Coal industry flails around for a new PR strategy

July 3, 2013

A loaded BNSF coal train sits on the tracks in downtown Gillette.

© Greenpeace / Tim Aubry

Last week Ilookedat the coal industrys failed PR efforts, which even Luke Popovich, the head of the National Mining Association, admits has not worked: Anyway, war on coal never resonated with much conviction among ordinary Americans. For them, the EPA keeps the air and water clean, their kids safe.

One of the problems, of course, is that coal is Americans least favored energy source, according to a recentGallup poll. Despite the silly war rhetoric, most people understand that we need to move away from coal and the damage it does to our health, environment, and climate. So now the coal industry is searching around for a new slogan, desperately hoping that some better PR will somehow offer a defense against growing concerns about air pollution and climate change, as well as competition from cleaner sources of energy. One of the closest observers of the coal industry, Ken Ward,noted:

So naturally, since arguing there is a war on coal didnt work, the mining lobby is rethinking its strategy, right? Well, you might think so but instead what Popovich proposes is an even broader campaign along those same lines:

A war on industry could become a more potent and plausible concern to members of Congress who can fix a bad court decision.

So Popovichs initial suggestion was to conflate coal with something else that more people might be concerned about defending, though clearly he still likes the War on ______ format. But perhaps Industry isnt quite right as the pretend target for this make believe war. Recently, the coal industry and its backers seem to be testing out some other attempts.

Ken Cuccinelli, the climate denier running for Governor in Virginia, tried to expand the appeal of his attacks byclaimingthat its really a war on the poor. Congressman Hal Rogers from Kentuckytried this line: A war on coal is a war on middle class Americans. Its a war on jobs, all kinds of jobs.

A spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee outlined how their attacks would evolve in an email to theNational Journal: the Democrats War on Coal and War on Oil is really a War on Modernity. (Check out the National Journal article for the full wacky quote:Why the War on Coal Campaign Will Likely Fall FlatAgain.) Of course, plenty of others seem not to have gotten the memo, andcarry onwith the same old war on coal message, despite its ineffectiveness perhaps not surprising for an industry unaccustomed to innovation.

Meanwhile, the coal industrys main front group, the American Coalition of Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)says that it is planninga new public-relations and lobbying blitz aimed at resetting its message, and E&Ereports:

ACCCE, with the help of powerhouse Washington, D.C., public affairs firms JDA Frontline Inc. and DCI Group, is moving forward with its revamped public relations and outreach strategy, which will rely less on paid ads and more on showcasing how the industry is working to become cleaner.

In reality, touting the industrys efforts to make coal clean isnt new at all it goes back at least as far as 1921, when this ad in the New York Times touted clean coal the industrys original make believe slogan.
Although its meaning has shifted, the coal industry has touted 'clean coal' since at least 1921. Check out more examples of misleading coal ads at http://quitcoal.org/coalads
Although its meaning has shifted, the coal industry has touted clean coal since at least 1921. Check out more examples of misleading coal ads.
Back then clean coal meant washing off the dirt, while today the industry uses the term to hype carbon capture and sequestration technology. In reality,CCS is unproven, too expensive, and unlikely to be deployed at any meaningful scale.The Wall Street Journalreportedtoday that despite billions more in loan guarantees to subsidize CCS, the technology is unlikely to create a lifeline for coal. And thats just because of its costs, not even considering awide arrayof environmental, regulatory, and infrastructure challenges. In its more honest moments, coal and utility insiders will admit this; heres how a spokesman forOhio based coal companyMurray Energyput it:
The government has already spent substantially on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, and we have not made progress, Broadbent wrote. The promise of CCS technology is used by politicians to pretend that they are doing something for the coal industry, when they are not.
Carbon capture and sequestration is just the latest manifestation of the industrys decades-long public relations campaign to claim that coal is clean. Just like the rest of its PR strategy, it is destined to fail. crossposted from Grist

We Need Your Voice. Join Us!

Standard text messaging rates will apply

Want to learn more about tax-deductible giving, donating stock and estate planning?

Visit Greenpeace Fund, a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) charitable entity created to increase public awareness and understanding of environmental issues through research, the media and educational programs.