Abate and switch By Brian Kahn
“If you’re doling out critical feedback via stocking stuffer this year, it might be time to take coal off the list of options. It’s sustainable now.”
Abate and switch
By Brian Kahn
If you’re doling out critical feedback via stocking stuffer this year, it might be time to take coal off the list of options. It’s sustainable now.
At least that’s the pitch being made by The World Coal Association, which this week unveiled a rebrand and a new name: FutureCoal — The Global Alliance for Sustainable Coal. The group aims to position one of the planet’s dirtiest fuels as both a major part of the future energy mix, and a climate solution that can help cut emissions.
“Coal and more specifically, a wider definition of abated coal solutions exists and will be needed in any energy transition,” FutureCoal CEO Michelle Manook said in a statement. “This critical resource is a legitimate participant in both economic development and emissions abatement.”
One piece of that is true: Coal certainly exists. There are about 9,000 coal plants around the world, according to the International Energy Agency. But the best available research contradicts all the other underpinnings of FutureCoal’s new mission. Those coal plants are responsible for more than 40% of the energy sector’s carbon emissions, and spewed nearly 15.5 gigatons of warming pollution in 2022. Put simply, coal is largely incompatible with a world that wants to limit warming to 1.5C.
In 2020, a Carbon Brief analysis found that coal carbon pollution would need to fall roughly 80% by 2030 — twice as fast as oil and gas emissions, because coal “emits far more CO2 per unit of energy.” And while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers 1.5C feasible with coal in the mix, the amount is exceedingly small. The latest report found that coal use will need to fall 95% by 2050 — and that’s only if the remaining plants rely on yet-unproven carbon capture and storage technology. (This is the “abatement” Manook references.) In its own outlook, BloombergNEF says coal without CCS “virtually disappears.”
FutureCoal is not a fan of all these negative, science-backed vibes. In her statement, Manook bemoaned “anti-coal sentiment” that has “resulted in a lowering of the global coal IQ.” The group’s website tries to combat critics with a list of “Coal Hard Facts” that emphasize the fossil fuel’s ubiquitousness and its green bona fides.
The list includes, for example, the fact that coal is used to produce 70% of steel and 90% of cement. While true, this conveniently leaves out the fact that steel and cement are two of the highest-emitting sectors on the planet owing to their reliance on coal. If cement were a country, it would slot between the US and EU as the third-biggest source of carbon emissions.
FutureCoal is just one salvo from an industry looking to wave away climate and health concerns with greenwashing tactics: Omit nuance, use vague language and lean into climatespeak. It’s “part of a strategy to create a sense of distance between the group and previous lobbying activities or positions that have attracted external scrutiny,” said Edward Collins, the director at the accountability think tank InfluenceMap.
But Big Coal is particularly interested in putting a new sheen on its products ahead of COP28. Fossil fuels will be a hot topic: The talks are being held in the UAE, an oil major, and the conference’s president is also the head of Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. He has said the world needs to focus on reducing fossil fuel emissions, keeping the option of continued use on the table.
Continuing to rely on oil and gas by using CCS has been central to that pitch. FutureCoal is a sign that the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel is hoping to work its way into the conversation, too.
With Zahra Hirji and Sheryl Lee.