One can't talk about coal without noting its influence in this campaign season. A very obvious place we see its thrust: the industry is once again ABEC's website is registered to the coal industry trade organization Center for Energy and Economic Development, which is one of the leading advocates of keeping coal in the US energy mix, even as it becomes increasing obvious that it is no longer sustainable in the environmental or economic sense. ABEC spent $1.3 million on billboard, newspaper, television and radio ads in the first three states to host Democratic primaries, not to mention all the money they've dropped on sponsoring the CNN debates. The rest of their friends in the coal industry have dropped at least $35 million this primary season in hopes of rallying public support, and they're going at it even harder in coal states, with ads like these. They're worried that all this talk about curbing climate change, since all the candidates support some manner of cap on carbon, poses a danger to them, and they want to ensure that the voting public is as misinformed about it as possible. They have much to fear; coal currently accounts for half of our energy, which is not going to be a tenable mix in a world with a price on carbon.
So it's no surprise they're sponsoring yet another debate. The real question is, will anyone ask the candidates about where they stand on coal? It's the underlying question of everything related to climate change. We can't migrate to a new energy economy and effectively reduce our emissions without radically reducing our reliance on coal, but in not a single debate thus far have we heard the word mentioned outside the industry's endless ads. Of course, this could be simple neglect of the issue on the part of questioners, but I'm sure the industry sponsorship doesn't help encourage discussion on the subject.
--Kate Sheppard
