Sep 3rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
What’s So Clean About ‘Clean Coal’?
There are some folks out and about in town handing out “Clean Coal” shirts, spreading the enthusiasm for America’s most lucrative re-branding campaign. Matt Stoller asks one representative what’s so clean about it. Hilarity ensues:
At the CleanCoalUSA.com website you learn that in terms of carbon “clean coal” is so not-clean they don’t even pretend but they promise that they are willing to accept huge federal subsidies to work on developing magical carbon capturing technologies.
36 Responses to “What’s So Clean About ‘Clean Coal’?”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
You know that your man Obama is not only constantly babbling about Clean Coal, but that he’s actively in the pocket of Big Coal because Illinois is basically a giant city, a giant corn field and a giant coal seam, right?
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Can someone summarize the hilarity? I can’t get youtube at work. Since there is a big blank space on the page I assume its a youtube link in there.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
some dude: Weird, right? It’s almost as if some people might enthusiastically endorse a candidate but still disagree with their positions on some issues. But we know that’s ridiculous, so…
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
In defence of Miss Teen Clean Coal, she probably got $20 and a t-shirt to do this, by replying to a help wanted ad in the local paper or Craigslist.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Matt:
What are your thoughts on how Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is such a HUGE proponent of liquified coal and carbon sequestration? I have heard you criticize thos ideas but not the biggest national politician who vouches for these policies the most, that being Schweiter. Do you think he is a big phony or would you reject him for a Presidential or VP pick?
Frank
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
As someone who’s poor enough to sometimes have to take low-wage and at times humiliating jobs, I want to second what psuedonymous said.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I’m no expert on this issue, but is the consensus on this issue [that clean coal is bad] so clear?
For instance, I read Jeff Sachs’s book Common Wealth, and he seems to think that CCS will save the planet.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
tomemos: I was tweaking Yglesias. I’m an Obama guy myself! But any mention of these clowns offers a chance to put a boot in Obama’s ribs over what is possibly his dumbest policy stance.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
How about this theory – China has massive amounts of coal, and they will burn it. We need “clean coal”, because that coal is going to be burned anyway, so it should be as clean as possible.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
btw, might want to consider updating the forwarding on your matthewyglesias.com domain
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Pretty sexist, matt. I see the Clean Air movement is nothing but an Old Boys Club.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
# some dude Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
tomemos: I was tweaking Yglesias. I’m an Obama guy myself! But any mention of these clowns offers a chance to put a boot in Obama’s ribs over what is possibly his dumbest policy stance.
Worse than Ethanol?
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I said “possibly”!
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I was favorably impressed that they were reasonably honest (except for the oxymoronic name of the organization they are working for). They said that coal is abundant, that the US has lots of it, that it can be used to make electricity without using overseas sources of fuel–all true. And when asked about the clean part, they didn’t BS; they said they did not know.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
At least she is cute!
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Once again Matt shows his elitist prick mentality. Let’s make fun of the high school kid on video and publish it on my blog showing she really doesn’t know jack about clean coal. That smug attitude will lose him a few teeth if he ever had the balls enough to confront people in real time, who might actually take offense and fire one to the chops.
Not real difficult to expose the door-to-door types who come around collecting signatures and dollar bills for whatever interest group sent them (usually leftist groups like Sierra Club, etc.).
Getting tingly feelings of superiority by exposing on a national blog some kid’s ignorance about the issue they champion — it’s hilarious.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
some dude is right on, and his description of Illinois is actually pretty funny.
I also remember well Al Gore spouting off on his support of “clean coal” during the 2000 debates. It was not his finest moment.
Obviously in 8 years absolutely zero progress has been made on this inevitable panacea. It would be great if you could burn coal without dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But, given that coal is nearly 100% carbon and that the process we call “burning” is basically the combination of said carbon with oxygen into carbon dioxide, well, this presents a fairly fundamental problem.
Even if we succeed in storing carbon dioxide in giant tanks or abandoned mine shafts or whatever, what happens in, say, 50 years when one of these things ruptures? 50 years of sequestration gone in a flash. I mean, can we really expect to store massive amounts of compressed gas underground forever?
This is obviously a terrible idea.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“Once again Matt shows his elitist prick mentality.”
Damn those elitists! They actually expect people to know what they’re talking about. I bet you never have to deal with the problem of knowing what you’re talking about, do you Billy Goat?
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Coal is one of the millions of reasons why we’re going to get whatever it is that AGW has in store.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
SteveH,
It may be too complicated for you to understand. Only an asshole would make fun of a high school kid handing out leaflets and post a video to delight other assholes like you.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
1) What’s “clean” about coal is that we don’t have to kill 4100 US soldiers –and several hundred thousand foreigners — to mine it. I.e., no blood on the hands.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Billy Goat’s right. It’s a dick move to focus on people who’ve either been roped in as volunteers or on sub-min-wage to hand out t-shirts.
Focus on the people who accept sponsorship for Clean Coal™ on presidential debates then mysteriously avoid questions on climate change — something Matt noted.
And Jeffrey’s right. Ultimately, political expediency will lead to the burning every ounce of coal they can scrabble, then turn to the redwood forests and potentially combustible grandparents. Elections happen sooner.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Good point. Of course only a ______ would hand out leaflets when they don’t understand what the leaflet says or proposes. That same person would probably affect a victim complex and hide behind a ‘Only an asshole would make fun ….’ kind of comment also rather than deal with the fact that they don’t know what it is they support but they loves them the letter R either way so it’s all good right?
Crackling deflection BTW. Well played.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Re: Crackling deflection BTW. Well played.
Thank you very much.
But that gets us around full circle to the prickish elitism. I don’t think most people would find fault with a kid handing out leaflets who can’t further explain the cause. She doesn’t care what the cause is, just that she will get $20 after four hours of work.
The prickish elitist wants to show how much smarter and better he is, and wants others to know it as well. Turn some poor sap’s embarrassment into video amusement for others, and, well, there you go.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
“The prickish elitist wants to show how much smarter and better he is”
Or maybe he thinks that people engaging in political activism, which these people were doing whether or not they were doing it for the money, should think about the consequences of doing so. That’s not elitism, it’s basic morality.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Probably you can make coal that is clean with respect to sulphur and heavy metal pollutants, etc. However, raw energy release is just proportional to the amount of carbon dioxide you make, so there is no “cleanliness” if you are going to insist on an efficient fuel. This is just chemistry and physics, not favorite subjects for science-rejecting wingnuts.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:36 am
MY,
bad post! CCS has a lot of promise, and yes, federal help will be required to develop the technology. It is just dumb to make this an ideological issue.
What is the idea here?
September 4th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Whether or not you think posting this video is “mean,” I seriously doubt that first woman was a “high school student.” Under-informed, minimum-wage near volunteer, sure. HS age, not so much.
As far as I can tell “Clean Coal” basically means “Clean(er than it used to be when there was no Clean Air Act or EPA) Coal,” since they constantly brag about how much they’ve improved since 1970.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Settle down, Billy Goat.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 am
cialis
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
levitraI want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right