Politics And The Australian Coal Industry: What’s Next?

Dr Nikki Williams is the Chief Executive Officer of Australian Coal Association. With the environmental debate entering a new phase where activists are no longer seeking to improve the environmental performance of industry but to shut entire sectors down, Nikki Williams has news for energy consumers – coal is necessary to sustain living standards and will be for a long time yet. But Greenpeace has called for the end to exports of thermal coal from Australia and campaigns are emerging advocating that oil and coal be simply left in the ground. To address some of the key misunderstandings around the mining and use of coal – one of Australia’s most successful industries – Nikki Williams addressed The Sydney Institute on Wednesday 22 May 2013. 

POLITICS AND THE AUSTRALIAN COAL INDUSTRY: WHAT’S NEXT? 

NIKKI WILLIAMS

 ABC journalist Quentin Dempster once commented that, “Australia grew up on the coal conveyor belt not the sheep’s back”. Perhaps it is ironic then that, in Australia, the coal industry confronts the type of opposition and protest – which you see on the screen before you – each and every day.

At mine sites, ship loaders, railway tracks, at AGMs, in the media, in local towns and major urban centres, on roadways, in advertisements in national and international newspapers, in petitions to government, in apparently “academic” treatises and right across social media platforms. There are literally thousands of expressions of anti-coal sentiment popping up every day of every week, of every month, of every year. How to know what’s real and what isn’t? What’s justified criticism, requiring an adequate industry response, and what is fiction? Is all the noise a groundswell of popular hatred or a concerted effort to amplify the voice of a relative minority?

On 8 April, the SMH reported Bill McKibben of 350.org in the USA as saying that, “Australian coalmining has become a rogue industry.”[1] This sinful image is widely promoted by the self-styled planetary saints. The authors of such views are rarely seriously questioned about how they arrived at the view or whether the “facts upon which they rely” are facts at all.

Twelve hours after Mr McKibben’s comments were reported, ABC TV referred to North Korea as a “rogue state”. It made me think. Is it possible that the Australian coal industry really bears any connection to a demented autocracy, which threatens the world with nuclear war? Surely the answer is “No”. But it is clear that Mr McKibben’s worldview – with its “halo” characteristics of zeal and authenticity – has gained credence in the public domain. This has, in turn, profoundly influenced the policy sphere.

I want to suggest tonight that there’s a big difference between protesting for something you value and fundamentalist eco-activism. The war against coal and fossil fuels, in the name of climate, should be exposed for what it really is: an attempt to snooker development by stealth. It is often an affront to democratic values whilst posing as legitimate “people power”.

Anti-development activists are attempting to bludgeon society with a singular value-set that has the capacity to transform our world in ways that most of us would not endorse. This is a more fundamental debate than climate versus coal – it speaks to the burning issue of energy poverty and the way our society deals with volatility and tension; with accommodations that breed expectations of further accommodation; with paradoxes; with a quantum of information that can obscure as much as enlighten; with the growth in the number of constituencies which makes it harder to achieve consensus.

I question the merit of a society which seems more concerned with “causes” than “service”, with endless concessions to the loudest voice rather than a focus on divining and delivering against a series of overarching “national interests”. And I question the motives of people and “movements” whose objectives are not aligned with the broader interests of the society we live in.

McKibben stated in Rolling Stone Magazine recently:

 After decades of scant organised response to climate change, a powerful movement is quickly emerging around…the world, building on the work of scattered front-line organisers who’ve been fighting the fossil fuel industry for decades. It has no charismatic leader and no central organisation; it battles on a thousand fronts.[2]

 He describes this as the “fossil fuel resistance” and encourages people to “change the system that is raising the temperature, the sea level, the extinction rate…” He says that for developed countries “small shifts in lifestyle won’t be enough”. He claims that the climate fighters are an “economic resistance movement …that’s aware that renewable energy creates three times as many jobs as coal and gas and oil. Good jobs that can’t be outsourced…”

Now, these are mere assertions, lacking any evidentiary basis. But such claims are mostly lapped up as gospel. The usually unquestioned acceptance of any manner of assertions by anti-coal activists means a legal and highly regulated sector like the coal industry must constantly refute mistruths and endlessly defend its incumbency as the world’s second largest source of primary energy.

To date, the coal industry has looked more like a conventional army, playing and fighting by certain established rules against detractors whose tactics more closely resemble the “hit and run” of guerrilla insurgencies. Of course, this is an “inside out” perspective from the industry – and I know there are those who would scoff at the comparison. However, the eco-activists are experienced, professional, well-resourced and highly motivated campaigners; driven by an anti-development ideology rather than by a mission to improve coal industry practice.

The eco-warriors are not trying to force the coal industry to be more responsive to environmental or social values. On the contrary, their focus is to put the coal industry out of business and in doing that, they jeopardise much more than the commercial interests of coal companies.

The eco-warriors present (and presumably genuinely see themselves) as the defenders of the common wealth and of collective values. They portray the coal industry as a scion of private wealth, a crucible of greed and selfish individualism. The activist prism is cast in such a way as to appear democratic and embracing, painting coal as autocratic and self-interested. Naturally I reject such characterisations but the question is: has ideology derailed the energy/climate debate? Are other agendas at play? Is Australia on an unwitting slippery slope towards the strangulation of the coal industry and all its related rail, road and port infrastructure and diverse supporting services – with all that implies for jobs, investment and prosperity?

There are many decent, concerned citizens who applaud the work of the anti-coal ideologues and many individuals, charitable trusts and corporate donors which finance it. But how has it come to be that the creators of prosperity – the companies which produce the coal that electrifies 90 per cent of NSW and 75 per cent of Australia; the companies which have made coal Australia’s second largest export earner after iron ore; the companies which have invested $125 billion in Australia and paid $210 billion in taxes and royalties over the last decade; and the companies which employ directly and indirectly around a quarter of a million Australians – are being so successfully demonised by activists? Why did the energy and climate change policy debate spawn a new morality of industrial sabotage: where extremism is hiding behind apparently laudable “green” goals? Do Australians and the law makers who represent us, actually understand what’s going on?

If you listen to the debate, Australia, as the world’s largest exporter of some 300mt of coal, is involved in a criminal act of global proportions. Our exports will not only destroy the Great Barrier Reef, the burning of our coal accounts for 25 per cent of the global carbon budget out to 2050 which means it must be stopped in its tracks to avert dangerous global warming. These claims are just false. This critique ignores realities: the world currently consumes 7 billion tonnes of coal each year (half of that in China); China is installing the equivalent of Australia’s entire electricity grid every four months; if we turned off the lights and all left for good tomorrow, the greenhouse gas emissions saved would be replaced within a few months.

Let’s be clear. Greenhouse gases from burning coal are a problem. The increase alone – not the total – in China’s emissions last year of 820mt was equivalent to the total GHG emissions of Germany and Romania for the same period.[3] I also don’t suggest that because we are a comparative coal minnow, that what we do is meaningless. I simply point out some obvious truths: coal is being used and will continue to be used to drag hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Stopping Australia’s coal exports is a sham response, perhaps even a shameful response, if you are really concerned about global warming because if we don’t have a solution for coal use – particularly in China and India – we don’t have a solution to climate change. This incontrovertible fact is recognised by every major entity including the World Bank, the IEA and the IPCC.

But the increasingly radicalised movement against coal and fossil fuels rejects carbon technologies like CCS as PR and argues for direct action and civil disobedience to guillotine the industry. Ramsey Sprague (an activist in Texas) has said that “We see ourselves as people who are acting in an emergency capacity. This fight will be very intense, and it will be very polarising”. A recently retired hedge fund owner, Tom Steyer, with a net worth – according to Forbes – of $1.4 billion, has decided to join the resistance movement. His war cry is: “The goal here is not to win. The goal here is to destroy these people”.[4] Comments like that should disturb us all.

I view with interest the 30 year forestry battle in Tasmania. Despite a “solution and funding” being agreed just a few weeks ago – seeking to balance jobs, investment and environment, involving hundreds of stakeholders – the national Greens party and big chunks of the activist movement have rejected the agreed position and vowed to fight on. It’s interesting (and extremely worrying) because all societies, all processes and all negotiations have to have an end point. The difficulty is, when the ideologically motivated environmental NGOs don’t like the end point, despite their heavy involvement in both shaping and participating in the negotiating process, they reject the outcome and continue their war.

Indeed, people like McKibben explicitly acknowledge this fact. He derides policy negotiations between government and stakeholders, including “green” NGOs saying that “Given the Arctic has already melted, we don’t have room for easy compromises.”[5]

I don’t know about you, but the last time I flew to Europe (which was last week) it was pretty apparent that the Arctic was still there and I think the majority believe that “give and take” and “compromise” is how consensus is constructed. I don’t believe most people want to live in a polarised, fractured world where only one problem – climate change – consumes the attention and energy of our institutions and the societies they serve.

Ultimately, stakeholders with whom it is possible to discuss to find acceptable outcomes and solutions, cannot be compared to stakeholders for whom any improvement, any change, any cost incurred to achieve better outcomes, will never be enough. All the agonising twists and turns, all the time, all the money, all the project delays, all the community uncertainty; all the meetings, papers, discussions and public briefings all amount to nothing if the stakeholder concerned is not actually motivated by any goal other than your extinction.

I want to make very clear here that I do distinguish between extremist, ideologically driven, anti-coal campaigning and the protest activities of citizens who live in mining regions and are affected by, or fear they may be affected by, coal developments. There is an enormous difference between local people seeking answers and reassurance or expressing opposition to a particular course of action by a coal company and the actions of political campaigners, whose only objective, by whatever means and on the basis of whatever cause, is to extinguish the industry. There is also a fundamental difference in the nature of corporate responsibilities to those two different classes of stakeholder – something I referred to earlier.

According to Phillip Lawrence,[6] where in 1990 there were some 400 international environmental NGOs, today there are approximately 1.4 million. This is what Nick Cater has described as “professional environmentalism” with the individuals and organisations being the “ambulance chasers of the biosphere, swarming around any new cause…”[7]

Organisations famous for these tactics include household names like Greenpeace and GetUp – which depend largely on pioneering volunteers who claim environmentalism as their raison d’etre and the grounds of their moral superiority. As Cater says, whilst “Fighting causes is what they do for a quid”, they still succeed in presenting as if they were on the side of the average citizen. They have mastered “low-cost and no-cost advertising” and the marketing techniques that new media have spawned; and they have very successfully learned to manufacture compassion as “every good cause requires a victim with an unprotected plight”.[8] Law breaking is deemed a badge of honour.

Attitudes towards law breaking are at best curious and at worst, hypocritical. We live in a democracy and the right to free speech and to protest are essential to the maintenance of that democracy. That said, breaking the law is way too often commended when that breach is committed by an activist but rightly condemned and punished if committed by a corporate. Comparisons have been drawn between the heroics of individual activists (like Jonathon Moylan whose antics recently wiped $300m off the share price of a coal company and saw many average investors lose money) with Gandhi, Mandela and Jesus Christ. With the greatest respect to Mr Moylan, can we really give credence to the idea promoted by Senators Milne and Rhiannon, Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute and former Senator Bob Brown that Jonathan Moylan has what it takes to be the next global hero?

Let’s be blunt (when am I not?!). Fraud is fraud; criminal damage is just that; stock market manipulation is illegal and prejudices everyone’s savings through their superannuation or the direct investments they may have. Jeopardising one’s own safety, or imperilling the safety of others, surely should not be tolerated.

Apparently, however, for many people (not just the activists but observers too) the end justifies the means. That’s a philosophy which says, I agree with the cause so I support the tactics. The problem is, civil society – a civilised society – can’t function that way: your terrorist is my freedom fighter; my sociopath is your eccentric friend; my love of music pelting at full blast is your nightmare. It’s a philosophy coolly and famously articulated by Machiavelli in advice to the Medicis.

It’s a philosophy which I suspect a number of the world’s most powerful spy agencies adhere to and it is certainly the philosophy which guides the behaviour of ruthless governments (of whatever nominal political or theological complexion) around the world. It is not a philosophy consistent with democracy.

There is a double standard in operation, and whatever one’s views about coal, at a conceptual level most would agree with the general principle that standards of accountability, transparency, respect for the law and truthfulness should apply equally to any and all individuals and organisations (whether NGOs or corporates).

The time has come for those that seek to occupy the moral high ground to square with the public about their motivations and objectives. Being honest about their vision and the contested nature of the “facts” on which they rely to support their vision, would allow people to assess how desirable their vision of the future really is and whether, now knowing the truth, the majority of Australians actually want to have a stake in such a future.

For example, generating 100 per cent of Australia’s electricity, affordably and immediately from renewables, is a beautiful vision promulgated daily by the activists. The activists claim that it is simply vested interest that impedes such a world. A draft report on this subject by the Australian Energy Market Operator[9] – commissioned by the government at the behest of the Greens – demolishes this claim.  

• The fact that it would cost the equivalent of the federal government’s total budget just to install such a system;
• the fact that it would require us to import the vast majority of the componentry from China and elsewhere;
• the fact that it would require a landmass equivalent to three “Sydneys” to be covered in solar arrays and wind turbines;
• the fact that most of that renewable capacity would have to be backed up by a similar installed capacity of coal and gas to cover intermittency;
• the fact that wind and sun power can’t be stored;
• the fact that wind and sun blow and shine without regard to where energy demand is geographically located;
• the fact that wholesale electricity prices would double and we estimate that retail prices would rise even more;
• and the fact that there would be no manufacturing jobs for Australians in such a transition.

All these are inconvenient facts which the anti-development activists simply ignore, downplay or dissimulate. AEMO was explicit that their report was neither a prediction nor an endorsement and that the costs are likely to be significantly understated. Perhaps most ironically, none of those turbines or solar arrays can be built without coal. So, every renewable icon is a standard bearer of embedded carbon.

Squaring with the public would require the campaigners to admit that energy and climate change policy is intimately related to quality of life, employment and economics. It would require acknowledgement that this is a hugely complex set of issues not amenable to slogans and idealism. Campaigners would need to embrace pragmatism over ideology, imperfection over unreality and solutions over defiance. They would need to accept certain truths (even as they would wish them away): such as the inescapable reality of increasing coal use globally; or that renewables simply cannot meet – due both to cost and technical constraints – society’s energy and climate change objectives singlehandedly.

But even if they could acknowledge these truths, I doubt that the fundamentalists would easily admit that what we are really debating is not clean versus dirty, good versus bad, high versus low, multi-national versus local, big versus small, sustainable versus unsustainable.

The core of the debate is fundamentally about development: how much or little, how fast or slow, if or when human needs take precedence over those of other living things, and whether the developing world has a right to aspire to, and eventually obtain, the quality of life enjoyed in the developed world or not. This is for the simple reason that the policies and technologies the anti-coal activists are pursuing ultimately have deep, transformative effects which most people would not, I suspect, support.

Paul Kelly said recently, “Fairness and equity go hand-in-hand with economic growth.”[10] But, if the activist agenda were fully implemented in Australia, the consequences would be far reaching for all citizens: constricting consumption patterns, limiting population, depressing prosperity and redefining what people should and can aspire to.

The activists want to close down Australia’s $60 billion coal industry which steered our economy through the GFC. They ignore the fact that mineral resources account for the lion’s share of Australia’s natural and competitive advantage. They are uninterested in the fate of the 1.1 million Australians who work in energy intensive manufacturing: a sector which has only been made possible because of Australia’s reliable and competitively priced coal fired energy base. They give no thought to how Australia could affordably and reliably secure its energy needs if you eliminated fossil fuels from our generation mix. They give no thought to what it’s like trying to run a household and raise a family or look after one’s aging parents when it is uncertain whether, and for how long, on any given day, there will be an affordable power supply.

The activists, supported by the Greens Party, seek to tax the industry to death in order to redistribute those funds to needy social and environmental causes but neglect to acknowledge that “you can’t distribute” as Keith de Lacy has said, “what isn’t being produced”.[11]

People are entitled to their world views and to promote them providing they don’t encourage violence – but (and it is a significant “but”) – only if they are made explicit, so that citizens are not being duped into supporting one cause when a hidden agenda is the real name of the game.

My essential premise is that a life lived without energy is a life lived in poverty. According to the IEA, more than 40 per cent of the world’s energy comes from coal. Coal has met 45 per cent of the increase in global demand for energy: more than all renewables combined.[12]The IEA projects that global electricity demand will increase 70 per cent by 2035: over half of that increase is accounted for by China and India alone. Indeed, in its 2012 World Energy Outlook, the IEA stated that: “Coal remains the backbone fuel for electricity generation globally”.[13]

There is an explicit nexus between electrification and quality of life but people simply don’t associate a coal mine with the hot shower they take in the morning, the car they drive, their access to concrete and steel for home building and renovations, or refrigeration, cooking, clean water, a hot cuppa, a cool house, a warm office, their smart phone or computer. Most Australians are unaware of the extent of global energy poverty: 1.3 billion have no access to electricity and 2.6 billion people still have to cook and heat with dung or scavenged timber.

Electricity and nation building products like steel and cement – all derived from coal – can, and do, transform people’s lives. This reality has been brilliantly outlined by Matt Ridley who has described a hypothetical family in the year 1800, eating gristly stew in front of a miserly wood fire:

 Suppose you said to them that in two centuries their descendants would need to fetch no logs or water and carry out no sewage, because water, gas and a magic form of invisible power called electricity would come into their home through pipes and wires. They would jump at the chance to have such a home, but they would warily ask how they could possibly afford it. Suppose that you then told them that to earn such a home, they need only ensure that the mother and father both have to go to work for 8 hours in an office, travelling roughly 40 minutes each way in a horseless carriage, and that the children need not go to work at all, but should goto school to be sure of getting such jobs when they started work at 20. They would be more than dumbfounded; they would be delirious with excitement. Where, they would cry, is the catch?

 “Today, the average person on the planet consumes power at the rate of about 2,500 watts. That’s about 600 calories per second. About 85 per cent of that comes from burning fossil fuel. Since a reasonably fit person on an exercise bike can generate about 50 watts, this means that it would take about 150 slaves, working eight hour shifts each, to pedal you to your current lifestyle. (Americans would need 660 slaves, French 360 and Nigerians 16). Next time you lament human dependence on fossil fuels, pause to imagine that for every family of four you see in the street, there should be 600 unpaid slaves back home, living in abject poverty…” [14]

The anti-coal movement has not originated from spontaneous and evolving concern about the undeniable, sometimes negative social and environmental impacts of what we do. The agenda to axe coal has its origins in the philosophy of “Deep Ecology”. [15]I encourage you to Google the term. Philosophically, ‘Deep Ecology’ views humans as just one part of the biotic system, with a right to survive but not to extract and modify natural resources for the betterment of humanity. For Deep Ecologists “humanity is … of no more importance than an amoeba or … smallpox virus”. They argue that “human self-importance damages the environment and … drastic action is required”.[16]

They aim to “achieve a fundamental ecological transformation of our socio-cultural systems, collective actions and lifestyles”.[17] When you hear people like the Swiss animal rights campaigner Antoine Duchell discuss the “dignity of fish” (as I did on the ABC a couple of weekends ago), you can be pretty sure they are heavily influenced by Deep Ecology.

Deep ecologists like David Foreman suggest that the entire biosphere is only sustainable if global population is reduced to 100 million people. But, global population is increasing by 82 million people a year. The Population Media Centre states that, “95 per cent of population growth is occurring in countries already struggling with poverty, illiteracy and civil unrest.” It states that our “mortal footprint” is killing the planet and that … earth is attempting to retemper the balance and “check” this population growth by unleashing “widespread disease, food and water shortages and violent weather as a result of climate change”.[18]

But, where you are uncertain whether your children will survive and where the state doesn’t support the elderly who can no longer work, reproduction is the only means to try to guarantee that there will be family to sustain you in old age. The scale of infant mortality is directly associated with economic prosperity. The wealthier a nation, the better is the availability of health care and hygiene, the higher is the rate of infant survival and the lower is the rate of population growth.

In Africa, 51 per cent of children die before the age of five. Electrification and the use of steel, cement and other nation building materials to provide clean water, refrigeration, clean cooking, run hospitals and medical equipment etc is the only means to lift people from this horrendous poverty. Phillip Lawrence says: “A key driver to uncontrolled population growth is poverty…Poverty is also a well-researched influence on environmental degradation. It would seem a ridiculous strategy for Big International NGOs to run campaigns that hold any nation in poverty…”[19]

Sadly, these realities are ignored by the activist movement. Their anti-development agendas are not revealed when campaigners turn up to “support” a local community group concerned about contamination of their water supply as a result of long wall coal mining or Coal Seam Gas drilling for example. The picture is further complicated because, as Carne Ross has said:

 The world is defying the ability of existing structures and institutions to understand and arbitrate events effectively. Governments … have less power than they once did…The intrinsic deficit of governments is that they are required to turn something complex – reality – into simplistic announcements and policy. The contract between people and government forces government to claim that it can understand and predict the massive complexity of the contemporary world, and manage it on our behalf”.[20]

 People increasingly don’t believe government (and certainly not Australian government) and are inexorably taking things into their own hands. The Edelmen Trust Index states that only “20 per cent of the general public believes [that] business leaders and government officials will tell the truth”.[21] Power is seeping out of nation states, multilateral institutions and corporates towards cities, towns, villages, clubs, religious groups and NGOs of every description.

So, who has influence, who is trusted, is radically changing. Timothy Ash says this is, “not a new world order but a new world disorder. An unstable kaleidoscope world – fractured, overheated, germinating future conflicts”.[22] This is no coincidence.

The explosion in the use of new digital and mobile social media platforms, increasingly makes individuals and their networks far more important than rules and institutions. The Deloitte CEO Report, Leading through Connections, emphasises that this technology facilitates collaboration, relationships and decentralised communications. This newly connected economy and citizenry is replete with ambiguity. NGOs have grabbed this territory. As McKibben has said “In the internet age, you don’t need direct mail and big headquarters; you need Twitter”.

With a simple click, activists can create a buzz with the prospect that their campaigns will turn viral: and many do. Social media allows the creation and dissemination of urban myths about what the coal industry does and the impact of those activities. Such a medium facilitates fear mongering, demonisation and distraction. It’s an ideal means by which to propagate logical fallacies.

In early 2012, it emerged in the Australian media that a coalition of activist groups, led by Greenpeace, had developed a prospectus for a five year strategy to stop Australia’s coal export industry. Their stated aim is to end public and political support for coal. A specific campaign fund of $6million has been raised in a bid to make the industry unviable.

It sets out to hijack local community groups, launch concerted legal attacks on projects and infrastructure, leverage concern around CSG to tarnish coal mining, create investor uncertainty, drive up the cost of projects; train local citizens in civil disobedience and other campaign techniques, and develop emotive campaigns around the GBR in Qld and health impacts in NSW. Their approach to leveraging genuine community concerns was revealed as positively Machiavellian. But my fundamental point is: when did Australians give Greenpeace and their fellow travellers veto rights over our economy?

The anti-coal movement has suppressed alternative views by crowding them out. They attack coal’s self-interest undermining our credibility. Repeating falsehoods from numerous sources is common and effective. They appeal to a fictional consensus, suggesting that their perspective is legitimate and alternative views can and should be dismissed. And because the volume of chatter about the negative impacts of the industry has risen exponentially – along with the number of stunts and protests – people could be excused for believing that the coal industry is a culprit on a global scale.

Quantum and conviction count. The reaction to activism, aided by the connectivity of new technology, has been epidemic because nothing convinces, or propels action, like conviction. Humans are “biologically hard wired to mimic others outwardly, and in mimicking their outward displays, we come to adopt their inward states”.[23] Indeed, Oscar Wilde once said that “most of our lives are quotations from the lives of others”. The literature confirms that as humans, we are most influenced by what other people do. The greater the number of people who do something, the more influenced we are.

To conclude. Many anti-coal activists are deluding the public about their real agenda. For them, development is the problem: environmental impacts simply manifest the problem. They are really saying that energy consumption must be radically cut. But, that means accepting unfed mouths, uncured poverty and subsistence existence. People in the developing world do not aspire to this. Neither do most Australians. It’s time we all realised that a relative minority have amplified their voice disproportionately. Australians, and the governments we elect (which take risks on our behalf that we are not always well placed to assess), need to open their eyes to what is going on and clearly state that “enough is enough”.

We need an informed debate about the full dimension of the challenges and solutions to the energy /climate change conundrum. Religious-like wars on the subject must be rebutted. Distortion, mistruths and single issue evangelism are diversions from developing realistic solutions to the energy / climate change challenge. Simplism, dishonesty and acrimony must cease. Nuance and civility should prevail.

I think that the coal industry is more sinned against than sinning. There will be those who don’t agree but our challenge is to conceive of the national interest in pluralistic and embracing terms. The time for tunnel vision, “my way or the highway” and planetary fundamentalism is at an end. Our environmental and economic challenges are just too important for the debate to continue in its current guise. It’s time to make the case for “burnable coal” and curable poverty.

ENDNOTES