Coal Companies Avoid Coal When Funding Energy Poverty Projects In Poorest Countries, Report Finds

authordefault
on

When the coal industry says its product is the only way the worldโ€™s poor can lift themselves from poverty, some people in Australia believeย them.

Chief among the industryโ€™s promoters has been the countryโ€™s Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who has said that coal is โ€œgood for humanityโ€ and that the energy source and main driver of climate change shouldnโ€™t beย โ€œdemonisedโ€.

But a new report from progressive think tank The Australia Institute (TAI) has put a looking glass up to the industryโ€™s claims to a glistening future and found what it claims is little more than self-serving industryย spin.

The industry has been pushing its supposed concerns for โ€œenergy povertyโ€ in media statements, columns, industry presentations, reports and advertising campaigns thisย year.

According to the International Energy Agency, there are about 1.3 billion in the world without access to electricity and about 2.7 billion without access to clean cooking and heating. Almost all these people live in rural areas in either sub-Saharan Africa orย Asia.

The coal industry โ€“ led by a PR campaign from the worldโ€™s biggest private-sector coal company, Peabody Energy โ€“ has been using the energy poverty issue as way to lobby investors and world leaders.

But the TAI report โ€“ All Talk, No Action โ€“ finds that the industryโ€™s claim are largely misrepresenting the current economic climate and forecasts for theย future.

In the companyโ€™s 2013 corporate social responsibility reportย  Greg Boyce, Peabody Energyโ€™s CEO, wrote: โ€œPeabody believes energy poverty is a human tragedy and a global environmentalย crisis.โ€

Yet intriguingly, when TAI asked Peabody and other coal groups if they were actually giving any money to support energy poverty projects, they found that none of the coal companies were actually using coal projects to solve energyย poverty.

Rather, none of the coal companies who were supporting projects in developing countries โ€“ including Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Anglo American and Banpu – were actually using coal, and were mostly supporting projects based onย renewables.

Peabody Energyโ€™s entire charitable giving amounted to just $5 million โ€“ or, as the report points out โ€“ just 0.07 per cent of the companyโ€™s revenue last year, none of which went to on-the-ground projects. The TAI reportย notes:

Contradicting Peabodyโ€™s claims that coal is the most useful fuel for addressing energy poverty, no programs supported by coal companies useย coal.

TAI economist and lead author of the report, Rod Campbell, toldย DeSmogBlog:

I admit I was surprised at the level of Peabodyโ€™s hypocrisy.ย  I did think that what the company promotes through its Advanced Energy for Life website was self-serving, but I was surprised going through their reports to find out how little they do actually give to charity. Other coal companies do support energy poverty projects but I didnโ€™t think that Peabody Energy could talk so loud and yet do soย little.

The report also examines key claims made by the industry in its reports, presentations, media releases andย columns.

Examining the industryโ€™s claims that its product is โ€œcheapโ€ and therefore the best option for poorer countries, the TAI reportย found:ย 

Even in providing large scale electricity generation to central grids, coalโ€™s cost advantages are rapidly declining. The costs of renewable technologies such as solar and wind are declining as technology improves and economies of scale develop in manufacturing and installation. Conversely, the costs of generating electricity from coal are increasing due to increasing coal prices, capital costs and regulations on greenhouse gas and otherย emissions.โ€ฆ

In both India and China, solar and wind are forecast to be cheaper than coal between 2020 andย 2025.

There is little potential for coal to directly assist with energy poverty alleviation projects involving household-scale technologies or mini-grid and off-grid systems. Central electricity grids will be expanded to provide electricity to urban middle classes, but often these expansions fail to address energyย poverty.

Even generating for central grids at a utility scale, coal is becoming more expensive than large scale renewables in key markets such as India andย China.

The report examined some of the presentations which Peabody Energy has made to G20 meetings and presentations toย investors.

One Peabody Energy chart sourced the International Energy Agency to make a claim that โ€œglobal coal demandโ€ would rise 48 per cent between now andย 2030.

But the instituteโ€™s report found that Peabody had based its figure on the IEAโ€™s โ€œcurrent policiesโ€ projections, ignoring two otherย projections.

Those projections look at coal demand in the context of what countries have pledged to do on emissions, which would see coal demand rise by only 17 per cent byย 2035.ย 

A third scenario used by the IEA presumes that the world will meet a commitment to keep global warming below 2C and stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 450 parts perย million.

This, the institute says, will see coal demand drop by about 33 per cent over the coming twoย decades.

Campbellโ€™s report also attacks claims made by Peabody and other coal industry figures that coal is responsible for economic growth and improvements in life expectancy. The reportย says:

As countries can afford to use less coal, they do so, contradicting the suggestion that the world โ€œturns to coal to improve quality of lifeโ€. In fact, countries โ€œturn awayโ€ from coal as soon as theyย can.

The report points out that when Peabody Energy talks about how its US power plants have made big cuts on โ€œemissionsโ€, the company is not talking about carbon dioxideย emissions.ย 

Rather, Peabody is referencing emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and that these cuts were largely forced on power plant owners through governmentย regulation.

The report says that while developing countries generally have used more coal as their economies have grown, generally once countries become richer their coal use actuallyย stagnates.

Peabody Energy and Australiaโ€™s peak mining industry group Minerals Council of Australia have both responded to the report along with other recent criticisms of its use of the energy poverty issue as a lobbyingย tool.

The Minerals Council said claims the industry was using the issue to push โ€œresources industry propagandaโ€ were โ€œas inaccurate as they are offensiveโ€. A statementย added:

The bottom line is that there is no escape from extreme poverty without access to cheap energy and the cheapest, fastest way to provide that electricity is through cheap, modern, lower emissions coal generationย power.

Vic Svec, Peabody Energyโ€™s senior vice president of global investor and corporate relations, told business analysts SNL:

Coal is at the heart of eradicating energy poverty, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise when world leaders, agencies and analysts all agree that it has been โ€” and will be โ€” a major positive force. Coal lifted 650 million Chinese citizens from poverty since 1990 at a time when China’s GDP soared 850% and use of coal-fueled power increased eight-fold. In fact, the International Energy Agency called China’s dramatic transformation an ‘economicย miracle.

Related Posts

on

Tech firms like Amazon and Google โ€˜have enormous responsibilityโ€™ for driving fossil fuel expansions, climate expert argues.

Tech firms like Amazon and Google โ€˜have enormous responsibilityโ€™ for driving fossil fuel expansions, climate expert argues.
on

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.
on

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.
on

An emergency preparedness conference in Ottawa hosted two days of panels with only limited discussion of climate changeโ€™s root causes.

An emergency preparedness conference in Ottawa hosted two days of panels with only limited discussion of climate changeโ€™s root causes.