"Clean" Coal Cleaned Up?

Whenever new legislation is proposed that would limit advertising aimed directly at children, a chorus of "Nanny State! Nanny State" erupts from hardline free-marketers. But if you're curious about "what it really looks like when the coal industry targets kids" (to quote Fast Company; article here) look no further. And I expect you'll be as upset as I was.

In Thursday's New York Times, Tamar Lewin reported that Scholastic Inc. had, in partnership with the American Coal Foundation, produced a "lesson plan" for fourth graders which extols coal's virtues without ever mentioning the negative effects of mining and burning coal (full article here).

Scholastic is the world's largest publisher of children's books. As the Times editorial writers noted on Friday (here), Scholastic materials can be found in "about 90 percent of the nation's classrooms." (Full disclosure: my husband works for Scholastic.) Many of us have fond memories of Scholastic book clubs and book fairs. As the publisher of Clifford the Big Red Dog, the Harry Potter books (in the U.S.), and the Hunger Games trilogy, among many others, Scholastic is a powerful, positive brand.

The coal "curriculum" is a four-page program and poster, "The United States of Energy".

It maps the various energy sources that are used in the U.S. "Coal is produced in half of the 50 states, and America has 27 percent of the world's coal resources.... Coal is the source of half of the electricity produced in the United States." Nowhere is there any mention of, say, mountaintop removal, sulfur dioxide, toxic waste, asthma rates, or mining disasters.

The matter was brought to public attention by three advocacy groups (Rethinking Schools, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and Friends of the Earth) who have started a letter-writing campaign asking Scholastic to discontinue the product.

In her article for Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard quotes Rethinking Schools editor Bill Bigelow: "Simply put, the coal industry is renting Scholastic's credibility and recognition."

It's true that I think that there's no such thing as "clean coal". But I would be as angry at Scholastic if they accepted money from a left-wing advocacy group and produced a "lesson plan" that papered over opposition to their position. The Times editorialist is right: Scholastic's reputation and access to children makes for "a special obligation to adhere to high educational standards."

It doesn't take much to tarnish a brand. Scholastic's halo has slipped and dulled.