Clean Coal ? Myth or Reality

Environmental practices like mountaintop removal and mining pose a real danger to health. This method of coal extraction involves blowing the tops off mountains and pouring the debris into the surrounding valleys and streams. The decimation of these ecosystems can only be understood as a public health hazard. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a study to ascertain just how great a risk this practice is to human health. That study was canceled during the Trump administration.

In the more significant context of energy production and climate change, the "clean coal" discussion becomes even more complicated. Coal proponents argue the resource is integral to an essential, balanced energy mix. Vertical supersaturation and biodiversity loss are making it hard for U.S. coal services -- geological services that help insurers manage their risks due to coal -- to get a handle on what "clean coal" might actually be. Critics contend that the extraction and combustion of coal, with all the associated industry health impacts, are not "clean" in any sense. They allege that extraction mining worsens freshwater supply issues and that coal combustion is a climate and health hazard. The argument over "clean coal" embodies the contradiction of producing energy in a way that is environmentally sustainable and healthy for the public. On one side are the advocates of clean coal, who say that the technology exists to burn coal without burning the Earth. They point to scrubbers that wash sulfur from the smoke (which keeps it from being a wet fire). They also insist that the carbon in the coal can be captured and not released into the air, where it can superheat the atmosphere. On the other hand, advocates of something else argue that burning coal is dirty and that very few human activities are as toxic and harmful to human health (the health of humans, not the health of coal) as the act of burning coal.

Clean coal has received criticism for not meeting the standard of an indeed "clean" energy source. Although carbon dioxide and ash may be filtered out, pollution occurs when coal is burned. This may be the best reason for not investing in "clean" coal technology, but it might not be the only reason. Proponents of clean coal say that the technology works. They say that coal is burned in a way that makes it somewhat "clean," although "clean" is a word that can only be used in a highly qualified, euphemistic sense. Whether we should invest in "clean" coal technology rather than in truly clean and far more effective wind and solar power is an open question.

In addition, the coalition of forces pushing for a cleaner energy future has a tangible impact on the coal industry. The rise of natural gas and renewable energy has rendered many coal plants economically unviable, and the number of coal plant retirements across this country is substantial—and, I think, very welcome. We want to try to accelerate that market force at work with the rule we are proposing today. The rule aims to realign the energy market so that cleaner technologies are the market preferences.

Another critical factor affecting coal's future is how the public views it. The decline of coal was all too apparent in recent years to communities that rely on it for their livelihoods. The transition to a clean, carbon-free energy future presents dire challenges to them. However, the reality is that this transition can and must be managed in a way that offers meaningful, supportive pathways to those displaced by coal's decline. Policies that make this happen are essential. So is a presidency invested in the outcome. Public communication will matter, too: telling the coal communities that a clean energy future is not only possible but practically in hand, not only attainable but economically beneficial, and that it will usher in a whole new wave of jobs.

To summarize, "clean coal" may appeal to some interest groups, but it is not a real-world answer to climate change and public health. Health impacts from coal combustion go beyond the inadequacy of "clean coal" as an answer to climate change. Even with "carbon capture and storage," which is not a viable large-scale answer, coal combustion harms public health. So "clean coal" is not much better. The sustainable energy path laid out by the U.N. Climate Panel offers an honest answer.

 References

Plumer, B. (2017, August 23). What 'Clean coal' is -- and isn't. The New York Times.