The Coal Industry’s $47 Million PR Spending Spree

Photo courtesy of <a href="">America's Power website</a>.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The coal industry’s major lobby group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, shelled out a stunning $47 million last year on lobbying, advertising and “grassroots outreach” efforts to fight climate legislation and tout the benefits of “clean coal.” Its efforts to actually develop clean coal technology, however, were a lot less impressive.

ACCCE’s most recent IRS filing, obtained by Greenwire (sub. req’d), lists the contributions to the coalition by the nation’s biggest coal companies. Arch Coal Inc., Consol Energy Inc., and Peabody Energy Corp. each chipped in $5 million; Foundation Coal Corp. gave $3 million, Southern Co. $2.1 million, and American Electric Power Co. Inc. and Duke Energy Corp. (which has since left the group) gave $2 million. ACCCE is among the biggest spenders when it comes to influencing the debate on climate and energy.

But for all their expensive efforts to sell the public on the wonders of clean coal, ACCCE isn’t working quite as hard to make the technology a reality. The coalition’s members have committed the comparatively paltry sum of $3.6 billion to research the technology between 2003 and 2017, according to an April report from the Center for American Progress. That’s just $257 million on average each year to develop the technology to capture and sequester carbon. To put that in perspective, ACCCE’s members made a combined total of $297 billion in profits between 2003 and 2008—meaning, as the report notes, that they’re spending less than two cents on clean coal research for every $1 of profit.

In fact, the climate legislation that ACCCE fought—and fought dirty—to defeat in the House would devote far more money toward developing clean coal than the companies have. (Its “grassroots” efforts hit the news after one of its subcontractors, Bonner and Associates forged letters to Congress opposing a climate bill.) If the Waxman-Markey legislation becomes law, it would hand the coal industry $60 billion for so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS) research and development through 2025. The House measure provides an additional $1 billion each year for demonstration and deployment of this technology, to be funded by a fee on consumers. Plus, early adopters of CCS would get bonus carbon credits for every ton of carbon dioxide sequestered by electric utilities.

Yet just days after Waxman-Markey passed the House, a number of ACCCE’s biggest funders were complaining to the Senate in public hearings that the bill doesn’t give enough money to the coal industry. They also griped that carbon capture and storage technology is more than a decade away from viability, so it would be unreasonable to demand big emissions cuts from the sector anytime soon. “I don’t think CCS will be widely deployed until 2020 or after,” Chris Hobson, senior vice president of research and environmental affairs at Southern Company, told senators in July. You’d never guess that from the coalition’s website though, which still proudly proclaims: “The technology isn’t 20 years away—some of it is here today.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend