Truthiness into the inbox …

It had seemed that ABEC had bit the dust, having been transformed into ACCCE. But, it seems that obituary might have been a bit too soon as my in-box just was filled with truthiness and deception from the astroturfing Americans for Balanced Energy Choices. Let’s take a brief look at this material from America’s coal power purveyors.


Americans for Balanced Energy Choices
Resource Center P.O. Box 24636
Louisville, KY 40224

While they send out their phone number, if you really want to call them, assume that you can find this by yourself.

Your Senators are considering legislation this week that will lead to higher electricity bills and gas prices.

Disingenuous and deceptive.

Upfront, all of the opponents of America getting energy smart will talk about “cost” without talking about benefits. That is the start.

In addition, this is entirely deceptive. It might increase electricity bills, or it might not, modeling assumptions have much to say what comes out on the end. Let us just say that ABEC and their serial polluting friends aren’t real interested in using approaches that make reasonable assumptions about beneficial aspects of change.

The legislation, called the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, is intended to address climate change. While that is a good thing, Lieberman-Warner does it in the wrong way.

Oh, I hate to agree with them. I am not happy with Lieberman-Warner, as I have made clear. Unlike ABEC, I recognize that “fixing” L-W CiSA means strengthening it (significantly), not figuring out how to ensure profits for the coal industry for the indefinite future.

The technologies needed to meet the emissions targets imposed by the legislation are not available yet

Truthiness example. The legislation covers a 38 year period (2012-2050). ABEC is complaining that technology required years, decades from now isn’t yet on the street. Oops, that time element isn’t in their whiny, misleading appeal.

and that means that utilities would be forced to move from American coal to more expensive fuels resulting in higher electricity prices.

First, it would likely mean higher per kilowatt hour energy costs. But, increased efficiency could mean lower use resulting in lower bills. Higher prices don’t, with Energy Smart policies, necessarily mean higher costs.

Second, even without imposing costs for poisoning the air we breathe and the water we drink, new generating power costs are beginning to favor renewables. With a level playing field, watch out coal, it looks like solar and wind will be eating your lunch.

Third, as just hinted out, what is “price”? ABEC, of course, is not counting the price in damaged mental development caused by mercury pollution. They are not counting the price of acidification of the oceans. No, they don’t want to talk about “external” costs but want to have continued, unlimited subsidization of their right to poison without limit.

Studies show the bill would also raise petroleum prices and that would push prices at the pump even higher!

Okay, at $130 barrel oil, we shouldn’t do anything serious to reduce its use. At $200? Now, again, while the cost per gallon might go up, again over the next 20 to 40 years (of course, ABEC wants people to think the impact will come tomorrow), the actual impact might be the other way. Reduced demand from successful policies could reduce the speed and pain of the inevitable coming gasoline price increases.

Please ask your Senators to vote “no” on Lieberman-Warner.

Sigh … I won’t ask anyone to vote for Joe’s bill. But … could we not encourage Senator Reid and Senator Boxer to simply pull the bill. They’re losing the messaging on an abysmal bill.

In a recent poll, 90 percent of Americans rejected Lieberman-Warner. “The actual number who reject it may be even higher,” said David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Okay, I can’t resist. From NCPPR’s blog’s discussion of Rush Limbaugh’s embracing of their misleading contrived poll:

I believe Rush Limbaugh is America’s #1 asset on global warming education. He takes the time to understand the science and the economics, and has the talent to explain it understandably and entertainingly. I shudder to think we’re we’d be without Rush.

Some things are beyond satire …

Back to ABEC’s email to me:

[Ridenour] “Electricity and gasoline price hikes are only two of the costs of this proposal. The price for food and consumer goods would also be pushed higher and many Americas would lose their jobs.”

False. False. False. False.

To start with, want to talk about how health would improve with lower pollution? Or, want to talk about the risks (and costs) of catastrophic climate change and the costs (risks) of inaction?

But, lets take on job issues. Sure, some Americans would lose jobs (processing coal, per chance?). But millions more would find good paying jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Statistics about impacts of global warming legislation from the coal industry: Lies masquerading at facts …

Support affordable energy and American energy security and ask your Senators to vote “no” on Lieberman-Warner and find a better way to address climate change.

ABEC supports federal climate change legislation – just not this bill.

Choke. Perhaps legislation, but not meaningful legislation in accord with basic principles.

Now, let’s turn to the coal industry’s “principles”:

A good bill would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also:

Yes, “a good bill would” be win-win-win across multiple arenas.

  • Protect American families from skyrocketing energy prices
  • Provide for America’s energy security by ensuring that American sources of energy – like coal – are a part of our energy future.
  • Establish realistic emissions targets that can be met with existing technology.
  • Support development of new technology that would capture and store carbon dioxide emissions, preventing them from entering the atmosphere.

Note what is embedded in this:

  • Coal must be part of the future. No choice.
  • All targets must be set on the basis of today’s technology, rather than creating conditions for creating and deploying new technologies.
  • We have no choice but to accept continued emissions and therefore should focus on sequestering and (hopefully) permanently sequestering the carbon.Imagine for the second: What would whalers have wanted to secure the whale oil market in the mid-19th century? Assurances that whale hunting was forever? Banning of new technologies? Legislating whaling into infinity?

    The Senate is making this decision any day now. Please email your Senators today and ask them to vote “no” on Lieberman-Warner. Other Members of Congress are working on legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without hurting the economy and consumers.

    Again, misleading, at best. Dealing with Global Warming, sensibly, will be good for the economy and citizens and America and Americans … who are, if the coal industry cares, something other than consumers.


    Amy Broadhurst
    ABEC Membership Services

    Sincerely what Amy?

  • Advertisements

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s