ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Volume 2, Number 4, 2009
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089=env.2009.0040
Used by permission from
Liebert Publications
Original Articles
The Environmental Injustice of ‘‘Clean Coal’’:
Expanding the National Conversation on Carbon Capture
and Storage Technology to Include an Analysis
of Potential Environmental Justice Impacts
Stephanie Tyree and Maron Greenleaf
ABSTRACT
Over the past decade, the coal industry has created a multi-million dollar public relations campaign to
insulate coal from the green energy revolution and the anticipated public backlash against dirty and
unsustainable fuels. This campaign, promoting ‘‘clean coal,’’ has effectively shifted the national conversation on energy and climate change to situate coal as a viable clean energy source and the best option
available to mitigate climate change. As the U.S. gets closer to passing national climate legislation and the
deadline for achieving significant global reductions in carbon emissions draws near, opposition to the coal
industry and its Clean Coal Campaign is organizing on a number of fronts. The environmental justice
movement, through its leadership on climate justice, can serve as a centralizing force for these disparate
advocacy efforts, bringing together students, scientists, policy advocates, community residents, and others
engaged to fight clean coal and advance real green energy solutions. This article will look at the history of
the Clean Coal Campaign and weigh the arguments for and against clean coal, focusing particularly on
carbon capture and sequestration. It will then overview the advocacy efforts occurring across the U.S. to
oppose coal and expose the fallacy of clean coal. Finally, it will defend the centralization of these efforts in
an environmental justice-based climate justice movement that utilizes the varied resources, expertise and
energy of the current advocacy efforts to stop coal and achieve a clean, green renewable energy economy.
INTRODUCTION
A
s the scientific understanding of climate change
has improved, and U.S. policymakers have become
more aware of the looming impacts of the global fossil
fuel lifestyle, the national debate on sustainable energy
options has captured the attention of the public. Much of
this debate has been on what alternatives exist to shift
America away from its fossil fuel dependence and the
feasibility of these alternatives being implemented to scale
in time to combat global climate change. While some
sectors are attempting to shift the national energy options
in new directions, much of the debate has been captured
by the traditional fossil fuel industry, particularly the coal
industry, which has a vested interest in maintaining its
Ms. Tyree is at the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
in Huntington, West Virginia. Ms. Greenleaf is at New York
University School of Law.
dominance over America’s energy choices. The coal
industry has jumped on the green bandwagon by promoting the concept of ‘‘clean coal,’’ a theoretical model of
coal production that would burn coal in a carbon-neutral
way.
While the public relations and media campaigns promoting ‘‘clean coal’’ have pumped millions into the idea
that ‘‘clean coal’’ is the only feasible alternative to our
current coal use, the industry has failed to create a
working model of the idea that can be implemented to
scale in the timeline needed to address climate change. In
fact, the industry has failed to put sufficient resources into
the research and development necessary to establish
‘‘clean coal’’ as a viable energy alternative. In addition,
even if ‘‘clean coal’’ was feasible and successful, it would
not address the myriad cradle-to-grave public health,
economic, and environmental impacts that coal has on
communities throughout the world. Calling coal clean
merely because its carbon emissions are captured ignores
the extensive dirty impacts of coal use.
167
168
TYREE AND GREENLEAF
Moving into the energy future, it is essential that a substantive dialogue on the reality of ‘‘clean coal’’ and the totality of coal’s impacts be undertaken to counterbalance the
millions being spent to promote this potential future technology. In addition, it is important to establish a clear public
understanding of what ‘‘clean coal’’ means so that the nation can decide whether ‘‘clean coal’’ is worth investing our
national resources in and gambling our global future on.
This article attempts to assist that conversation by providing a broad overview of what ‘‘clean coal’’ means and what
‘‘clean coal’’ technology would entail. Finally, this article
lays out the environmental justice critiques of ‘‘clean coal.’’ It
is imperative that any future energy resource be used in a
way that reduces and mitigates its impacts on the most
burdened and vulnerable communities. While this article
does not purport to answer these concerns for the ‘‘clean
coal’’ industry, it advances the conversation around clean
coal by ensuring that those potential impacts are included in
the national energy dialogue.
OVERVIEW OF ‘‘CLEAN COAL’’
Defining ‘‘clean coal’’
The term ‘‘clean coal’’ is used to refer to burning coal in
a way that reduces emissions or otherwise lessens coal’s
environmental impact. ‘‘Clean coal’’ technology includes
‘‘washing’’ coal of minerals and other polluting components, gasification, and the treating of flue gases to lessen
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and mercury
emissions. In the context of climate change, the term
‘‘clean coal’’ is used most frequently as shorthand for
technology that burns coal more efficiently and=or decreases its CO2 emissions.
Carbon capture and storage:
background and methods
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a potential technology that would enable coal to be burned without
emitting CO2, eliminating the public health and environmental impacts created by CO2 emissions. CCS has three
parts: capture, transport, and storage of CO2.
While there are three possible ways to capture carbon,
none are economically and technologically viable. Precombustion capture, in which coal is converted into a gas
before it is burned and the resulting CO2 is removed, is
efficient in terms of capture but costly to build, and is
therefore not widely used.1 Post-combustion capture, in
which CO2 is removed from plant emissions, is technologically possible but inefficient in terms of capture.2 Finally, oxyfuel capture, in which coal is burned in pure
oxygen, allows for efficient CO2 removal but has yet to be
operationalized at scale.3
Despite the multiple potential4 forms of carbon capture,
the necessary technology is not ready for wide scale adoption. Even the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), a CCS proponent, admits that the technology is not yet cost effective.5
If CO2 could be captured, it would then have to be
transported, primarily via pipelines, to storage sites. While
some pipelines are already in use in the United States,6
many more would have to be constructed to transport CO2
at the necessary scale—requiring a huge upfront investment.7
Finally, after transport, the captured CO2 would have
to be stored deep underground. Carbon storage is theoretically possible in depleted oil and gas reserves, unmineable coal seams, deep saline aquifers, oil reserves,8
1
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, IPCC Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,
Summary For Policymakers, at 5 (2005), available at <http:=
=arch.
rivm.nl=env=int=ipcc=pages_media=SRCCS-final=SRCCS_Summary
forPolicymakers.pdf> (pre-combustion technology is currently
utilized in fertilizer manufacturing and hydrogen production).
2
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on CCS states that post-combustion capture is ‘‘economically
feasible under specific conditions,’’ meaning that the technology
has been operationalized and is understood, and could be cost
effective in the correct regulatory setting. However, it seems
doubtful that such a regulatory regime will be adopted in enough
time to effectively mitigate climate change. Post-combustion CO2
capture is used in the natural gas processing industry. Working
Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
IPCC Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary
For Policymakers, at 5 (2005), <http:=
=arch.rivm.nl=env=int=ipcc=
pages_media=SRCCS-final=SRCCS_SummaryforPolicymakers.
pdf>.
3
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, IPCC Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,
Summary For Policymakers, at 5 (2005), available at <http:=
=arch.
rivm.nl=env=int=ipcc=pages_media=SRCCS-final=SRCCS_Summary
forPolicymakers.pdf>.
4
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Ibid.
5
U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Carbon Capture Research (2007),
<http:=
=www.fossil.energy.gov=programs=sequestration=capture=
index.html> (the DOE states that ‘‘existing capture technologies
… are not cost-effective when considered in the context of sequestering CO2 from power plants’’).
6
2,500 km of CO2 pipelines currently exist in the United States,
transporting 40MtCO2=year. Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Special Report:
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, Summary For Policymakers,
at 5 (2005), available at <http:=
=arch.rivm.nl=env=int=ipcc=pages_
media=SRCCS-final=SRCCS_SummaryforPolicymakers.pdf>.
7
Emily Rochon et al., Greenpeace International, False
Hope: Why Carbon Capture and Storage Won’t Save the
Climate 12 (2008), available at <http:=
=www.greenpeace.
org=usa=press-center=reports4=false-hope-why-carbon-capture>
(citing P. Ragden et al., Federal Environmental Agency,
Technologies for CO2 Capture and Storage, Summary,
F.R.G. 18 (2006)).
8
Storing CO2 in oil reserves is called Enhanced Oil Recovery
(EOR) because it supports oil flow by maintaining pressure. EOR
thereby partially offsets the cost of CCS. U.S. Dep’t of Energy,
Carbon Capture Research (2007), <http:=
=www.fossil.energy.
gov=programs=sequestration=capture=index.html>. However,
EOR’s financial impact is questionable, because potential EOR
projects are too limited in size and number to make a significant
dent in CCS’ substantial cost. Emily Rochon et al., Greenpeace International, False Hope: Why Carbon Capture
and Storage Won’t Save the Climate 14 (2008), available at
<http:=
=www.greenpeace.org=usa=press-center=reports4=falsehope-why-carbon-capture> (citing Carbon Sequestration Technologies: Hearing Before the S. Subcomm. on Science, Technology, and
Innovation, S. Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
110th Cong. (2007) (statement of Dr. Bryan Hannegan, Vice
President, Environment Electric Power Research Institute)).
THE ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE OF ‘‘CLEAN COAL’’
deep saline reservoirs, and ocean waters or seabeds.9
Practically, however, many technological and economic
barriers remain, limiting its utility as part of the necessary
short-term carbon mitigation strategy. Again, the technology has yet to be demonstrated at scale.10
More importantly, the long-term nature of storage raises concerns about the feasibility of safe sequestration.
Technology has yet to demonstrate that carbon could be
safely stored for the centuries and millennia required.
Even CCS proponents like the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) admit its limitations: the panel
found that by 2050, only 30–60 percent of CO2 emissions
from electricity generation ‘‘could be technically suitable
for capture.’’11 This statistic is revealing: even in the
IPCC’s best case scenario, in which the plethora of remaining scientific questions are answered to the benefit of
CCS development, only a mid-range of CO2 emissions
from the power sector will be eliminated. Putting all other
concerns about coal and CCS aside, at best, the technology will be only one part of climate change mitigation. It
is not a silver bullet.
THE DEFENSE OF ‘‘CLEAN COAL’’
AS A CLIMATE CHANGE
MITIGATION STRATEGY
Despite the lack of science supporting industrial-scale
CCS and its limited utility, the technology is still considered by many to be an important way of reducing CO2
emissions. The primary reason for CCS’ popularity—
besides the strong push from coal lobbyists12—is coal’s
apparent low cost and its abundance.
Coal is has consistently been one of the cheapest energy
sources available for the past two centuries. Coal is cheap
because its price does not incorporate the totality of the
resource’s costs: from resource extraction, production and
combustion. This artificially low price creates a competitive advantage over more expensive natural gas, oil, and
renewable options, despite the many environmental and
social costs of coal.
In addition to its low price, coal produces a large percentage of the world’s power supply, and probably will
continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Coal is particularly abundant in three key countries: the United
States, China, and India.13 The United States, for example,
gets more than half its electricity from coal,14 accounting
for almost 40 percent of CO2 emissions,15 and a full 78
percent of China’s electricity came from coal in 2006.16
These national trends are reflected globally where coal
use continues to expand exponentially each year. China
alone builds the equivalent of two coal-fired plants every
week, adding the electrical generation capacity of the U.K.
each year.17 These new coal-fired plants, accounting for
the recent large increase in global CO2 emissions,18 increase the growing country’s reliance on coal. India is
projected to consume six percent more coal each year,
meeting current U.S. usage rates by 2020.19 The energy
demand from modernizing countries like China and India
169
is expected to continue growing unabated into the foreseeable future.
Proponents of ‘‘clean coal’’ argue that since coal is likely
to remain a important source of electrical power for the
foreseeable future and is also such a major contributor to
climate change, investment in CCS research and development (R&D) is essential. They argue that even if the
U.S. stops using coal, India and China will continue to use
9
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, IPCC Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage,
Summary For Policymakers, at 3 (2005), available at <http:=
=arch
.rivm.nl=env=int=ipcc=pages_media=SRCCS-final=SRCCS_
SummaryforPolicymakers.pdf>.
10
Matthew L. Wald, The Energy Challenge: Mounting Costs Slow
the Push for Clean Coal, N.Y. Times, May 30, 2008, available at
<http:=
=www.nytimes.com=2008=05=30=business=30coal.html?
scp¼1&sq¼ 22clean%20coal%22&st¼cse>. The IPCC states that,
under ‘‘specific conditions,’’ storage in oil and gas fields and saline formations have been shown to be ‘‘economically feasible’’ by
the oil and gas industry. Storage in coal beds has not been
demonstrated. Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, IPCC Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage, Summary For Policymakers, at 6 (2005), available at
<http:=
=arch.rivm.nl=env=int=ipcc=pages_media=SRCCS-final=
SRCCS_SummaryforPolicymakers.pdf>.
11
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Special Report: Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage, Summary For Policymakers, at 9 (2005), available at
<http:=
=arch.rivm.nl=env=int=ipcc=pages_media=SRCCS-final=
SRCCS_SummaryforPolicymakers.pdf> (italics added).
12
For example, in the first two quarters of 2008, the American
Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity spent $4,650,759 on lobbying.
Center for Responsive Politics, Alternate Energy Production & Services, <http:=
=www.opensecrets.org=lobby=
induscode.php?lname¼E1500&year¼2008>.
13
The United States, China, Russia, and India have the largest
proven coal reserves. British Petroleum, BP Statistical Review
of World Energy, June 2008 32 (2008), available at <http:=
=www
.bp.com=sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId¼9023784&contentId ¼
7044480>.
14
U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Coal (2007), <http:=
=www.energy
.gov=energysources=coal.htm>.
15
Sierra Club, The Dirty Truth About Coal: Why Yesterday’s Technology Should Not Be Part of Tomorrow’s
Energy Future 3 (2007), available at <http:=
=www.sierraclub
.org=coal=dirtytruth=report=> (citing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990–2005 (2007)). The DOE states that 30 percent of carbon
emissions come from power plants and other large point sources.
U.S. Dep’t of Energy (2007), Sequestration, <http:=
=www
.fossil.energy.gov=programs=sequestration=overview.html>.
16
World Coal Institute, Coal Facts 2007, <http:=
=www.
worldcoal.org=pages=content=index.asp?PageID ¼ 188>.
17
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of
Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World ix (2007),
available at <http:=
=web.mit.edu=coal=The_Future_of_Coal.pdf>.
18
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of
Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World 63 (2007),
available at <http:=
=web.mit.edu=coal=The_Future_of_Coal.pdf>.
19
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of
Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World 74 (2007),
available at <http:=
=web.mit.edu=coal=The_Future_of_Coal.pdf>
(citing Planning Comm’n of Gov’t of India, Draft Report of
the Expert Committee On Integrated Energy Policy (2005),
<http:=
=planningcommission.nic.in=reports=genrep=intengpol
.pdf>).
170
it to provide for their billions of citizens.20 Ignoring the
massive energy needs of China and India is unrealistic,
CCS advocates maintain. It is more practical to help these
countries use their coal as cleanly as possible instead of
imposing unworkable requirements on them.
A sustainable energy future cannot ignore the need the
developing world has for increased energy access. Yet, the
energy dialogue cannot focus on these needs without also
considering the public health, environmental, and economic impacts of our energy choices.
TYREE AND GREENLEAF
CCS storage creates unacceptable risks
and potential new environmental injustices
CCS includes a multitude of unacceptable high risks
beyond those typically associated with coal-fired power
plants. These risks arise from the uncertainty and danger
associated with long-term carbon storage and include the
potential health impacts of abrupt CO2 escape, contamination of water supplies, ecosystem destruction, and
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CRITIQUES OF CCS
CCS perpetuates and could increase environmental
injustices related to coal use
The term ‘‘clean coal’’ implies that we can keep consuming coal without suffering any detrimental consequences.
The costs of the expected consequences of functional CCS
belie this implication. There is no such thing as clean coal;
burning coal always costs too much.
Advocates for CCS fail to acknowledge the social impact that coal has on communities located near its extraction, processing, and burning sites. These communities
are still subject to the devastating impacts of coal, even
when the carbon created by coal is captured and stored.
In fact, the total social and environmental impacts of
coal use may increase with the use of CCS. Even if CCS
eventually reduces carbon emissions from coal-burning
plants, the long-term impacts of a shift to CCS technology
could have unanticipated and far-reaching impacts on the
environment that outweigh the benefits of short-term
climate change mitigation. CCS technology is inherently
more resource-intensive and expensive than conventional
coal use. To work most efficiently, carbon capture needs
to utilize pre-combustion technology because the CO2
released from conventional coal-fired plants is very dilute.
Pre-combustion gasification plants, however, consume 25
percent of the energy they produce, requiring that more
coal be mined and burned to sell the same amount of
energy.21 Another 20 percent of the energy produced is
typically consumed in compressing the CO2 for storage.22
CCS also uses 90 percent more fresh water than conventional coal-fired plants.23 As a result of these inefficiencies,
it has been estimated that the adoption of CCS as a primary component of climate change mitigation—as some
argue it must be24—would require a 33 percent increase in
resource consumption and would eliminate improvements in efficiency made in the last 50 years.25
Such an increase in coal consumption would negatively
impact the communities and ecosystems where coal is
mined. The environmental and human costs of coal
mining and burning are numerous and well documented.26 Briefly, they include the contamination of local
air and water with pollutants (including mercury, NOx,
SO2, and particulate matter), the violent destruction of
areas containing coal through dynamiting, strip mining,
and mountaintop removal, the health risks of black lung
disease and mining itself,27 and the release of methane, a
greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than CO2. All
these would increase with the adoption of CCS.
20
For example, the World Bank justified funding a huge conventional coal-fired plant in India because the country ‘‘faces
power shortages that leave more than 400 million people without
access to electricity, mainly in poor rural areas. The country
needs to expand generation capacity by 160,000 megawatts over
the next decade, and this new project helps address this gap.’’
Quoted in Andrew C. Revkin, Money for India’s ‘Ultra Mega’ Coal
Plants Approved, N.Y. Times, Apr. 9, 2008, available at <http:=
=
dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com=2008=04=09=money-for-indias-ultramega-coal-plants-approved=>.
21Tim Flannery, The Weather Makers: How Man Is
Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on
Earth 252 (Atlantic Monthly Press 2005).
22
Tim Flannery, The Weather Makers: How Man Is
Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on
Earth 253 (Atlantic Monthly Press 2005).
23
Emily Rochon et al., Greenpeace International, False
Hope: Why Carbon Capture and Storage Won’t Save the
Climate 6 (2008), available at <http:=
=www.greenpeace.org=usa=
press-center=reports4=false-hope-why-carbon-capture> (citing
Erik Shuster et al., National Energy Technology Laboratories Estimating Freshwater Needs to Meet Future
Thermoelectric Generation Requirements, DOE=NETL-400=
2007=1304, at 60 (2007), available at <http:=
=www.netl.doe.gov=…=
coalpower=ewr=pubs=2007%20Water%20Needs%20Analysis%20%20Final%20REVISED%205-8-08.pdf>.
24
See National Resources Defense Fund, Climate Facts:
Return Carbon to the Ground 2, available at <http:=
=www
.nrdc.org=globalwarming=coal=return.pdf> (‘‘Long-term geological disposal of CO2 (for thousands of years) is viable now and
must be implemented quickly if we are to meet the challenge of
sharply reducing global emissions this century’’); Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of Coal: Options
for a Carbon-Constrained World x (2007), available at
<http:=
=web.mit.edu=coal=The_Future_of_Coal.pdf> (‘‘We conclude that CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical
enabling technology that would reduce CO2 emission significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world’s pressing energy needs’’). The National Resources Defense Fund received
$437,500 from the Joyce Foundation to ‘‘promote alternative plants using coal gasification with carbon sequestration.’’
The Joyce Foundation, <http:=
=www.joycefdn.org=Programs=
Environment=GrantDetails.aspx?grantId ¼ 29414>.
25
Emily Rochon et al., Greenpeace International, False
Hope: Why Carbon Capture and Storage Won’t Save the
Climate 5 (2008), available at <http:=
=www.greenpeace.org=usa=
press-center=reports4=false-hope-why-carbon-capture> (citing
P. Ragden et al., Federal Environmental Agency, Technologies for CO2 Capture and Storage, Summary, F.R.G. 24
(2006)).
26
See Sierra Club, The Dirty Truth About Coal: Why
Yesterday’s Technology Should Not Be Part of Tomorrow’s Energy Future 5–15 (2007), available at <http:=
=www
.sierraclub.org=coal=dirtytruth=report=>.
27
Jeff Biggers, ‘Clean’ Coal? Don’t Try to Shovel That,
Washington Post, Mar. 2, 2008, at B02, available at <http:=
=
www.washingtonpost.com=wp-dyn=content=article=2008=02=29=
AR2008022903390.html>.
171
THE ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE OF ‘‘CLEAN COAL’’
increased CO2 emissions from leakage.28 The environmental burden and potential public health calamity
caused by carbon storage particularly concern environmental justice communities.
These are the communities that have historically borne
the burden of housing energy facilities, waste sites, and
other undesirable land uses and are likely to bear the
burdens and risks of CO2 storage if CCS is implemented.
While geological constraints would play a part in determining storage sites, history indicates that waste disposal
facilities are almost always located in or near communities of color and lo…
