tagged w/ Coal
-
Wednesday, at long last, the EPA unveiled its new rule covering mercury and other toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants.
Anyone who pays attention to green news will have spent the last two years hearing a torrent of stories about EPA rules and the political fights over them. It can get tedious. After a certain point even my eyes glaze over, and I’m paid to follow this stuff.
But this one is a Big Deal. It’s worth lifting our heads out of the news cycle and taking a moment to appreciate that history is being made. Finally controlling mercury and toxics will be an advance on par with getting lead out of gasoline. It will save save tens of thousands of lives every year and prevent birth defects, learning disabilities, and respiratory diseases. It will make America a more decent, just, and humane place to live.
A couple of background facts to contextualize what the new rule means:
First, remember that the original Clean Air Act “grandfathered” in dozens of existing coal plants back in 1977, on the assumption that they were nearing the end of their lives and would be shut soon anyway. Well, funny story … they never shut down! There are still dozens of coal plants in the U.S. that don’t meet the pollution standards in the original 1970 Clean Air Act, much less the 1990 amendments. These old, filthy jalopies from the early 20th century, mostly along the eastern seaboard and scattered around the Midwest, are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of the air pollution generated by the electricity sector in America, including most of the mercury. They have been environmentalists’ bête noire for over 30 years now.
Second, mercury rules get directly at these plants in a way no other rules have. There’s no trading system for mercury like there is for SO2 (the Bush administration tried to set one up, but the court struck it down). There are no short-cuts either. Every plant that’s out of compliance has to install the “maximum available control technology.” There is some flexibility — more than industry admits — but there’s no getting around the fact that this is going to be an expensive rule. It’s going to kick off a huge wave of coal-plant retirements and investments in pollution-control technology. That is, despite what conservatives say, a good thing, since the public-health benefits will be far greater than the costs. Every country on earth is modernizing its electric fleet. Even China’s ahead of us. These crappy old plants are an embarrassment and good riddance to them.
Third, this has been a long time coming. (Nicholas Bianco has some good history here.) An assessment of mercury was part of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. EPA stalled and stalled, got sued, and finally did the assessment. Sure enough, as had been known for years, they found mercury is harmful to public health. Then more stalling and more stalling until the Bush administration’s malformed 2004 proposal, which instantly got caught up in (and struck down by) the courts. So when the mercury rule finally goes into effect in 2014, 24 years will have passed since Congress said mercury needs regulating. It’s been a fight for enviros every step of the way.
So anyway, this is an historic day and a real step forward for the forces of civilization. It’s the beginning of the end of one of the last of the old-school, 20th-century air pollution problems. (Polluters and their rented conservatives will try to kick up dust about this, but check out this letter to Congress [PDF] from a group of health scientists, which says “exposure to mercury in any form places a heavy burden on the biochemical machinery within cells of all living organisms.”) Long after everyone has forgotten who “won the morning” in the fight over these rules, or what effect they had on Obama’s electoral chances, the rule’s legacy will live on in a healthier, happier American people.
by David Roberts, cross-posted from Grist
More at the linkWednesday, at long last, the EPA unveiled its new rule covering mercury and other... more
-
-
THOUSANDS OF JOBS AT RISK IN COAL MINING, ELECTRICTY PRODUCTION, RAIL ROADS AND MANY MORE THANKS TO OBAMAS EPA.THOUSANDS OF JOBS AT RISK IN COAL MINING, ELECTRICTY PRODUCTION, RAIL ROADS AND MANY... more
-
-
Tens of thousands of residents in China’s southern Guandong Province gathered in the streets yesterday, occupying a highway to demonstrate against the development of a new coal plant near Shantou city. The residents say existing coal plants in the area are fouling local air and water, and are making people sick.
Each year, protests spring up to counter the construction of dirty coal plants. But this appears to be the biggest yet. Officials now say they will abandon plans to build a new coal plant in the area. Two people were reportedly killed in clashes with police, but the government is denying those reports.
China’s coal use has exploded over the last few decades. Since 1980, coal consumption in China has grown 500%, and now represents three quarters of consumption in Asia. That has coincided with a five-fold increase of lung cancer since 1970, now the leading cause of death in China. (Of course, an increase in smoking is also a huge contributor.)
Watch the protesters gather in the streets throughout Guandong Province protesting coal plants and local land rights:
More at the linkTens of thousands of residents in China’s southern Guandong Province gathered in... more
-
-
Dopo venti mesi di mobilitazione, proteste e negoziazioni per chiedere a Facebook di diventare verde, il gigante di Internet annuncia oggi il suo impegno a puntare sull’energia pulita. Abbiamo vinto grazie a più di 700.000 persone che in tutto il mondo hanno partecipato alla nostra campagna “Unfriend coal”! Il messaggio di Facebook ai produttori di energia è chiaro: investire ora nelle energie rinnovabili e allontanarsi dal carbone.Dopo venti mesi di mobilitazione, proteste e negoziazioni per chiedere a Facebook di... more
-
-
Officials say a new US-backed coal plant outside Johannesburg will be a boon to the community. Locals beg to differ.
—By Kate Sheppard
Earlier this week, I traveled to South Africa's Mpumalanga province, the center of the country's coal industry and the home of one of the newest coal-fired power plants, Kusile. Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that their tax dollars have been used to underwrite Kusile, but they are. And when completed, the 4,800-megawatt plant will be among the largest in the world.
EMalahleni, the municipality in which Kusile is located, means "place of coal" in Zulu. South Africa consumes 93 percent of all the coal used in Africa, much of that here in Mpumalanga. While much of it is burned in the region's 11 power plants, 25 percent of it is exported to other countries. South Africa is the fifth-largest producer of coal in the world, and 80 percent of its mining takes place in this province.
A significant chunk of Kusile's upfront financing—$805 million—came from a direct loan from the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Eskom, South Africa's state-owned electric power utility. Construction on the plant began in 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2015. In April 2011, ExIm agreed to provide the loan to the plant to help ensure its construction. Kusile will be the 12th coal-fired power plant in this area, which lies to the east of Johannesburg.
The Kusile power plant
The region is also home to the Sasol plant in Secunda, which is both the largest coal-to-liquids plant and the largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. The plant produces 160,000 barrels of fuel from coal every day, which is used to power buses, planes, and automobiles in the country.
The South Africa-based environmental group Groundwork reported that in a single four-month period last year, the country exceeded its ambient air pollution standards 570 times—mostly due to the emissions from plants in this region. The national air quality law, which was passed in 2004, is actually pretty good, says Groundwork director Bobby Peek, "but government doesn't have the capacity to enforce it." There are fines for violating the law, but in an area with numerous plants like Mpumalanga, it can often be hard to peg the violations to one particular plant.
Peek was my guide earlier this week for a trip to the region. The first plant we see is the Kendal power station, also owned by Eskom. Its six generators have made it the largest station in the country since it was completed in 1993, but Kusile will be even bigger.
More at the linkOfficials say a new US-backed coal plant outside Johannesburg will be a boon to the... more
-
-
By Muriel Kane
Friday, December 9, 2011
When asked about his views on climate change at a campaign event, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney replied that the earth might be getting warmer, but that his top priority as president would be to increase energy production in the United States.
“I’m not a scientist, so I don’t know the answer to these things,” he told the questioner. “I think the earth is getting warmer. May be wrong. I think we probably contribute something to it, but I don’t know if we contribute a little or a lot. And therefore, when I come to the policies I’d put in place, I do not support cap and trade policies, which raise the cost of energy.”
“Scientists will figure that out ten, twenty, fifty years from now,” he concluded. “But the right policy for me is, use our domestic sources of energy — including our renewables, and our gas, and our coal, and our nuclear, and our oil — and that’s the right course for America.”
In sharp contrast with Romney’s suggestion that the question of climate change can be deferred for another fifty years, however, the majority of scientists have already concluded that man-made global warming is real, has already contributed to an unprecedented number of climate disasters, and will be irreversible unless significant changes are made within the next decade.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/09/romney-scientists-can-figure-out-global-warming-50-years-from-now/
This video is from CNN, broadcast Dec. 9, 2011.
"Seems the GOP is always willing to kick the can down the road... More often then not, after they have been here and gone!!!"By Muriel Kane
Friday, December 9, 2011
When asked about his views on climate... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
2 months ago
- |
-
Financing coal is controversial, because it is the dirtiest fossil fuel and responsible for billions of tonnes of emissions of carbon dioxide. Photograph: Jason Lee/Reuters
Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland and HSBC are among the top banks that have lent billions of euros to the coal sector – despite their much-vaunted environmental credentials, a new investigation has found.
Financing coal is controversial, because it is the dirtiest fossil fuel and responsible for billions of tonnes of emissions of carbon dioxide globally, as well as other pollutants such as soot particles and mercury.
The list of top 20 institutions that have financed coal-mining and coal-fired energy generation reads like a roll-call of the world's biggest banks, with three American banks – JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America – topping the list. Between them, these three have provided at least €42bn to the coal sector since 2005.
Barclays took fifth place, having lent more than €11.5bn to big coal companies in the last seven years, while RBS came in seventh having lent or raised finance amounting to nearly €11bn over the period. HSBC just scraped into the top 20, with €4.4bn of finance.
The research was compiled by a group of NGOs, including German environmental group Urgewald, the international network BankTrack and Earthlife Africa Johannesburg. It took experts more than seven months to uncover the data, because banks do not declare it publicly – many banks do not know how much they lend or raise finance to the coal sector, or how many shares or other assets they own in coal. The figures were found by examining the public reports of the biggest coal mining and coal-fired power generation companies, and the true finance figures are likely to be much higher.
The NGOs have labelled the banks "climate killers" because their financing efforts have helped to expand coal in the past decade. Many of the banks on the list subscribe to environmental principles, such as cutting their own greenhouse gas emissions and conducting environmental impact assessments on projects they finance.
Heffa Schücking of Urgewald said: "We chose to look into coal financing as coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of man-made carbon dioxide emissions and the major culprit in climate change. In spite of the fact that climate change is already having impacts on the most vulnerable societies, there is an abundance of plans to build new coal-fired power plants."
Shücking said shareholders in the listed banks should be concerned, because financing dirty fuels was increasingly risky in the face of the growing threat of climate change, and increasing moves to limit greenhouse gas emissions under national regulations.
She added: "If banks provide money for these projects, they will wreck all attempts to limit global warming to 2C [which scientists regard as the limit of safety]."
The figures include bank lending to coal companies, equity financing raising for the companies, and other sources of financing such as bond issues, as well as coal assets owned by the banks – including physical assets such as coal mines or power plants, and shares in coal companies. The researchers examined the annual reports of coal companies making up 44% of global coal production, and 51% of global coal-fired energy generation, between 2005 and September 2011.
Several banks told the Guardian they did not track how much they lent to the coal sector, and that such lending did not affect their environmental commitments.
RBS said: "Since 2006, RBS has lent more money to wind power projects than to any other type of energy project. Just as society as a whole has to make a transition to renewable energy sources, so will the banks that fund energy production. RBS has been one of the most active banks in the world in funding renewable energy so we are at the forefront of helping finance that transition."
Mary Church, campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "Since the bailout in 2008, it's taxpayers' money that RBS has been investing in this devastating industry."
The top 20 'climate killer' banks
1 JPMorgan Chase
2 Citi
3 Bank of America
4 Morgan Stanley
5 Barclays
6 Deutsche Bank
7 Royal Bank of Scotland
8 BNP Paribas
9 Credit Suisse
10 UBS
11 Goldman Sachs
12 Bank of China
13 Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
14 Crédit Agricole / Calyon
15 UniCredit / HVB
16 China Construction Bank
17 Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
18 Société Générale
19 Wells Fargo
20 HSBC
• Data provided by Profundo
More at the linkFinancing coal is controversial, because it is the dirtiest fossil fuel and... more
-
-
Sister Valsa John wanted to go home. Living in self-imposed exile hundreds of kilometres away, she pined for the hut in an aboriginal village where she had built a life. She talked about the people she loved there, and the quiet of the nights. Then she added, in a voice both wistful and matter-of-fact: “If I go home, most probably they will kill me.”
They did kill her. In the early hours of Wednesday morning, a mob of 25 or 30 men carrying spears, clubs and axes burst into her house in Pachuwara, a remote village in the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand. They beat and hacked her to death, a week after she went home.
The “they” Sister Valsa feared were “goons” hired by the mining companies she had helped the community of Pachuwara fight. The “coal mafia” told her on more than one occasion to get out of Pachuwara or they would kill her. She had repeatedly appealed to police for protection after threats on her life.
Sister Valsa, 52, was from Kerala in south India, and 24 years ago took her vows as a member of the Sisters of Charity of Jesus and Mary. She was one of the remarkable breed of Indian religious figures who are grassroots social activists, who immerse themselves in the most marginalized and impoverished communities and work on literacy, basic health care and human rights. Sister Valsa said she did Jesus’s work by teaching the aboriginal people – known in India as adivasi or “tribals” – about their rights to their land.
The Santhal community with whom she lived for nearly two decades were pushed off their land seven years ago by a private coal company. It was a familiar story here. Across the tribal heartland of India there are hundreds of these battles being waged, between communities with little education and even fewer resources, and huge mining and industrial corporations whose investments are eagerly sought by India’s state and central governments for the jobs they create, the taxes they pay – and the opportunities for graft they offer.
Sister Valsa helped organize the Santhal to demand compensation for their land; she was arrested at a protest in 2007. The company, Panem Coal Ltd., was eventually forced into a compensation agreement, and began to dig an open-cast coal mine, but didn’t meet all the terms of the deal. So when it moved to expand on to new Santhal land this year, Sister Valsa and her Santhal supporters dug in to stop them – and that is when the threats turned really ugly.
This past summer, Sister Valsa reluctantly left Pachuwara and took refuge with a friend, a fellow activist nun, at a school for low-caste girls in Bihar where I have been spending time on a project for the Globe. She fit easily into life there, gently shepherding the girls through their day, but she spent hours talking to me about “my people” and the war for land and resources going on in the tribal belt.
A few of these stories have attracted considerable attention, in India and beyond its borders, such as efforts by Vedanta Resources to build a bauxite mine on a mountain considered a god by the Dongri tribal people in the state of Orissa. But most of these fights go on, as Sister Valsa’s did, almost entirely unremarked.
snip
Inspector R. K. Mallick, the senior police official in the region, told The Globe and Mail it was too soon to discuss the investigation, but that police would soon have “the clear picture.” No arrests had yet been made. He would not entertain the question of whether police could have done more to protect Sister Valsa while she was alive. Three years ago, she filed a formal notice with police about the death threats.
Sister Sudha, who attended the funeral Thursday, said most who knew Sister Valsa believe it was people from the Santhal community, in the pay of the mining company, who killed her. “This is what the companies do: they divide people. When people are this poor, when someone gives them a little money, they can do anything,” she said. “Valsa knew it, and so many times we asked her to leave. But she said, ‘These are my people and I cannot leave them.’ ”
More at the linkSister Valsa John wanted to go home. Living in self-imposed exile hundreds of... more
-
-
-
-
It's 4:29 PM. The blast will go off at any minute. Even though you grew up hearing the sound, it's still jarring. You have no choice but to breathe in the dust. When you turn on your tap, red water flows out. It smells like sulfur, so you don't drink it, but you shower in it and use it to wash your dishes and clothes.
You know it's affected your health. You have gastrointestinal problems, including a bad case of gastritis. Your neighbors are getting cancer and dying. You know this isn't right, but you're not supposed to speak out, question what's going on or do anything about it.
This is 21-year-old Junior Walk's reality. The people living in his West Virginia coal mining community are expected to go about their business, keep their heads down and stay silent. "The coal companies control everything you do," he says. "There's been a system of economic slavery in place in Appalachia for the past 150 years. The coal industry has had the people under its thumb for that long. It's so ingrained into the culture. Folks are afraid to stand up and make their voices heard and are afraid to be associated with anybody that does."
Walk was born and raised in the Southern part of West Virginia on the banks of the Coal River. In his community, you have three options: join the military, take a minimum-wage job in a fast food joint or work in a coal mine. If you're one of the lucky few who can afford to go to college, you'll most likely leave the area and never return.
Walk had no idea how to apply for college or scholarships, so following in his father's footsteps, he took a job with Massey Energy (now Alpha Natural Resources) after high school. He quit six months later. After a year of working at various minimum-wage jobs, he found work as a security guard at a mountaintop removal site. "I felt like the most miserable human being for being part of that."
He says he was the smallest cog in a machine that was destroying his home and killing his people. "The people at the bottom of that mountain were getting sick and dying. That's what really kicked me in the rear end," he says. "I couldn't sit on my hands anymore and let this go on."
Walker contacted his hero, the late environmental leader Judy Bonds, and began volunteering with Coal River Mountain Watch, a group that works to stop the destruction of communities and the environment by mountaintop removal mining, helps rebuild sustainable communities and anonymously wrote critical articles about the coal industry for their newsletter. His parents, whose income comes from Massey Energy, supported him as long as he stayed anonymous. As soon as he decided to put his name on his pieces and publicly speak out, they kicked him out of the house. "My father would've been fired," he says. "He wouldn't have been able to take care of my little sister and mother."
Since then, Walk has been on a mission to educate the public about the degradation caused by surface coal mining. He's now outreach coordinator for Coal River Mountain Watch. He attended the Keystone XL protests in Washington in August. In July, he was arrested for participating in a tree sit-in to stop blasting, and he's being sued by Massey Energy for trespassing. His court date is scheduled for November 14. He faces six months in jail.
Walk has spent the past year traveling around the country speaking at colleges and conferences and he just received the Brower Youth Award, which honors young people in North America for their outstanding activism and achievements in the fields of social and environmental justice advocacy. The Earth Island Institute established the Brower Youth Awards to honor founder and legendary activist David Brower.
"It's been an insane experience," he says. "I hardly ever got out of the holler before I started this work. I wouldn't talk to anybody. Look nobody in the eye. It got me so mad, I knew I could do anything."
Walk says the youth he meets across the country are more aware. They want information. They want to do something and "take a stand for a more progressive world." He believes that if the "mainstream media would step up and do its job, we'd have a revolution on our hands."
http://www.truth-out.org/young-activist-stands-industry-enslaves-his-community-appalachia/1319120788It's 4:29 PM. The blast will go off at any minute. Even though you grew up... more
-
-
Earlier this month, officials in the South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu had to confront a pretty dire problem: they were running out of water. Due to a severe and lasting drought, water reserves in this country of 11,000 people had dwindled to just a few days' worth. Climate change plays a role here: as sea levels rose, Tuvalu's groundwater became increasingly saline and undrinkable, leaving the island dependent on rainwater. But now a La Niña–influenced drought has severely curtailed rainfall, leaving Tuvalu dry as a bone. "This situation is bad," Pusinelli Laafai, Tuvalu's permanent secretary of home affairs, told the Associated Press earlier this month. "It's really bad."
So far Tuvalu has been bailed out by its neighbors Australia and New Zealand, which have donated rehydration packets and desalination equipment. But the archipelago's water woes are just beginning — and it's far from the only part of the world facing a big dry. Other island nations like the Maldives and Kiribati will see their groundwater spoil as sea levels rise. Texas, along with much of the American Southwest, is in the grip of a truly record-breaking drought — even after days of storms in the past month, Houston's total 2011 rainfall is still short of its yearly average by a whopping 2 ft., or 60 cm. Australia has experienced severely dry weather for so long, it's not even clear whether the country is in a state of drought, or more worryingly, a new and permanent dry climate that could forever alter life Down Under. "Climate-change impacts on water resources continue to appear in the form of growing influence on the severity and intensity of extreme events," says Peter Gleick, one of the foremost water experts in the U.S. and head of the Pacific Institute, an NGO based in Oakland, Calif., that focuses on global water issues. "Australia's recent extraordinary extreme drought should be an eye-opener for the rest of us."
(See photos of the world's water crisis.)
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2097159,00.html#ixzz1bAUCHxtB
More at the link.Earlier this month, officials in the South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu had to... more
-
-
Global energy consumption will increase by 53 percent over the next 25 years to a mind-boggling 225,700 terawatt-hours (770 quadrillion BTUs ) as water- and carbon-intensive fossil fuels continue to dominate the world’s economies, despite the global recession and the strong growth in the renewable sector, according to a new annual report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
About half of the projected increase in energy use will occur in China and India, the world’s first- and third-largest energy consumers, respectively. The two developing economies will account for more than 30 percent of the global energy use during the next two decades.
“China alone — which only recently became the world’s top energy consumer — is projected to use 68 percent more energy than the United States by 2035,” said Howard Gruenspecht, the administrator for the EIA, in a press release.
In general, however, the overall projections made in the EIA report only reflect laws and policies as they stood at the beginning of 2011. In other words, the report does not incorporate prospective legislation — in China, for example — that, together with oil-price volatility and the pace of global economic recovery, could significantly affect energy markets.
Coal Production and Consumption
China relies on coal for about 70 percent of its energy generation, consuming 3.15 billion metric tons (3.5 billion tons) of coal last year. Meanwhile, India has been steadily increasing domestic coal production, its major source of energy, reaching over 500 million metric tons (551 million tons) in 2010.
Though future generation from renewables, natural gas, and nuclear power will largely displace coal-fired production, coal will remain the largest source of world electricity through 2035, particularly in developing nations, according to the EIA projections. China alone will account for 76 percent of the projected increase in world coal use.
more at the link
__
WE ARE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.Global energy consumption will increase by 53 percent over the next 25 years to a... more
-
-
"And finally, I appreciate economic models, but we should also heed common sense. An activity that kills tens of thousands of people a year, poisons fetuses in mother's wombs, gives poor kids asthma, pollutes groundwater, toxifies soil, destroys mountains, and threatens to render the planet uninhabitable is not, by definition, cheap. If the the way you do your accounts makes it look cheap, then something is wrong with the way you do your accounts. If your politics gives it a place of privilege, something is wrong with your politics.""And finally, I appreciate economic models, but we should also heed common sense.... more
-
-
For those who don’t know, I am a Mason. I believe their philosophy of brotherly love to people, charity, and inclusiveness is in alignment with my own beliefs. I think more of that attitude needs to spread across the country. So earlier this week, I travelled with a group of brothers to a meeting at the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. It was a hot meeting as the Grand Lodge is not air conditioned, yet. Other than dripping through the whole thing, it was quite fascinating.For those who don’t know, I am a Mason. I believe their philosophy of brotherly... more
-
-
What happens when a community dependent on a finite fossil resource can no longer go on exploiting? These powerful pictures tell the story.
The dead island of Hashima delivers a lively warning about the importance of foresight. It offers a view of the end result of “development,” the fate of a community severed from Mother Earth and engaged in a way of life disconnected from its food supply. In short, Hashima is what the world will be like when we finish urbanizing and exploiting it: a ghost planet spinning through space—silent, naked, and useless.
— Brian Burke-Gaffney, Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science
Located 18 miles off the coast of Nagasaki, the island of Hashima was once the hub of Japan’s coal mining activity. From the early 1900′s to the 1970′s, the island played a major role in Japan’s economic growth. Owned by Mitsubishi, it was home to dangerous undersea mines that killed hundreds of people. At its peak, Hashima was producing about 400,000 tons of coal per year — more coal than the U.S. exported to China in 2009.
Hashima was was completely dependent on the outside world. It had coal, and that was it. The community, which peaked at over 5,200 people, had to import everything — food, fresh water, building materials and clothing. So when Japan started transitioning from a coal-based economy to an oil-based economy, the island had nothing else to rely on. Mitsubishi began laying off workers in the 1960′s and eventually shut down the entire community in 1974.
According to Brian Burke Gaffney of the Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, who wrote a history of the island in Cabinet magazine, the Japanese government as used pictures of Hashima in newspaper ads promoting energy conservation — reminding people of what happens when a community (or country) uses up everything it has with no back-up plan.
By Stephen Lacey on Jul 30, 2011 at 11:21 am
More at websiteWhat happens when a community dependent on a finite fossil resource can no longer go... more
-
-
The federal government and the West Virginia Coal Association want a judge to dismiss a lawsuit aimed at protecting Logan County's Blair Mountain from surface mining and returning it to the National Register of Historic Places.
In new court filings in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service and the Keeper of the Register argue that environmental and preservation groups lack legal standing to sue over the 1,600-acre site of a 1921 armed uprising by coal miners.
The Southern West Virginia landmark, considered by many to be an important site in U.S. labor history, was briefly listed on the historic register, then removed when property owners objected.
The government contends the Sierra Club, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, West Virginia Labor History Association and other groups can't demonstrate any concrete harm from the delisting, don't own property on the mountain and lack legal permission to visit any of the privately-owned parcels.
"Their interest in the site is purely notional, and even if mining were to occur on Blair Mountain, the injury that they allege they would suffer is purely speculative,'' the motion for summary judgment argues.
In a friend-of-the-court filing, the Coal Association says the plaintiffs cannot claim they've been stripped of their right to enjoy the mountain because citing specific places they visit would be admitting they've trespassed.
Except for a road, everything in the proposed boundary area is privately owned, "with the majority being owned or leased by members of the WVCA who have strict no-trespassing policies,'' it argues.
"Simply stated,'' the association says, the plaintiffs "have no right to visit or enjoy the Blair Mountain nomination area.''
More at the linkThe federal government and the West Virginia Coal Association want a judge to dismiss... more
-
-
Bloomberg Philanthropies is bringing $50 million to the Sierra Club's fight to end coal and usher in a new clean energy future. This is a game changer, but we can't win without you.
Whether it's writing a letter to your newspaper, recruiting ten of your friends and family to get involved, or volunteering a couple hours a week at your local Sierra Club office, tell us what you can do to help move our country Beyond Coal.
Pledge your support today!
http://tinyurl.com/4yx2u6eBloomberg Philanthropies is bringing $50 million to the Sierra Club's fight to... more
-
-
LOrion
-
added this
-
7 months ago
- |
-
In 1972 I was 13 years old and becoming much more cognizant of the fact that the Earth I had lived on up to that point was changing and not for the better. And this disturbed and concerned me greatly even at that young age as I felt a special connection to the environment as I still do. It is innate in me and as much a part of my existence as breathing. The trees, the air and especially the water at that time all told a story to me about who I was, where I came from and where I hoped to go as I became an adult. From the time I was a young girl my mother instilled in me respect for the Earth and taught me that what you put into her you get out. Unfortunately, I lost my mother to cancer at the age of 17 not nearly having the amount of time with her that I needed but the lessons she taught me about life, respecting others and respecting this planet in that short time have always stayed with me.
And at that time in history, those lessons were more important than ever to be learned. Just three years prior in July of 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio became so contaminated with industrial waste and pollution that it literally caught on fire. Rivers from the Hudson to the Potomac to the Mississippi were little more than open sewers with untreated waste and industrial byproducts being dumped with little regulation. Public health alerts and fishkills were commonplace. Rivers burning, pictures of raw sewerage flowing in rivers, oil fires and fish floating dead in rivers was more than enough for the public to demand action and accountability for what had been done to our waterways by an out of control corporate assault for profit. Of course, the polluters fought against any type of regulation of their crimes against nature citing as usual that it would be financially cumbersome to act responsibly. But on October 18, 1972, the voices of the people were heard with the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act. The main goal of this act was to ensure to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of our nation's waterways" and to make them cleaner by 1985. Other provisions were subsequently added to assure that once these goals were met that they would be adequately maintained.
Almost forty years after its passage there is much to be proud of regarding this act. It has been a success. Billions have been saved in dollars and in destruction and pollution to our waterways. More than one billion pounds per year of toxic pollutants have been removed from waterways. Point source pollution has been greatly reduced and the Cuyahoga is cleaner and actually making a profit. Of course, there are still great obstacles as we see this same irresponsible corporate mentality seeking to turn back the clock, but on the whole the Clean Water Act has been the one piece of legislation that has withstood the test of time... until now. The lifeblood of our country is now once again under attack by those in our Congress more beholding to the corporate entities that support them than the people they should be supporting.
A bill, H.B. 2018 also known as the "Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011," would null and void decades of progress that have made our waterways cleaner and safer. The bill supported both by Rep Nick Rahall and Rep. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia(coal country) seeks to undo two key provisions of the Clean Water Act that would undermine the EPA's ability to hold states accountable for water quality standards. In other words, corporate entities (coal companies) holding sway over state governments would be the final arbiter on water standards even if evidence proves that doing so would be a threat to human and aquatic health. Again, even if evidence proves that doing so would be a threat to human and aquatic health. How unconscienable. How irresponsible. How morally bereft.
To see this total apathy towards the source of all life and the disrespect for all who have sacrificed so much to ensure a cleaner planet is reprehensible. And I admit that now forty years after I first learned of the Clean Water Act passing at the age of 13 after being scared for the future I am again and this time moreso as this important issue has not gotten the media coverage now that it did then. This is why the Internet and social media are so crucial in getting this type of information out to the public. Our media has been co opted by these same corporate entities seeking to escape culpability for their crimes against nature just to save a buck even at the expense of our health and that of our children.
So are you incensed yet? Do you want to do someting to let them know that you will not go back to rivers in flames and rivers and streams from coast to coast flowing with industrial and human waste, coal excrement, nuclear waste and anything else those who buy policy in DC deem too expensive to take responsibility for? We need the same loud voices that we heard in the 1970s. We need that urgency. We need that caring. Those voices, the voices of our young selves that stood in the streets crying for environmental justice must now be heard again. Those who perceive themselves as masters of our fate must be sent a message that it is we who are the masters of our fate. Our children deserve better than that. They deserve clean water! Please , speak out for our rivers. Our lifeblood. The soul of America. Remember Cuyahoga and say, never again!
Thank you.In 1972 I was 13 years old and becoming much more cognizant of the fact that the Earth... more
-
-
With nearly 65 percent of Texas experiencing exceptional drought, water is becoming increasingly precious—and scarce—in a state that has to divide the resource between the growing appetites of farmers, city residents, and energy corporations.
A severe drought continues to wreak havoc in Texas and shows no sign of letting up, pitting stakeholders against each other as the dry spell threatens reservoirs and rivers.
The dry period began in October 2010, and, since then, only 2 inches of rain have fallen in southeastern Texas, Businessweek reported. Now, 65 percent of the state is categorized as having exceptional drought, and 88 percent is experiencing extreme drought conditions or worse, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
Though Texas is no stranger to dry spells, this is the driest 7-month period in Texas history since record keeping began in the late 1800s. The worst drought is still considered to be the 10-year period from 1947-1957, with lake levels hitting an all time low in 1952. However, falling water levels could surpass even that record if no rains come. Currently, some lakes are dropping 35,000 acre-feet a week, The Texas Tribune reported.
City Residents vs. Farmers and Ranchers
With supplies running so low, city residents and businesses that depend on reservoir lakes for both their drinking water and livelihoods are worried that lakes will run dry if the agricultural industry downstream continues to consume large amounts, despite the drought. In Central Texas, Lake Buchanan and Lake Travis—which supply the city of Austin with water and support a thriving tourist industry—are only 59 percent full and continuing to drop, The Texas Tribune reported. Much of the water from the lakes is being used downstream by farmers who are trying to protect their rice, a water-intensive crop, from the effects of the drought.
The Lower Colorado River Authority, which manages the lakes and sells the water to both Austin and the rice farmers, allows farmers to buy the water at a cheaper price than the city because it retains the right to shut off supply in times of drought. However, while farmers have not had supplies cut, or even reduced, this year, Austin residents have been asked to conserve water, creating tensions between the two groups, according toThe Texas Tribune.
The drought is also dealing a heavy blow to cattle ranchers, who are sending large portions of their herds to slaughter because vegetation is so scarce.
“Because we’re not raising the amount of grass that we usually do, we’re having to destock these ranches,” rancher Pete Bonds told Reuters. “We are having to cut the numbers down and sell cows that we don’t want to. And since it is dry in a huge area, most of these cows are going to go to slaughter.” These include young female cows, called heifers, that are used to breed—putting a difficult barrier between the herd and its future.
Even if rains alleviate the current drought, the impacts will be lasting. Bonds told Reuters that it will take years for ranchers to recoup their losses, so many are giving up and selling their land to developers.
Farmers vs. Energy Executives
Texas energy corporations have resorted to buying water from farmers so they can support booming shale gas operations. The water is needed for hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” the process of injecting water, chemicals, and sand at high pressure into sedimentary rock formations to free up the oil and natural gas trapped inside.
In 2009, there were 358 natural gas drilling rigs in Texas alone, and that number had increased to 709 rigs by 2010, according to the Natural Gas Supply Association. Each rig can drill multiple wells in a year and each well typically uses upwards of 19,000 cubic meters (5 million gallons) of water for “fracking.”
The Eagle Ford Shale formation, however, which angles across the state from the southwest to the northeast and is the location of many new shale gas wells, has an unusual geology that requires more water per well than in other locations. A single well in the Eagle Ford Shale can require up to 49,000 cubic meters (13 million gallons), Businessweek reported. To obtain this amount during the drought, companies have offered farmers as much as $US 0.70 per barrel of water—equivalent to 164 liters (42 gallons).
So far, farmers have been reluctant to sell too much water, especially when they are running low on supplies to quench their own thirsty fields.
Additionally, because of the severe drought in Texas, water supplies have become a big issue for opponents of a coal-fired power plant proposed for Matagorda County. On June 16, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) delayed a vote to decide whether to sell more than 30 million cubic meters (8 billion gallons) of water per year to the owners of the planned White Stallion generating station.
More at the link.With nearly 65 percent of Texas experiencing exceptional drought, water is becoming... more
-
