Mr. Miller, 55 years old, is president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a Virginia group funded by the country's major coal-burning utilities, coal producers and railroads that haul coal. Over the past year, his organization has spent nearly $40 million on television and radio spots and other outreach efforts to bolster public support for coal, and to reinforce fears that limits on its use will raise living costs.

"ACCCE's TV ads feature a diverse group of American archetypes saying "I believe" in achieving energy independence, using new technologies, and other similar platitudes. Only at the end does it mention that the ad is about "clean coal."

"What does ACCCE mean by "clean coal"? To the degree it means anything, it's a euphemism for reducing greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants viacarbon capture and storage (CCS), a promising but unproven technology. In fact, the International Energy Agency yesterday released a report that determined that CCS is a long way from commercialization:

Many questions remain. To date, only four full-scale CCS projects exist in the world; none of these projects captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from a coal-fired power plant….[yet] current CCS spending and activity levels are nowhere near enough to achieve the G8 [reduction] goals.

"In other words, CCS is a promise, not a cure for global warming. However, ACCCE would like to make a US program of binding greenhouse gas emissions reductionsdependent on the commercialization of CCS." 

And more about the myth of clean coal from CommonDreams:

"Clean coal" technology has, until recently, referred to the scrubbers used to sweep nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and other regulated pollutants from coal-fired power plants. But today the coal industry, and now the presidential campaigns, use the term as shorthand for carbon capture and sequestration (or CCS), a largely-theoretical technology that would separate carbon dioxide from smokestacks and bury it in the ground to limit its global warming impact.

• The first attempt to demonstrate the feasibility of CCS was a project in Illinois called FutureGen. But the government was forced to abandon the trial in January after years of technical failures and budget overruns. Nationwide, approximately $5.2 billion in taxpayer and ratepayer money has been invested in the technology, however a recent government report found that of 13 projects examined, eight had serious delays or financial problems, six were years behind schedule, and two were bankrupt. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081080.pdf)

• Even if engineers are able to overcome the chemical and geological challenges of separating and safely storing massive quantities of CO2, a study published this month shows that CCS requires so much energy that it would increase emissions by 40 percent of smog, soot, and other dangerous pollution.http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35181/title/Carbon_sequestration_frustratio