In response to Greg Schweizers’s op-ed on Oct. 6, “A pragmatic environmentalist’s defense of ‘Clean Coal’ research and the MAGEEP Symposium on Global Energy Future,” I would like to express why it is distressing that our University continues to present and promote false solutions for the future of energy in our world. Like Greg, I am also an environmental studies major, but as a student of Washington University and a concerned citizen, I believe we need to understand the hidden facts of “clean coal” and expose the influence that corporate power has on our university. Greg expressed some compelling arguments, but I’m afraid the premises for such ideas are misinformed.

First, let me acknowledge some points where Greg and I agree, but identify their incongruence in regards to our university’s actions. Greg is right to applaud the University in its research on renewable energy, but why were such responsible energy solutions not reflected in the Global Energy Future Symposium? The symposium held four major discussions on coal, in addition to a keynote address on the future of fossil fuels by a coal company CEO, while clean energy alternatives were grossly underrepresented. I also appreciate Greg’s recognition of coal as “inherently dirty,” but why does our university allow coal companies to perpetuate the term “clean coal,” a misleading marketing tool, to spread false assumptions of the dirtiest fuel on the planet?

In order to understand why many others and I are against the promotion of “clean coal,” let me explain some of the realities of this dangerous fuel source. The main technology behind the misnomer “clean coal” is carbon capture and storage (CCS), which entails capturing carbon dioxide emissions, thus preventing carbon from being released into the atmosphere, and storing these emissions deep underground. Implementation of CCS technology would cause a redirection of current problems. While CCS keeps carbon dioxide emissions from immediately polluting our atmosphere, forcing carbon dioxide underground creates a whole new array of concerns. Issues of permanent storage, leakage, pipeline infrastructure and NIMBYism (“not in my backyard”—or more appropriately for CCS, NUMBY: “not under my backyard”) are going to delay CCS’s implementation and create even more problems that are equally or more dangerous, harmful and contentious. While the current rhetoric seems to imply that CCS technology is available today, the reality is that CCS is still confined to a few test facilities around the country. Furthermore, the infrastructure investments that would be required to build pipelines to transport carbon dioxide would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. In a world that stresses the immediate need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the plain and simple truth is that we don’t have the time or the resources to commercialize CCS. While coal will be a part of our energy portfolio for at least the near future, we should focus on moving beyond coal rather than holding out for an unrealistic minor adjustment to the harmful status quo.

By advertising “clean coal” as a solution for our climate, Peabody, Arch Coal and Ameren mask their own egregious actions with something that Greg identifies as “bettering their product for the society at large.” I would beg to differ. Peabody, Arch and Ameren are not trying to be responsible stewards of the environment. Peabody is part of a lawsuit against the EPA on CO2 regulations. They are willfully disrupting the political process around climate change to ensure further profits. They are not motivated by good intentions, nor are they willing to better society at large. If coal companies truly cared, they would help the people of southern Appalachia where communities are crippled by the destruction of mountain top removal. If Ameren really cared about the people of Missouri, they would implement pollution controls that are required by the Clean Air Act. The Peabody Plan says their future of coal will bring people out of “energy poverty,” but what it will really do is create more climate refugees in the areas it was supposed to “save.” I’m sorry to say it, Greg, but you have been duped by some of the environment’s worst enemies.

Despite the illusionary power of the “clean coal” message, there are real solutions to preventing climate change. This was the objective of the Climate Solutions Forum, organized by Green Action and a few St. Louis community organizations that brought together students, professors and members of the St. Louis community to consider the full scope of energy options and explore the harsh realities that the Global Energy Future Symposium ignored. In the forum, we discussed real solutions to climate change, not for corporate profit, but for the betterment of humanity and the planet.

With so many problems with the “clean coal” technology of CCS, and the appalling actions of coal companies, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to praise Wash. U. for their support of “clean coal,” but rather question Wash. U.’s connection to corporate power and the exploitation of the University as an advertising platform.

Martín Witchger is a senior in Arts & Sciences. Write to him at [email protected].