoops, actually spelled correctly, it is "nuclear".;
indedendent = independent; and concience = conscience; i am not totally stupo.
go big trains o'coal!

[Beth in Virginia]

Why do I have trouble believing in "clean coal?" Because I have seen what "reclamation" means -- or doesn't mean.