“Jay wakes from his dream only to find that NO coal MEANS NO”
quilt patch from The Great American Energy Quilt Project 2010
Dedicated to Coal War Hero Josh Graupera, after a 9day siege at the Battle for Bee Tree Strip Mine fought bravely against Massey Energy. Coalwar.com
February 4th, 2010
Sen. Rockefeller Criticizes Obama Over Coal Policy
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN of Greenwire
West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) lashed out at President Obama today for sending inconsistent messages about the future of coal.
Speaking at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Obama's fiscal 2011 budget request, Rockefeller took umbrage first with the administration's decision to eliminate four tax breaks for the industry.
"It's going to be partly psychological," Rockefeller told White House budget chief Peter Orszag. "People are going to reduce their production because they feel, 'Uh oh, here comes the Obama administration,' and they are going to cut out coal."
But Rockefeller said his concerns snowballed when he considered recent U.S. EPA decisions on mountaintop-removal coal mining and work on regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. Given that, he said, he isn't sure he trusts the president's commitments to coal, even as Obama promotes the fossil fuel through a series of other administration actions.
"He says it in his speeches, but he doesn't say it in here," Rockefeller said, referring to the budget proposal. "He doesn't say it in the actions of [EPA Administrator] Lisa Jackson. And he doesn't say it in the minds of my own people. And he's beginning to not be believable to me. So I want you to put me at rest or put me away." (more)
"Coal subsidies are costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices," said a White House Office of Management and Budget analysis released Monday.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's fiscal 2011 budget would cut roughly $2.3 billion in coal subsidies during the next decade, a move Kentucky lawmakers worry will mean heavy job losses in economically poor but coal-rich regions of Appalachia.
"Coal subsidies are costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices," said a White House Office of Management and Budget analysis released Monday.
"Removing these subsidies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and generate $2.3 billion of additional revenue over the next 10 years, an amount that represents only a small percentage of annual domestic coal revenues — about 1 percent over the coming decade."
The cuts, along with the repeal of roughly $36 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, is part of the Obama administration's efforts to uphold an agreement struck last year during the G-20 summit in which member nations committed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent.
Lawmakers from Kentucky, which relies heavily on the coal industry for jobs and cheap electric rates, have vowed to block the proposed cuts.
"Senator McConnell opposes both the president's proposed new national energy tax and the tax on coal included in his budget outline unveiled today," said Robert Steurer, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Both would hurt Kentucky families who are dependent on coal for their livelihood."
Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Versailles, who voted last year for a measure that would cap carbon emissions and fine companies that go over set limits, expressed concern about the Obama administration's proposed budget cuts. (more)
“The Energy Avenger meets with Judicial Disconsent, and sighs…”
quilt patch from The Great American Energy Quilt Project 2010
Dedicated to Dr. James Hansen, Coal War Hero, arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience against Massey Energy 2009
Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it. - Henry David Thoreau
To the Honorable U.S. District Judge Irene C. Berger in the Great State of West Virginia.
Nuts! - Coalwar.com
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A federal judge has temporarily ordered a halt to mountaintop-removal protests that involve trespassing on Massey Energy property or interfering with any of Massey's operations.
U.S. District Judge Irene C. Berger granted Massey subsidiary Marfork Coal Co.'s request for a temporary restraining order against non-violent civil disobedience actions aimed at stopping its mountaintop-removal mining operations..(more)
quilt patch from The Great American Energy Quilt Project 2010
Dedicated to Coal War Hero David Aaron Smith, 23, after a 9day siege at the Battle for Bee Tree Strip Mine fought bravely against Massey Energy.
February 2nd, 2010
Coalwar.comAny fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it. - Henry David Thoreau
To the... more
"China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.
China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants."
High up in the trees near the summit of Coal River Mountain, two activists dangle in the air near a mountaintop removal mine site. Eric Blevins and Amber Nitchman are still preventing the expansion of mining on the summit of Coal River Mountain, a mountain that has the best wind energy (and therefore economic) potential in the area.
Eric and Amber didn’t just stroll through the woods and decide to climb some trees. Their action, like the dozens of others in the past year are a steady escalation of the Climate Ground Zero campaign.
I first visited Rock Creek, West Virginia in October. Mountain Justice, now in its 5th year, organized a fall weekend that drew 150 youth activists from all over the country to the Appalachians to see firsthand the destruction of mountaintop removal coal mining and learn what they could do about it. For me, it was partly a reunion with colleagues from various climate and activist organizations making the trek, and partly a recharge. Camping in the cold, eating group meals and hanging out with my mountain roaming friends is a great way to spend a weekend. It’s also a great way to build a movement.
Mountaintop removal is the most destructive and least labor intensive way to mine coal. It is impossible to restore stream ecosystems, forests and landscapes where thousands of acres are scraped away. It also injects poison into drinking water and streams, puts dust in the air and denudes the land. This form of mining relies on large machines, resulting in a staggering decline in mining employment, even as the profits of its executives grow. The destruction and declining employment are not lost on the people of West Virgina, nor concerned people around the country who know the side of the story that Manchin and Blankenship don’t want to make public.
Keeping the rest of the country updated about southern Appalachia is low on the priorities of Massey coal or WV governor Manchin. In fact, both have pursued major PR campaigns to convince the country of the greatness of coal, using multi-million dollar budgets to try and outmaneuver the citizen groups fighting for justice. They know that an informed country isn’t going to allow the destruction of over 400 mountains and 2,000 miles of stream. Lately, they’re getting a little scared.See the full post for images and links.
High up in the trees near the summit of... more
On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) pulled out a rarely-used Congressional tool in an attempt to keep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon and other greenhouse gasses. Sen. Murkowski offered a “resolution of disapproval” of the EPA’s impending action, which would limit companies’ carbon emissions.
The resolution would overturn the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is harmful to the public health. Three Democrats—Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)—joined Sen. Murkowski and 35 Republicans in sponsoring the resolution.
“Ms. Murkowski’s Mischief‘”
“This command and control approach is our worst option for reducing the gasses associated with climate change,” said Sen. Murkowski on the floor of the Senate yesterday. She called the EPA’s actions “backdoor climate regulations with no input from Congress” and said they would damage the country’s flailing economy.
The EPA first announced in April 2009 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses posed a threat to the public health. The agency formalized that finding last month, giving itself the power to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. In March 2010, for instance, the agency is expected to announce carbon emissions rules for the auto industry that would match California’s higher standards. Sen. Murkowski’s resolution would derail that process.
Sen. Murkowski argued that she wants to give Congress room to come up with a legislative solution to climate change, but her critics see a more dangerous tilt to her resolution. “It’s a radical attempt by the legislative branch to interfere with executive branch scientists,” writes David Roberts at Grist.
Responding to “Ms. Murskowski’s mischief” on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the resolution an “unprecedented effort to overturn scientific decision” and “a direct assault on the health of the American people.”
Resolution of disapproval
What is a “resolution of disapproval?” Grist’s Roberts called it “the nuclear option.”
“It would rescind the EPA’s endangerment finding entirely and thereby eliminate its authority over both mobile and stationary sources,” Roberts explains. “Furthermore, the administration would be prohibited from passing a regulation “substantially the same” as the one overruled, so the constraint on the EPA would effectively be permanent.”
This type of resolution was created by the Clinton-era Congressional Reform Act. The resolution has one big advantage: It cannot be filibustered. Passage requires only a majority in both houses of Congress. Members have tried using it in the past to delay the Dubai Ports World deal, derail FCC regulations on new media, and stop the flow of bailout funds.
Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones has been following Sen. Murkowski’s actions closely. She reports that “Senate supporters of climate action say Murkowski could obtain the votes of moderate Democrats from coal, oil, and manufacturing states. However, a resolution would still need to be approved by the House and signed by the president—both long shots, to put it mildly. ‘I think we’re a little worried about [Murkowski’s resolution] winning. I’m not sure we’re worried about it becoming law,’ a Senate Democratic staffer says.”
But Grist’s Roberts argues that passage in the Senate alone would be a problem. “Even if blocked by the House or vetoed by the president, such a public, bipartisan slap at the administration would be highly embarrassing and demoralizing,” Roberts writes. “It would mean at least ten conservative Democrats washing their hands of the administration’s initiative.”
Climate change and Congress
Sen. Murkowski insists that she’s still ready to work with her colleagues on climate change and that it’s better to approach the problem of climate change via legislation, not regulation.
But no one in Washington believes that climateBy Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium Blogger
On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Lisa... more
Stephen Colbert hosted scientist Margaret Palmer in a brilliant takedown of the Obama administration's recent decision to green light more mountaintop removal permits.
Goodbye purple mountain's majesty--here comes Patriot Coal!
Last night on the Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert hosted scientist Margaret Palmer in a brilliant takedown of the Obama administration's recent decision to green light more mountaintop removal permits, in light of a blockbuster new scientific study that concluded that "mining permits are being issued despite the preponderance of scientific evidence that impacts are pervasive and irreversible and that mitigation cannot compensate for losses."
"GELLERMAN: You know there's a generation of people in the United State who don't even know about Three Mile Island, let alone remember it. And many of them are familiar with, you know, nuclear power plants from Homer Simpson.
[LAUGHING]
MAKHIJANI: Yes, that's right. This is the most common way to find out about nuclear power these days.
GELLERMAN: He was an operator of a nuclear power plant.
MAKHIJANI: That's right, yeah. And so we essentially know nuclear power through a cartoon character. You know, I think the debate about nuclear power is and should be very serious. The nuclear power industry claims that they're going to solve the climate crisis. But they're a mature industry. They've had government-supplied insurance for fifty years. They still get government-supplied insurance. They say they're very safe, but they cannot buy commercial insurance for their operations. If they want to build nuclear power plants, they should go to Wall Street, raise the money, but Wall Street regarded nuclear power plants as being too risky even before this current crisis. The same Wall Street that was doing sub prime mortgages and thought they were okay, thought this was even more risky and didn't want to finance them. We could build ten times as much renewable electricity in the next ten years as could be built in terms of new nuclear power plants, so if we are really serious about low carbon electricity, we would be doing renewable electricity."
Whilst this nuclear dirty business of men digging in the dirt for their fuel never ends, the people living alongside or anywhere near the older and yet even greater provider of US electricity the goin' for the clean coal, is dirtier than nilotic mud!
Given the numerous challenges working against any substantial recovery of the region’s coal industry, and that production is projected to decline significantly in the coming decades, diversification of Central Appalachian economies is now more critical than ever. State and local leaders should support new economic development across the region, especially in the rural areas set to be the most impacted by a sharp decline in the region’s coal economy.
That’s the take-home message from a major new report issued today by the Morgantown consulting group Downstream Strategies. The report is called, “The Decline of Central Appalachian Coal and the Need for Economic Diversification.”
It’s must-read material for anyone who cares about the future of the Appalachian coalfields, and especially for elected officials who keep hoping that the next coal boom is just around the corner.
Authors Rory McIlmoil and Evan Hansen make the case that a host of factors — competition from other coal-producing regions, rising interest in natural gas and renewable energy, and the depletion of Central Appalachia’s best reserves — has prompted a decline in regional coal production that is unlikely to be reversed. (more)
Must read report by Rory McIlmoil and Evan Hansen.
"Tipping point"
quilt patch from The Great American Energy Quilt Project 2010
Coalwar.comhttp://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/01/19/must-read-report-the-decline-of-centra... more
In light of last week's EPA ruling giving the go ahead to another mountaintop removal coal mine, and the subsequent report from a group of eminent scientists saying, in essence, that no remediation is ever enough to repair the damage mountaintop mining causes, it's worth reminding people that it's not just coal companies that stand to profit from the practice. Banks like JPMorgan Chase also are making a pretty penny from destroying Appalachia, as Gloria Reuben points out in an op-ed for Huffington Post:
Environmental & Social Destruction Funded
In the past two decades alone, mountaintop removal coal mining has destroyed roughly 470 mountains in the region. The debris from these blasts is dumped into surrounding valleys, destroying what were once serene and lush hollows. Or it's dumped into local rivers and streams, literally burying 1,200 miles of waterways.
Communities are decimated, as poverty has driven families out, leaving ghost towns where there used to be thriving homes, schools and businesses. Many who refuse to leave, because their families have been there for generations--or who are stuck in the vicious cycle of accepting very little, because they've been left with nothing--lead lives that are filled with high rates of cancer, asthma and other life-threatening illnesses. And they are witness to friends and loved ones who succumb to premature death.
So how does JPMorgan Chase profit from this? By funding six of the eight companies responsible for mountaintop removal coal mining, including $1 billion to Massey Energy, the largest MTR mining company.
Chase's Rhetoric Better Than Actions
Bank of America and Wells Fargo have severed ties with Massey, so why not Chase?
After all, Chase touts including environmental practices into their sustainable business model, but apparently fails to see the disconnect between that and funding practices and companies which continually destroy mountains and pollute rivers.In light of last week's EPA ruling giving the go ahead to another mountaintop... more
An eerie compilation of timelapse images taken of a coal-fired power plant south of Council Bluffs, Iowa and accompanied by chilling music from “The Shining”.
(Photo: Jeff Grewe)An eerie compilation of timelapse images taken of a coal-fired power plant south of... more
Update: Politico has some new revelations about how deeply involved the lobbyists were in writing the Murkowski amendment. According to the article, they "led" a meeting in which they "walked Senate staffers through the details of the amendment."
Our own Kert Davies has a great quote in Demelle’s post, which also sheds some light on just why Murkowski might be in bed with corporate polluters whose interests are definitely not those of the people Murkowski ostensibly represents:
"This Murkowski rider should be called the Protect Dirty Polluters amendment, especially since we now know that it was written by polluter lobbyists," Kert Davies, Director of the new PolluterWatch project at Greenpeace, told me today.
"If this amendment passed, it would be a get out of jail free card for the worst polluters from Big Oil and Big Coal," Davies said.
And who better to deliver this gift to the carbon barons? A darling of the Carbon Club, Sen. Murkowski has received $470,000 in campaign contributions from dirty energy and mining interests since 2005, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
This just points out the obvious: Big polluters hold an inordinate amount of influence over our elected representatives. Our pockets may not be as deep as theirs, but we have the numbers – and we need to push back hard. Only overwhelming grassroots demand for climate solutions can overcome corporate polluters' money.
Sign our petition to call on the Senators who were elected to represent you to vote in your interest, not in the interest of corporate polluters.
We sent a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate’s ethics panel, stating, “We think the public deserves at least an inquiry from the Senate Committee on Ethics into the depth of the relationship between Senator Murkowski’s staff and these two lobbyists.” So there’s obviously more to come on this story.Update: Politico has some new revelations about how deeply involved the lobbyists were... more
A new study published in the journal Science says mountaintop mining should be banned. A team of 12 ecologists, hydrologists, and engineers say it causes vast and permanent destruction to the environment and exposes people to serious health consequences, including lung cancer, and chronic heart, lung and kidney disease, as well as birth defects. The article provides the most comprehensive analysis so far of the damage done by the controversial mining practice.A new study published in the journal Science says mountaintop mining should be banned.... more
Old habits are hard to break, especially with regard to the typical resources that we use on a daily basis. No one's saying that we shouldn't have comfortable lives, but one way to help all of us make lifestyle changes that will benefit Mother Nature without causing too much inconvenience for us is by embracing the redesign of basic household staples.
Massey Energy has a bad reputation even in the dirty coal business and it's getting worse. A coalition of environmental groups is trying to get the company to come clean on over 12,000 violations of the Clean Water Act and surface mining laws in West Virginia.
This is an outrage. Where's the state and federal oversight?
The Sierra Club reported:
Massey has a long history of environmental and social irresponsibility-including one of the largest slurry spills ever to take place in the United States and a $1.5 million fine from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. In 2008 the company was fined $20 million for Clean Water Act violations, similar to those cited by the coalition, after the federal government documented over 4,600 cases of pollution being illegally dumped into local waters by Massey and its subsidiaries. Incredibly, Massey's violations have increased in frequency since its settlement with the federal government.
This comes just weeks after leading scientists determined that no amount of remediation could ever be enough to make up for the damage done by mountain top removal mining and the practice should be banned.
Dr Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science is quoted as saying:
No longer can we risk human and environmental health in our never-ending search for inexpensive energy. We need to move beyond filling valleys with mountaintop mining waste and temporarily storing fly ash in containment ponds to a modern energy production process built upon sound science, environmental safety and economic common sense.
If only the EPA felt that way!
Funny, isn't the EPA from the same Government that wants to tax you for your carbon output? Will any efforts to save the planet ever work if the citizens must pay and change lifestyles but the companies get a pass? Maybe the first place we should look for change is from the same people pushing for it?Massey Energy has a bad reputation even in the dirty coal business and it's... more
WASHINGTON Scientific evidence that mountaintop-removal coal mining destroys streams and threatens human health is so strong the government should stop granting new permits for it, a group of 12 environmental scientists report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
The consequences of this mining in eastern Kentucky, West Virginia and southwestern Virginia are "pervasive and irreversible," the article finds. Companies are required by law to take steps to reduce the damages, but their efforts don't compensate for lost streams nor do they prevent lasting water pollution, it says.
The article is a summary of recent scientific studies of the consequences of blasting the tops off mountains to obtain coal and dumping the excess rock into streams in valleys. The authors also studied new water-quality data from West Virginia streams and found that mining polluted them, reducing their biological health and diversity.
http://www.climate.noaa.gov/education/
Surprisingly little attention has been paid to this growing scientific evidence of the damages, they wrote, adding: "Regulators should no longer ignore rigorous science."
New permits shouldn't be granted, they argued, "unless new methods can be subjected to rigorous peer review and shown to remedy these problems."
The Science article cites a number of potential health risks from removing mountaintops and filling in valleys, including contaminated well water, toxic dust and fish that are tainted with the chemical selenium. It also looked at environmental damage to the mining and fill areas and to streams below them.
"The reason we're willing to make a policy recommendation is that the evidence is so clear-cut," said Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland, the lead author of the Science study and a specialist on the ecology of streams. Palmer has personal ties to Appalachia. Her family is from western North Carolina, and she spent much of her childhood there.
The assessment came days after the Environmental Protection Agency approved a permit under the Clean Water Act for Patriot Coal Corp.'s mountaintop Hobet 45 mine in West Virginia. The EPA reached a deal with Patriot to change the original plans. Instead of burying six miles of streams, the company will bury three. The EPA said that other changes would reduce stream contamination and protect public health.
At the same time, the agency acknowledged the environmental costs.
Mountaintop-removal mining has destroyed roughly 2,040 square miles of land in Appalachia and buried more than 2,000 miles of streams, EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said in an e-mail.
In a news release about its approval of the Hobet 45 mine, the EPA said:
"Scientific studies have increasingly identified significant water quality problems below surface coal mining operations that can contaminate surface waters for hundreds of years. Data from coalfield communities also indicate that coal mining is responsible for causing fish kills and contaminating fish and wildlife."
The statement says that the EPA is "committed to use its Clean Water Act regulatory authorities to reduce environmental and water quality impacts associated with surface coal mining."
The EPA's approval of the Hobet 45 mine, announced Tuesday, was the first major mountaintop mining permit the agency has approved from a batch of 79 that it said raised concerns. The mine is expected to employ 460 unionized miners.
Environmental groups condemned the decision and said that even with the changes, the mine would destroy forests and streams.
The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act calls for balancing environmental protection with the nation's need for coal. Half the nation's electricity comes from burning coal. According to the Department of Energy, coal also contributes 36.5 percent of the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas that's accumulating in the atmosphere.WASHINGTON Scientific evidence that mountaintop-removal coal mining destroys streams... more
Physicist Steven Cowley believes that around the year 2030 nuclear fusion will work and power the world.
Watch the video as he explains why.
Nuclear fusion constantly happens in our Sun and stars, being able to take advantage of that power would solve our energy crisis for millions of years.
I still believe that solar power is the answer and we should invest everything into it.
The year 2030 sounds a bit too late.
espite a lack of substantive action on climate change in Copenhagen or, yet, in Washington, environmental groups are celebrating a year of victories over one of climate change’s biggest culprits.
Coal releases more carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced than any other fossil fuel, but it also provides more than half the United States’ electricity supply. It is possible, however, that 2009 marked a turning point away from that reliance on coal.
Seminole Electric dropped plans to build a new coal-fired power plant in Florida late last week, in part because of the likelihood of future regulation of greenhouse gases. That canceled plant was one of more than two dozen this year. The Sierra Club announced Monday that 26 coal-fired plants in all were “defeated or abandoned” in 2009 — the largest number since 2001, it says, when the number of proposed coal plants spiked at 150.
As small island countries fight for a climate treaty that can ensure their existence, one archipelago has taken a more technical — and more direct — approach.
The Federated States of Micronesia filed a request with the Czech Ministry of Environment for a trans-boundary environmental impact assessment of the European country’s largest coal-fired power plant.
Prunerov isn't the worst polluter in Europe. But even as the 18th largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions on the continent, its emissions are 40 times the annual emissions of all Micronesia, according to Greenpeace.
A Czech law also makes it an open target for future climate change victims like Micronesia. ...
