Sharp decline on global warming believers might suggest partisanship, cost concerns Posted by Joe Lucas on 10/23/2009 02:41:04 PM

Americans are becoming increasingly doubtful about whether global warming evidence exists, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Thursday. Based on the findings, 57 percent believe there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer – a sharp drop from 71 percent in April 2008.

The survey, titled "Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming,” says the decline crosses all party lines, but it is particularly pronounced among independents. Among them, 53 percent now believe global warming exists, compared with 75 percent in April 2008.

Among Republicans, 35 percent see solid evidence of global warming – down 14 percent from 2008. Seventy-five percent of Democrats said they see that level of evidence for global warming – just down 8 percent from the previous year.

Does this poll suggest that there is growing partisan split on global warming? Are Republicans saying no where Democrats are saying yes? Are independents split? Or are more people just concerned about the cost to deploy the technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Clearly, the poll shows an increased polarization of public attitudes based on party ID. But there are other dynamics in play.

Andrew Kohut, the director of the research center, told the Associated Press that concerns about the economy are also driving opinions on this issue: "The priority that people give to pollution and environmental concerns and a whole host of other issues is down because of the economy and because of the focus on other things.”

Pew surveyed 1,500 adults between Sept. 30 and Oct. 4.

We agree that there are both “certainties” and “uncertainties” when it comes to the science about climate change. But we’ve also said that any remaining uncertainties are not a reason to avoid action. With advances in technology, we can reduce emissions and maintain access to affordable, reliable energy from coal.

That’s why we support a bill that would reduce emissions by bringing new technologies to the marketplace; drive down the cost of deploying these technologies to ensure access to affordable, reliable electricity; promote the use of American coal and other domestic fuels; and protect existing jobs and create new ones.

New clean coal plant planned for Michigan Posted by Joe Lucas on 10/07/2009 01:00:00 PM

Yesterday, the Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative received a $2.7 million federal grant for their carbon capture and storage project at a coal-generated plant near Rogers City, Mich.

Although Wolverine Power’s 600-megawatt power plant has not yet been built, its CCS demonstration site is planned to capture 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year. The co-op’s dedication to developing the technology is illustrative of their commitment to building environmentally-conscious plants with the capability to reduce CO2 emissions.

“This gives a lot of credibility to what Wolverine has been saying,” said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.). “They want to be good stewards of our environment, use the latest technology.”

This is another great example of how building new coal-based plants can benefit the environment while helping us meet growing energy demand. I often wonder why some groups oppose new plants, especially when they’re built for efficiency and accommodations for new clean coal technologies—making them significantly cleaner than their aging counterparts.

These groups are actually standing in the way of progress, obstructing the advancement of the very technologies that will be necessary to meet the environmental standards that they support.

As you can see, Wolverine Power and others in the electric power industry understand that CO2 will become regulated in this country and are planning for the future by making technology investments today. This will allow coal—our most abundant, affordable fuel—to remain a part of America’s energy future.

Worldwide support for CCS starts with you Posted by Joe Lucas on 10/06/2009 09:00:00 AM

After President Obama’s recent climate change address to the United Nations, Nobel Peace Laureate Wangari Maathai told Democracy Now! that if the U.S. moves forward on reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the rest of the world will follow.

According to the Kenyan environmentalist, global leaders must come up with an agreement to make sure that “we aren’t emitting more carbon dioxide than we can take” – and the U.S. must use its status as a world leader to set a precedent.

The coal-generated electricity sector shares Maathai’s sentiments, which is why its scientists and engineers have been researching and deploying cutting-edge clean coal technologies for decades – including carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects designed to eliminate CO2 emissions.

And by exporting clean coal technologies and CCS to developing nations like China and India – as well as deploying the technology on a commercial scale within our borders – we can help ensure a clean energy future for our planet.

Many Americans are already working on making this a reality.

Venita McCellon-Allen, a working mother who relies on coal for electricity, has been encouraging Arkansans to support AEP’s John W. Turk power plant by educating them about the economic and environmental benefits of clean coal.

We hope you follow Venita – as well as a host of other Americans – and ask your friends and family to support clean coal technology – because if Maathai is right, our efforts will go a long way in leading the world into a clean energy future.

President Obama Declares October National Energy Awareness Month Posted by Joe Lucas on 10/05/2009 01:12:40 PM

We all know how passionate President Obama is about strengthening our energy security, creating green jobs and developing clean coal technology – so it’s no surprise that he recently declared October National Energy Awareness Month.

This special month will highlight our nation’s energy issues by promoting the importance of a clean energy economy and recognizing the companies and organizations that are committed to innovation in energy.

These two initiatives are important factors in strengthening our global competitiveness and securing our energy independence—two issues that should be brought into focus as climate change legislation moves through the Senate.

Honoring the folks who work hard to help us reach these goals is important. We’re particularly proud of those in our industry to make coal-generated electricity even cleaner, with cutting-edge technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC).

With technical and financial contributions to these emissions-reducing technologies, I’m confident we can become the world’s leading exporter in clean coal technology and exemplify how to jumpstart a depressed economy with technology.

How will you give thanks and show your support to members of the energy industry this month? Post a comment and let us know. And don’t forget to visit AmericasPower.org to check your knowledge of the country’s energy and environmental issues.

In case you missed it Posted by Joe Lucas on 09/25/2009 09:00:00 AM

When you hear that renewable energy will triple in the next few years, how many people know just how much that really means as far as making a difference in our total electricity production?

Apparently Arch Coal CEO Steve Leer does. When asked in an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box about increasing the use of renewable energy Leer said “coal is the fastest growing fuel we've had for fossil fuels in the United States at 50 percent, it's enormous. And the scalability of renewables today are [sic] about two percent. So, they're going to double, triple, quintuple. If they quintuple, we have 10 percent of our electricity being derived from renewables…people forget to do the math.”

Leer went on to say that to say that we’ll need a balanced energy approach, noting that while we can “whittle away” at our use of fossil fuels, we will “still be heavily reliant on coal, natural gas and oil” for the next decade.

When asked about the use of CCS technology, Leer said that “stabilizing CO2 in the atmosphere, the only way to achieve it on a global scale is to develop carbon capture sequestration. Those technologies have to be developed. Otherwise we're just talking politics.”

Note: Arch Coal is a member of ACCCE.

Pittsburgh International Coal Conference: Getting serious about CCS Posted by Joe Lucas on 09/24/2009 08:59:05 AM

As you may have read from our previous blog posts, this week the city of Pittsburgh hosted the 26th Annual International Coal Conference, which focused on issues and technologies surrounding the continued use of coal.

As the city filled up with the world’s foremost scientists, geologists, engineers and business leaders, our climate and energy challenges became increasingly realistic.

According to Granger Morgan, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor who spoke at the event, we must get more serious about the use of clean coal technologies, especially if the United States wants to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 80 percent by 2050. “Coal with carbon capture and sequestration will be an essential part of this solution,” Morgan said.

The regional spotlight may have inspired Pennsylvania State University alumnus Ted O’Brien to “get more serious” about at our climate and energy issues. In a recent letter to the Daily Collegian, O’Brien writes that Americans “would be better off coming to the realization that coal is a necessary piece of our generation mix” and should “encourage those in power to work toward cleaning its emissions” via technologies like CCS.

Reaching our goal of cutting CO2 emissions will take a multi-pronged approach, but we know that CCS technologies are part of the solution. What questions do you have about this technology and what other ideas do you have for a balanced energy approach?

What they’re saying at the International Coal Conference in Pittsburgh Posted by Joe Lucas on 09/23/2009 09:00:00 AM

Pittsburgh is hosting the 26th Annual International Coal Conference, an event that focuses on environmental issues and technologies surrounding the continued use of coal, along with the development of future coal-based plants to achieve near zero emissions. Here’s a sampling of what scientists, academics and energy industry leaders have been saying at the conference:

Jared L. Cohon, Carnegie Mellon University president, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (9/22): “Pittsburgh should make research and development of clean coal technologies the highest priority because despite its emissions problems the world will continue to rely on it while alternative energy sources are developed.”

M. Granger Morgan, head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (9-22): “To stop climate change, by mid-century the world must reduce its emissions roughly 80 percent. Doing that's going to take everything we've got: more efficient use of energy, coal plants that capture their carbon dioxide and safely put it a mile underground, more wind and nuclear plants, and plug-electric hybrid vehicles that get their power from the U.S., not the Middle East.”

M. Granger Morgan, head of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (9-22): "There are no ‘silver bullets’ — no single technology or strategy that will solve the problem of climate change. Meeting that challenge will take everything we've got — and in the process create many new jobs.”

John Hanger, DEP secretary and former president and chief executive officer of Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (9-22): "To continue this progress, we must use both law and markets. Laws like building codes and vehicle mileage standards must boost energy efficiency as well as low-carbon fuels and electricity; competitive markets must operate to produce efficiently cleaner appliances, electricity, vehicles; and public-private partnerships must develop new and better technologies like carbon capture and storage for coal plants."

Albert Whitehouse, director of the Department of Interior's International Technical Assistance Program, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (9/22): "No one can make the bridge from the present to the future without coal."

Questioning the future of coal and CCS Posted by Joe Lucas on 09/22/2009 04:01:11 PM

Last week, our team had the opportunity to speak with West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin at ACI’s Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Summit in Washington, D.C.

Gov. Manchin shared his enthusiasm for deploying clean coal technologies like CCS in his state; he knows all too well that coal provides much-need jobs and affordable energy—nearly 98 percent of the state’s electricity is generated from coal. His experience at the local level has undoubtedly given the governor a national and global perspective on energy.

“Coal will continue to be a major energy source for the next 30 years or more as the nation and world transition to the energy of the future, and leaders must find a balance between the economy and environment,” he said, at a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce event.

The governor’s state is leading the way, with plans to retrofit outdated plants with new, emissions-reducing technologies, as well as the construction of a commercial scale CCS plant in the town of New Haven.

With advancements in CCS happening here at home and across the globe, it’s baffling to read stories questioning the existence of CCS—one writer recently when so far as to say that “CCS is dead.”

If that’s true, then according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), the notion of reducing the global concentration of greenhouse gases is dead as well. Both of these groups—along with many of the world’s top scientists—agree that CCS is a crucial component to cost-effectively achieving target global emissions reductions.

Just take a look at our recent videos on the Balanced Energy YouTube channel to see students, professors, scientists and elected officials working hard to solve our energy and climate challenges—using the abundant and affordable resources we have available to us.

President Obama speaks to UN about climate change Posted by Joe Lucas on 09/22/2009 02:55:56 PM

Earlier today, President Obama addressed the United Nations (UN) on the topic of climate change.

We’ve long applauded President Obama for his attention to this complex issue and his realistic solutions, which include support for advanced clean coal technologies like carbon capture and storage (CSS). In fact, the president was voicing his support for these technologies long before he was officially in office:

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama also acknowledged that “a huge percentage of our electricity is generated by coal,” and that we need “to put clean coal technology on the fast track and that means money. It means investment in research. That’s something we should have already been doing.”

As president, Mr. Obama has made good on his commitment to advanced clean coal technologies through allocation of funding in the federal stimulus bill, as well as Department of Energy (DOE) grants for various clean coal projects across the country.

He has also demonstrated his commitment on the international level, noting in a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that “figuring out how to sequester and capture carbon that’s emitted from coal as just one element of a broader range of energy initiatives, that’s an example of something that can create jobs; also deal with a potential environmental crisis—that’s the kind of economic growth that I think we’re going to be looking for.”

It’s clear that our president is someone who recognizes that coal is large part of the global energy mix and that we cannot reach global emissions reduction goals without CCS.

As we said in our official statement, we applaud President Obama for addressing such a complex issue and we look forward to working with his administration and Congress to find solutions that benefit everyone involved.

We can lead the world in clean coal technologies Posted by Joe Lucas on 09/21/2009 09:00:00 AM

When U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu visited China this summer, he had one goal in mind: to open China’s market to American clean technology products while pushing China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Chu also laid out plans for how the U.S. would export and transfer the technology to China.

Clearly, Chu recognizes that the U.S. is a leader in technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

It’s easy to understand why – there are more than 200 clean coal programs and projects across the U.S. and nearly $6 billion in research underway in 41 states. Some American engineers, scientists and geologists have been working on clean coal technology for more than a decade.

With the new administration’s support of CCT, U.S. energy companies are making headway – just last week, the Southern Company (an ACCCE member) announced that China would be the first to implement Transport Integrated Gasification, the company’s technology for producing low-emission coal-based electricity.

Other U.S. energy companies are choosing to team up with their Chinese counterparts. Houston-based Future Fuels and Beijing-based Thermal Power Research Institute will focus on constructing coal-based electricity plants in both the U.S. and China.

As we’ve been saying, if we don’t develop the technology here, it won’t make its way to China, India and other places in the developing world that will continue to use massive amounts of coal no matter what we do in the U.S.

They need CCT just as much we do – but we have the technology know-how. It’s time for the U.S. to step up to the plate and lead the way in mitigating climate change.

What they’re saying: clean coal technology and the economy Posted by Joe Lucas on 09/09/2009 09:00:00 AM

With the climate change bill moving through the Senate and the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen around the corner, many public officials have voiced their opinions about the importance of coal and clean coal technology. Here’s a sampling of what they’ve been saying lately:

On clean coal technology:

Bjørn Lomborg, professor at the Copenhagen Business School and director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Wall Street Journal (8/28): In an op-ed, Lomborg “urges action to address global warming, and argues that the most effective way to address the problem is through technology. Economic sanctions such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program will only hinder technological development.”

On the Department of Energy’s announcement of $27 million in funding for clean coal technology:

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Washington Examiner (8/28): “The University of Texas at Austin is one of seven organizations receiving funding to develop sequestration technology training projects.” The $8.4 million awarded to the university “will be used to train site developers, geologists, engineers, and technicians in order to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and technologies for CO2 sequestration.” Said Chu, “These projects will train workers for a clean energy economy and help position the United States as a leader in carbon capture and storages technologies for years to come.”

On the benefits of coal:

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), The Shelby County Reporter (8/26): “Its [coal’s] advantages are that it’s abundant and relatively low-cost. Coal production is a huge source of revenue, as the total annual value of coal produced in the state exceeds $1 billion.”

Helping The Environment And The Economy At The Same Time Posted by Joe Lucas on 08/21/2009 04:00:00 PM

According to a recent study, the majority of West Virginians believe their state’s economic growth should be given priority, even at the expense of protecting their environment.

But West Virginia can have their cake and eat it, too – clean coal technology will make it possible for Americans to boost the economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The importance of advanced technology for carbon capture and storage is that it is a path for us to remove the choice from that poll, which we believe to be a false choice.

We do not have to sacrifice the environment. And we do not have to sacrifice economic recovery.

A study conducted by BBC Research and Consulting says that the commercial-scale deployment of clean coal technology will generate up to $1 trillion of economic output and create more than 7 million man-years of employment.

The takeaway is that we can help both the economy and the environment at the same time.

Climate Change Legislation We Can Support Posted by Joe Lucas on 08/10/2009 11:04:57 AM

ACCCE has been clear from the very beginning that we are for federal carbon management legislation and recognize that cap and trade could be part of that solution. When outside groups imply that we are trying the “kill” clean energy legislation, their claims are false. We are trying to make sure that whatever bill Congress passes is “affordable” as well as effective when it comes to protecting the environment.

ACCCE prides itself on being an organization that stands by its commitments and that is why we are disappointed when our loyal opposition misrepresents our mission and our public policy positions.

Let’s agree that climate legislation is a very important issue. It is the nexus of energy, environment, and economic policy … and therefore will have a dramatic impact on the lives of everyday Americans. It deserves better than the politics-as-usual slant some interest groups continue to inject into the debate.

On the road again Posted by Joe Lucas on 08/06/2009 10:51:59 AM

Last year, we had a lot of fun on the road during the presidential campaign meeting Americans from all walks of life who are interested in our nation's energy and environmental future. The highlight was most people out there believe that we need a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that will also keep energy costs affordable. They think we have to do what's good for the environment and our economy.

We couldn't agree more.

So we're hitting the road again. We'll be visiting towns and cities across the country to encourage folks to learn more about a plan that allows us to bring new technologies to the market to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while still ensuring access to affordable, reliable energy.

As you visit your state fair, attend a town hall meeting with your elected officials, or head out to the mall, look for the America's Power team, pick up a free hat or t-shirt, and learn more about a climate policy that will do what's good for our environment and the economy.

VIDEO UPDATE: Stanford University professor on CO2 storage strategies Posted by Joe Lucas on 08/03/2009 05:45:21 PM

A couple of weeks ago, we introduced you to Dr. Sally Benson, director of the Global Climate Energy Project at Stanford University.

She is an expert on how carbon dioxide flows through rocks, a key to understanding the ways to make CCS effective and safe. At Stanford, she teaches courses on CCS and greenhouse gas mitigation technologies

The video below features highlights from Dr. Benson’s lecture at the Research Experience in Carbon Sequestration (RECS) in New Mexico:

VIDEO UPDATE: Injecting CO2 into the ground in New Mexico Posted by Joe Lucas on 08/03/2009 05:41:19 PM

We told you last week about New Mexico’s Pump Canyon, where researchers are injecting liquid carbon dioxide (CO2) into the ground for permanent storage. The monitoring effort at Pump Canyon includes using “tracers” to monitor the site and ensure the CO2 is staying where it belongs.

The team we sent to New Mexico returned with photos (posted here on Flickr) and the video below, in which officials from the U.S. Department of Energy and Southwest Partnership on Carbon Sequestration explain the monitoring effort at Pump Canyon.

RECS: Students agree on the need for CCS Posted by Joe Lucas on 07/29/2009 10:13:47 AM

There are many ways to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and each has its pros and cons — a successful solution will involve a balanced mix that includes all options available to us.

At the Research Experience in Carbon Sequestration (RECS) program, Ph.D. and graduate students played the Stabilization Wedge Game developed by Princeton University’s Carbon Mitigation Initiative. The object is to keep CO2 emissions flat using wedges representing different strategies.

Teams included students from academic institutions such as Columbia University, Ohio State University, Indiana University, Penn State University, Rutgers University and Johns Hopkins University.

A major part of the game includes weighing the financial costs of each CO2 reduction strategy. That is, we all want to reduce CO2 emissions, but we need to take into account the need for affordable and reliable electricity and ensure that we protect our economy.

The best Stabilization Wedge Game players put together a realistic option for CO2 reduction that wins over the following stakeholder groups: taxpayers/consumers; energy companies; environmental groups; manufacturers; industrialized nations; and developing nations.

Invariably, this means including CCS as a wedge strategy. Students at RECS agreed that since we rely on coal for 50 percent of our electricity, the solution must include a plan to increase our investments in CCS projects.

That’s what we’ve been saying all along, but it was nice to see a team of academic scholars reach the same conclusion.

Chu tells China ‘we’re all in this together’ Posted by Joe Lucas on 07/16/2009 03:00:00 PM

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is in Beijing this week to talk about climate change with Chinese leaders in the hopes to open the nation’s market to American clean technology products while pushing China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“What China and the U.S. do in the future in large part will determine the fate of the world,” Chu said in a speech at Tsinghua University, as reported in the L.A. Times. “We’re all in this together.”

Chu warned that if China continued on its path, in 30 years it would have equaled all the carbon pollution the U.S. has ever released.

But Chu has a solution – develop clean technology in the U.S. and export it to China. The transfer of this technology is one of the chief topics he is expected to discuss on his trip.

As we’ve been saying, if we don’t develop the technology here, it won’t make its way to China, India and other places in the developing world that will continue to use massive amounts of coal no matter what we do in the United States. Even the L.A. Times acknowledged that the U.S. has the know-how in carbon capture that would benefit the Chinese.

If we want to address a global issue such as climate change, Chu’s right – China must be part of the solution.

Climate Debate: Next Stop is the U.S. Senate Posted by Joe Lucas on 07/16/2009 11:10:24 AM

With the House of Representatives now having passed a bill, the debate on a global warming bill now heads to the Senate. The Senate yesterday the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing in which top administration officials stressed that the goal of legislation is to not only curb greenhouse gas emissions, but to create jobs and boost our economy.

We agree about creating jobs … but we also think that a policy has to protect existing jobs. And the way you do that is be guaranteeing that we take all possible steps to keep energy costs affordable. Energy costs are second only to labor costs in ensuring that businesses can survive in these tough economic times and keep American workers – particularly those in energy intensive sectors like manufacturing – on the job.

Polls show that Americans support the notion of reducing CO2 emissions, but many are concerned about how new measures would affect consumer energy costs. ACCCE supports federal climate legislation as long as it protects American consumers and our economy because we believe the Congress can pass a bill that protects our economy and our environment. There were improvements made in during the House debate on their bill that got us closer to that goal … but there are still additional changes that need to be made to ensure we hit the mark.

In the months ahead, ACCCE looks forward to working with members of Congress and other policymakers to develop reasonable, effective legislative proposals on this important and complex issue.

What does MoveOn.Org have against Senator Claire McCaskill? Posted by Joe Lucas on 07/10/2009 05:37:01 PM

This week, MoveOn.Org launched a full-scale assault on Senator Claire McCaskill for suggesting that she could vote for a climate bill in the Senate only if changes were made to a bill that would ensure that Missouri consumers would be guaranteed protection from higher energy costs under a resulting climate policy.

Given MoveOn.Org’s attack on the senator, I thought it would be good to see where she stands on energy and environmental topics. On her Senate Web site, Senator McCaskill says “Congress needs to enact policies that protect consumers and move America away from its dependence on foreign energy sources and its dependence on oil.”

Does MoveOn.Org disagree with that statement?

Her site also says: "Encouraging utilities to purchase an increased portion of their electricity from renewable energy sources would be a positive step toward energy independence. But Congress must pass a law that takes into account the unique energy capabilities of each region in the U.S. For example, while Nevada can benefit significantly from wind and solar power to supply their energy needs, states like Missouri can implement a combination of biomass co-firing, wind and energy efficiency standards to supply ours.”

That seems to make great sense given that different states have different abilities to add renewable and non-traditional energy resources. Does MoveOn.Org disagree with that statement?

Here’s what Senator McCaskill understands: Missouri gets 82.4% of its electricity from low-cost coal, and as a result enjoys the 10th-lowest electricity costs in the nation.

Does MoveOn.Org think Senator McCaskill should support legislation to raise the cost of energy in the state?

Do they think that Missouri businesses will be better able to compete in this already challenging economy and create jobs if they are also paying higher energy costs?

Does MoveOn.Orgthink Missouri families (who are already struggling in this economy) are having too easy of a time making ends meet?

We think Senator McCaskill is headed in exactly the right direction. This week,  Senator McCaskill said, "I'm going to be one of those trying to craft it [a climate bill] … that is not going to hurt a state like Missouri that is so coal dependent."

Some people want to pass a climate bill so badly, they are willing to accept a bill that could be bad for our economy. Thank goodness Senator McCaskill and others in the Senate recognize the difference.

Any bill that the Senate passes needs to ensure access to affordable, reliable energy, promote greater energy independence, protect existing jobs (as well as look to create new jobs), and bring new technologies to the marketplace that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions that can be used here at home as well as around the globe. That is the type of bill we have said we’ll support and work toward seeing adopted in the Senate and signed into law.

What to watch for as the climate bill heads to the Senate Posted by Joe Lucas on 07/09/2009 11:42:38 AM

Click the photo to watch today's episode of "OnPoint."

As the Senate moves on climate and energy legislation, many people are hoping to see significant changes in the Senate's version of the House-approved Waxman-Markey bill.

During today's OnPoint, I discussed the provisions I hope will change as the legislation makes its way through the Senate. I also talked about the Obama administration's progress on funding and R&D for carbon capture and storage technology.

Let's do a climate bill right, rather than do it quickly Posted by Joe Lucas on 07/08/2009 01:27:23 PM

Today, I sat down with E&ETV's "OnPoint" program to tape a segment that will air tomorrow. (Watch the show online.)

In the interview, I was asked about the timing for the Senate’s consideration of climate legislation. What I said was that I thought that it would depend upon how negotiations went (especially with the key moderate Democrats who are from coal states) and how the calendar worked with scheduling health care and other votes.

Here are some additional thoughts:

There were several press reports leading up to the House consideration saying that sponsors of the bill brought the measure to the floor when they did because public support for climate legislation was fading fast.

I wish I had pointed out that public support for emissions reductions will really sink if we pass a bill that doesn’t guarantee that our economy and consumers are protected from higher energy costs.

I’m sorry, but this is VERY important legislation. In our view, it is more important to do a bill right … than to do it quickly.

That said, we support the timely adoption of bill that ensures access to affordable, reliable energy, protects existing jobs (and creates new ones), promotes greater energy independence, and brings new technologies to the marketplace to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector both here in the U.S. and around the world (through successful technology transfer).

And we’re looking forward to working with the leaders in the Senate, others on Capital Hill and in the administration in support of this type of policy.

Let's keep working to make the cap-and-trade bill better Posted by Joe Lucas on 05/21/2009 10:03:06 PM

The news from Capitol Hill tonight is that a House committee passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES).

As Steve Miller, CEO and president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said: "We look forward to working with the members of the House of Representatives during the coming weeks to make additional, vital modifications to the ACES Act so that the legislation ultimately enacted by Congress and signed by the president produces environmental benefits, promotes economic prosperity and advancement of technology, and ensures greater energy independence."

Click here for the full statement from Steve Miller.

Comparing climate change goals to weight loss Posted by Joe Lucas on 04/24/2009 12:04:25 PM

In her remarks commemorating Earth Day yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton paralleled global climate goals to weight loss. It may seem like a goofy analogy, but the secretary has a point:

"Oftentimes when you face such an overwhelming challenge as global climate change is, it can be somewhat daunting. It’s kind of like trying to lose weight—which I know something about. It's kind of like trying to lose weight — which I know something about. Where you think, you know, 'Oh, I only have to lose X number of pounds.' But it can seem like such a faraway goal."

Secretary Clinton goes on to imply that we can achieve large goals by breaking them down into smaller, easier to hit targets. This stair-stepped approach is one we’ve been talking about for months: 1) slow emissions growth; 2) stop emissions growth; 3) reverse emissions growth.

The idea of setting ourselves up to succeed is one that ACCCE has been talking about for a long time, especially in regard to developing climate legislation. By working together to develop commercial carbon capture technologies and set incremental standards for utilities, we can reach our long-term global emissions reductions goals while protecting American families and businesses from higher energy costs.

Taking the time to do climate legislation right Posted by Joe Lucas on 03/26/2009 11:57:22 AM

We’ve said that climate change legislation was too important of an issue to attempt to tackle by using back-door methods. It seems like more people are agreeing—a collection of House and Senate members on both sides of the isle have encouraged leadership to hold off on fast-tracked climate change legislation.

Said Sen. Susan Collins (R–Maine), "I'm a strong supporter of climate change legislation and continue to be. But this is a major policy change, and it should not be jammed through using reconciliation. We should have a full debate, and ample opportunity for a lot of different amendments."

If you look at the big picture, climate legislation, while certainly important for the environment, will also affect U.S. families and businesses. Like President Obama has said, “If [a cap-and-trade system] is too onerous that people can’t meet it, then it defeats the purpose.”

An optimistic realist's view on climate legislation Posted by Joe Lucas on 03/24/2009 11:07:33 AM

It might come as a surprise to some folks, but our views on climate change legislation are not unlike others, including the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Last week, the president of the Pew Center told the House Energy and Commerce Committee to be cautious about burdening energy-intensive industries with the inherent costs of climate legislation, noting that creating free allowances to begin with could lessen the likelihood that developing nations not bound by emissions standards—like China and India—could gain a manufacturing foothold over the United States.

As President Obama said (of a CO2 cap-and-trade system), "If it's so onerous that people can't meet it, then it defeats the purpose."

To keep America competitive in the global economy while jump starting things here at home, we'll have to take a realistic approach to climate change legislation. We believe this transition can be made in a way that helps us meet our environmental responsibility, protects America's energy security and ensures reliable, affordable energy for Americans.

We look forward to working with President Obama, his administration and Congress to strike that all-important balance.

The debate over climate change is moving (video post) Posted by Joe Lucas on 03/20/2009 03:38:35 PM

I wanted to share my thoughts on the state of the climate change debate in Washington these last few weeks. Rather than write it out, I hopped outside and put together this video post. Let me know what you think!

Finding a CO2 plan that strikes the right balance Posted by Joe Lucas on 03/17/2009 09:48:31 AM

All through the America’s Power campaign, we’ve said we would support climate change legislation that strikes the right balance between environmental goals and economic realities.

It seems we’re not the only ones who feel that way.

Last week, President Obama offered what journalists called his most extensive remarks on global warming policy since taking office, essentially making that very point.

Speaking about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade system, the president said he would be careful to avoid plans that lean too far in either direction. “If it’s so onerous that people can’t meet it, then it defeats the purpose,” the president said.

There’s no doubt that striking a balance between reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting America’s energy security and holding down energy costs for consumers will require hard work. But we believe it can be done, and that President Obama, his team and the 111th Congress will work together to shape legislation that accomplishes these very goals. We look forward to being part of the process.

Climate change low priority for Americans Posted by Joe Lucas on 03/13/2009 05:16:46 PM

According to the latest poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, climate change is at the bottom of the barrel of Americans’ top priorities for 2009—it came in last.

While climate change may be a low priority for Americans right now, it’s anything but for ACCCE. As we’ve outlined in our climate change principles, we advocate climate strategy that recognizes the importance of energy efficiency, conservation, and using our diverse suite of domestic energy sources to generate electricity. We’re working hard to bring the next generation of clean coal technologies to commercial scale, equipping today’s coal-based plants with technology that can safely capture and sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate change is also an important issue for Congress and the EPA, as we’ve noted before.

There are plenty of issues worthy of national focus. Here at ACCCE, we’re working diligently to create long-term solutions for a healthier economy and a cleaner environment.

The real discussion about carbon dioxide Posted by Joe Lucas on 03/06/2009 04:35:00 PM

We’ve seen a fair amount of commentary over my recent CNN appearance, which makes my point exactly: the debate over the science of climate change is keeping us from moving on this issue.

Let me be clear on two things:

1. Discussing whether CO2 will be regulated is a moot point. We know that CO2 emissions will soon be regulated, be it via Congress or through the U.S. EPA.

2. ACCCE supports federal carbon management legislation, as we’ve said before and outlined here in our climate principles.

We shouldn’t focus on whether carbon dioxide will be regulated (it will), or if ACCCE could possibly support regulation (we do). The conversation now should be about how we’re going to reduce CO2 emissions.

We’ve made great strides in curbing emissions, and I know we can do it again. And with so many great minds focused on the task at hand, I’m confident we’ll come up with a balanced energy approach that meets our demands, encourages job creation and protects the environment.

On CO2, don't let debate over science stop us from taking action Posted by Joe Lucas on 03/05/2009 09:27:24 AM

Let’s talk about the issue of the science of climate change.

Recently in an interview on CNN, they played a part of a quote in which I said “I’m not a scientist” when asked whether or not emissions from coal plants contributed to climate change.

Here’s what you didn’t hear: I pointed out that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a whole list of things about which there is great certainty, other things about which there is some certainty, and still other things about which there is less certainty. We do know that there has been an increases in greenhouse gas emissions and that some warming has taken place.

According to the IPCC, the exact extent that human-made emissions will contribute to climate change is less certain. However, the remaining uncertainties do not provide a reason to not take action.

Especially when you take into consider the advances that we are making with advanced clean coal technologies to capture and store CO2 from power plants. By focusing on technology to ensure a cost-effective means of meeting new emissions standards, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy independence, create jobs and keep energy costs affordable for American businesses and families.

As the IPCC, International Energy Agency, MIT and others have said: this approach is actually the only way meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale.

The many facets of climate change and carbon management Posted by Joe Lucas on 02/05/2009 04:00:18 PM

A recent piece from the London Guardian outlines a number of action items for President Obama in efforts to curb climate change.

I was particularly struck by this passage:

The president must also instruct his cabinet to clarify the impact of global climate change on each of their respective portfolios. Global warming has been crammed into a "green" box for the sake of political expediency. Instead, it must be appreciated for its cross-cutting immensity — it is fundamental to national security, global commerce, economic recovery, energy security, public health and safety, agricultural policy, land-use planning, and environmental protection.

This sentiment meshes well with our 12 legislative climate principles, which call for federal carbon management legislation that preserves the reliability of electricity generation, transmission and distribution system; promotes energy security and reliability; and maintains America’s competitiveness in a global economy.

We believe this can be done, in part, through clean coal technologies—including the capture and storage of carbon dioxide, a belief shared by the UK’s former prime minister, Tony Blair and The Climate Group. In their June 2008 report, they concluded that carbon capture and storage was “a critical and urgent priority” and that “it will be very challenging, if not impossible, to hit significant abatement targets without CCS.”

As we’ve said before, striking a balance between reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting America’s energy security and holding down energy costs for consumers will require hard work. But we believe it can be done, and that President Obama, his team and the 111th Congress will work together to shape legislation that accomplishes these very goals. We look forward to being part of the process.

Our solutions and what we stand for Posted by Joe Lucas on 02/04/2009 12:00:39 PM

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the chair of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, has released a set of climate change principles. Click here to download the PDF.

At this time last year, we were putting together our own set of climate change principles, outlining ACCCE's support for a mandatory federal plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provided we simultaneously work to protect energy security and keep energy costs affordable for consumers. Striking this balance will require hard work, but it can be done.

For more information, take a look at our 12 legislative climate change principles for federal carbon management legislation (PDF).

It's interesting to see what we have in common.

Listen to the IPCC — it's time to take a deep breath Posted by Joe Lucas on 12/14/2008 04:56:00 AM

Today, I'll dispel a myth about addressing climate change concerns. Some people say that if it takes 10-15 years for power plants with carbon capture and storage to come online, it will be too late.

Well, maybe they need to check again.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said this week that there is no clear evidence that climate change represents an immenent danger to the world.

Don't start hyper-ventilating! I'm just using Dr. Puchauri's comments show that we don't have to run around with our hair on fire. We've got time to bring new technologies to the marketplace to capture and store CO2, and we should be having a discussion about that.

Our industry is serious about bringing new advanced technologies for carbon capture and storage to the point of widespread deployment. Need convincing? Look take a look at the map of demonstration projects that the industry is already helping to fund.

Moreover, as we increase funding for all energy research and development programs, we say that there needs to be additional dollars set aside to match the industry's investment in bringing this new generation of new clean coal technologies into the marketplace. That stands in stark contrast to other groups, which have consistently opposed additional funding for advanced coal research and development.

So let's get focused on what we know: coal use both here in the U.S. and around the world will continue to grow, meaning that reducing CO2 emissions will require new advanced clean coal technologies. And according to the head of the IPCC, we've got time to bring those technologies to the marketplace (and nobody is saying we should delay!).

So the key question is, will you join us in that endeavor?

The Future Posted by Joe Lucas on 09/24/2008 02:07:40 PM

I've been reading a few stories this week questioning whether generating electricity from coal will be possible if Congress decides to regulate carbon emissions.

Some people say the future possibility of greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies will mean that coal will have a diminished role in meeting future energy needs.

Wrong.

There is no credible energy forecast that doesn’t show coal use growing both here in the U.S. and around the world.  Meeting our growing energy demand will not be possible without coal (and I challenge anybody to present an accepted scenario that says otherwise).  That is why we believe ensuring the availability of carbon capture and storage technology is so important to meeting our energy supply and environmental goals. 

And I still hear some folks say that ACCCE opposes measures to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Wrong again.

ACCCE supports federal policies to achieve meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the utility sector, provided we simultaneously work to protect energy security and keep energy costs affordable for consumers. Striking this balance will require hard work, but it can be done.   

We see climate change is a global issue requiring leadership by the United States and actions by all nations in a spirit of shared responsibility to devise and carry out practical, cost-effective measures by government, business, and citizens to slow, stop, and then reverse the growth of manmade greenhouse gas emissions. We know that coal has a big role to play in the future, even with the possibility (even likelihood) of future carbon regulations.

That is why investing in advanced clean coal technologies for the capture and storage of CO2 is so important, and we call upon groups that might not have supported coal R&D in the past to reconsider their position on that point. 

Those Chamber of Commerce 'Radicals' Posted by Joe Lucas on 12/05/2007 02:28:00 PM

                                    

Did everyone see this video on climate change from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? I’m curious to know what many bloggers would be saying if our organization produced that spot. If you’re curious, do an Internet search on “ABEC” and you’ll get the gist. But what are people saying about the Chamber of Commerce for disagreeing with flawed legislation? (Cricket, cricket)

"Climate legislation being considered by Congress could make it more expensive to heat our homes, power our lives and drive our cars," the narrator says. ”Is this really how Americans want to live?"

According to a Reuters story, the Chamber of Commerce opposes "ill-conceived climate change policies and measures that could severely damage the security and economy of the United States."

So what’s the verdict? Has the Chamber of Commerce lost its mind? Or is it right? Is legislation that will negatively impact our economy just for the sake of doing something the best way to go? I’m sure you all know where we stand on this one.

                               

Color Me Shocked Posted by Joe Lucas on 10/31/2007 04:13:00 PM

                                    

This just in from treehugger.com… in referring to the new Americaspower.com campaign, they write: “Cheap, secure, local fuel and lots of it! Just don't mention that climate change thing.” I hate to bring this up... but I’m pretty sure we did.

With a name like “tree hugger” (and for the record I’ve hugged my share of trees) it’s not surprising that they have a definitive view of the how things should be if they were king. And in a perfect world, most of what they advocate seems hard to disagree with. However, we don’t have the luxury of dealing with how things should be, and are faced with the very real challenges of how things are.

Fact: 50% of our electricity comes from coal and we need to invest in the technologies to use our most abundant energy resource as cleanly as possible. But I’m not here to argue that point today…

Today’s post deals with this… how in the world can our ad be accused of not mentioning “that climate change thing”? Just read the next line from our New York Times ad very closely and judge for yourself…

“We're also investing in the development and deployment of technologies to capture and store CO2 — a greenhouse gas.”

If treehugger.com needs more direct language than that in our ads we’re all ears. In fact, here’s everyone’s chance… how would you have directly addressed CO2 in our ad differently? I thought we did a great job, but maybe I’m wrong????