Still Burning is a network working against the global hard coal infrastructure.

8.4 Bettercoal

by | 30 Mar, 2021 | False Solutions, Financial System

Bettercoal – founded by RWE, Eon, Vattenfall, Électricité de France, GDF Suez, ENEL, and Dong Energy in 2012 – is an initiative of several European energy companies which has set itself the supposed goal of a responsible global coal supply chain through guidelines for mining companies and accountability and auditing processes.

The organisational structure of Bettercoal already suggests that this is actually more about Public Relations than about environmental and workers’ protection, or the rights of local indigenous communities: at the top sits Frank Plümacher from Uniper SE, and the Board of Directors consists exclusively of representatives of the energy sector. The Technical & Advisory Committee advises Bettercoal’s highest body and makes recommendations. But here, too, it becomes clear that decisions will be biased towards industry: of the currently 15 members, two are permanently reserved for Bettercoal representatives, in addition to seven representatives from participating companies (like Vattenfall or RWE) and the coal suppliers. This means that nine members are already part of Bettercoal. The remaining six places are meant to be filled by experts on issues like environmental protection and human rights and representatives of the affected regions. However, nominations have to be accepted by Bettercoal’s board – so overly critical voices may not be chosen. A balanced advisory committee would look very different. But that is, apparently, not the intention. The organisations Urgewald and FIAN write in their joint publication “Bitter Coal” (2013): “’Bettercoal’ is merely an attempt by the industry to fend off demands for genuine transparency and accountability” – greenwashing for the companies, in other words. This conclusion is supported by the vague wording of the “Bettercoal Code”, which states, for example, that “Companies shall adopt and implement appropriate policies, systems, procedures, and controls, including ensuring organisational capacity and competency”, “Companies shall integrate practices that protect and support Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services impacted by their operations”, and “Companies shall implement practices that promote the Sustainable and efficient use of Natural Resources in their Operations”.

In January 2019, Bettercoal published the first (!) summary of its evaluations of mining companies since its inception in 2012, examining three of the companies, Cerrejón Coal Company (Colombia), Prodeco Group (also Colombia), and Siberian Business Union Coal (SDS) from Russia. As early as 2013, NGOs had demanded that Bettercoal finally make the assessment processes, results, and consequences public. A statement by several NGOs criticises, among other things, the fact that compliance with the standards is not independently verified, that certain problems (e.g. a planned river diversion) are not mentioned, and that the companies need not fear sanctions or redress even if the guidelines are violated. The NGOs also conclude that the reports are intended solely to protect the image of the mining companies.

Corporate greenwashing and “sustainable coal”

To brand their image as ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’, coal companies employ public relations firms to promote their business and distract from their environmental impacts. Local resistance is one of the biggest risks that the industry faces, and companies rely on a ‘social license to operate’ to continue operations in the face of local destruction and climate crisis.

Divestment – out of coal financing

The investors that finance coal companies – and thus the mining, transport, and use of hard coal – through shares, bonds, and loans, benefit massively from the destructive coal business. They have managed to remain in the background for a long time. However, more and more organisations and groups are ensuring that this is changing – by campaigning for divestment. The aim of these campaigns is to use pressure from civil society to persuade capital providers to withdraw their capital and profit-making interests from the coal markets. The power of divestment campaigns has its limits, as section 10.3 shows. It is questionable whether the demand for divestment is fast and radical enough in view of the climate catastrophe. Effects usually come about only very slowly. However, divestment campaigning may contribute to making the dirty business of coal a bit more difficult.

Continue Reading

8.1 Where does the money come from?

8.1 Where does the money come from?

Providers of capital are key to the planning, permitting, development, and operation of coal mines and the construction of power stations. But it is often very difficult to detect which financiers are supporting the climate-damaging projects of the coal industry. The...

8.2 Insuring climate catastrophe

8.2 Insuring climate catastrophe

Insurance companies also play an important role in the financing structure of the value chain around hard coal. In the debate on the climate crisis they are often regarded as ‘saviours’, as they insure against financial losses caused by extreme weather events. But...

8.3 Government support

8.3 Government support

Many European governments continue to support and subsidise coal mining through a number of different mechanisms. They include subsidies for capacity mechanisms that are meant to guarantee security of energy supply when needed, in return for additional payments to...

9.1 Why technology will never solve the problem

9.1 Why technology will never solve the problem

When confronted with critiques of the true cost of coal, the coal industry and their friends in governments often refer to technological advances that allow for emission reductions, compensatory activities (so-called offsets) like tree planting, or investments in...

9.3 Hydrogen is hypocrisy

9.3 Hydrogen is hypocrisy

Steel-making is a climate catastrophe in itself: in the process, hard coal is burned and CO2 emitted. In fact, it is one of the most carbon-intensive industries in the world. In addition, most steel is produced for emission-heavy products like cars or the Nord Stream...

9.4 Conversion from coal to gas and biomass

9.4 Conversion from coal to gas and biomass

That the coal phase-out is under way in much of Europe – albeit far too slow – should be unequivocally good news for the climate. Sadly, this is not always the case: a growing number of coal plants, rather than being shut down, are being converted to, or replaced...

9.5 Renewable energy: a true alternative?

9.5 Renewable energy: a true alternative?

In our struggles against the coal industry it is easy to cling onto the promises of renewable energy as an easy alternative. Solar, wind, and thermal as ‘clean’ alternatives to dirty coal – these promises are propagated all around us: by NGOs, governments, business...

9.6 Still not loving nuclear

9.6 Still not loving nuclear

More recently, the nuclear and there is currently no feasible solution for industry has been working hard to sell us nuclear power plants as a green method of energy production and the solution to the climate crisis. Their main argument: nuclear power plants do not...

Share This