-
-
Robert Redford hopes coal movie inspires citizen groups
Robert Redford was so struck by a story of Texas mayors, ranchers and other citizens who stood up against plans for a batch of new coal-fired power plants that he narrated a film about it.
The actor and founder of the Sundance Film Festival is lending his voice to a 34-minute documentary called "Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars." The film is being shown in seven cities in Utah and Nevada next week.
Redford's hoping the story inspires others to face off against the "mythology" of nonrenewable resources and consider renewable energy alternatives.
"It makes no sense going in a direction that represents yesterday," Redford said in an interview with The Associated Press this week.
The story centers on a fight that started in 2006 over 19 proposed coal-fired power plants in central and east Texas. The plans galvanized a diverse group of citizens who might otherwise have divergent political viewpoints: ranchers, environmentalists, business leaders, legislators, lawyers and more than a dozen local mayors.
Redford, who has been involved with environmental causes for decades, said he was inspired by the group's unifying interests around clean air and a healthy environment. The coalition opposing the plans grew to include 36 cities, counties and school districts.
"To me, that was a sign of changing times," said Redford, who spends about six months a year in Utah.
Eventually, the company that proposed 11 of the new plants agreed to build only three.
The film, produced by The Redford Center at the Sundance Preserve and Austin, Texas-based Alpheus Media, has already been shown in Texas. Supporters are bringing it to Utah and Nevada where several new coal-fired plants are being proposed.
"It's very relevant to what's going on not only in Utah but the rest of the country," said Tim Wagner, director of the Utah Smart Energy Campaign. "We want people to understand when they see this film that they can get involved, they too can make a difference."
Redford said he sees what happened in Texas as an indication that a tipping point has been reached in how the public perceives coal-fired plants.
"That's breaking apart now because the reality is seeping through like grass coming through the sidewalk," he said.
The screenings next week will be followed by panel discussions about pollution, global warming, renewable energy in the West, ways to minimize energy use and "economic opportunities of the clean energy economy."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Robert Redford is an environmental icon whose work has brought great change in understanding and in perceiving the problems we face regarding it. Lending his voice to this movie will hopefully inspire other citizen groups to do what politicians will not: stand up to dirty big coal. That is where we will see the most change... right out here, bringing it there. Robert Redford was so struck by a story of Texas mayors, ranchers and other citizens who stood up against plans for a batch of new coa... more -
Appalachian Voices: Follow the coal money
Want to know how much money your elected representative in Washington, D.C., received from the coal industry? A North Carolina environmental group is pledging to put that information right at your fingertips.
A new Web site tracks and lists the amount of donations that federal politicians receive from coal interests. Follow the Coal Money, at www.followthecoalmoney.org, is the latest salvo in what is turning out to be an increasingly heated battle over the future of coal in the nation's energy policy.
I'm not saying it is a big corporate conspiracy, but what (the money) is being spent for, it is being spent for a good reason, said Matt Wasson, director of programs for Appalachian Voices, which runs the site.
Coal is once again front and center as the nation's top leaders debate energy policy. Both presidential candidates have pledged to take actions to curb global warming, yet at the same time energy use is on the rise, thanks in part to new technology. For example, one Australian study found that a Playstation 3 uses five times the amount of energy as a five-foot high refrigerator.
Coal remains among the cheapest and most abundant energy-producing natural resource. Yet concerns over its environmental impacts have helped stop plans for new coal-burning power plants across the nation.
The coal industry is fighting back by ramping up its public relations efforts. Over the past year it has quadrupled its budget for its primary political campaign, called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, according to news reports The campaign has run advertisements on TV touting the benefits of coal and maintains its own Web site at www.americaspower.org.
Follow the Coal Money is partly a response to that campaign. Its mission is touted on the front page: As Congress debates how to address two of coal's biggest problems mountaintop removal and global warming you can find out how polluters are influencing lawmakers with their dirty coal money.
**************
I believe it is simply a given that politicians are too devoid of true moral insight as to understand the amount of damage this form of energy continues to do to the planet and the health and safety of human beings. This is why I have little faith that any sort of comprehensive climate bill will pass in Congress regardless of who sits in the White House. In order for that to happen they would have to have a moral epiphany... or, see that the people have taken it upon themselves to bring the alternate energies we need to sustain ourselves and this planet to market. Solar and wind are booming now, but you won't hear that from the corrupt Congress that continues to collect the money of the coal and nuclear industries while touting how much they are for the environment... even as they work to kill tax incentives for those very alternate energy sources they claim we need.
The site Appalachian Voices put together now allows you to follow the members of Congress who talk out of both sides of their mouths to see how much they are taking from coal and to hold them accountable for it as they are accomplices in the continued erosion of our environment. Hopefully louder voices will be heard on the part of the people knowing they have the power to then tell these representatives that if they continue to side with the destruction of our planet in the form of pollution and it's contribution to climate change that we the people have the power to see to it that they do not serve us any longer. It has to begin with us, because it sure isn't going to begin with them. Want to know how much money your elected representative in Washington, D.C., received from the coal industry? A North Carolina environ... more -
Xcel energy takes steps to shut down coal plants
State regulators have approved a plan by Xcel Energy Inc. to shut down two coal-fired power plants in Colorado, citing benefits to public health and concerns about carbon-dioxide emissions.
It's the first time in the nation a utility has volunteered, and regulators have approved, a plan to shut down power plants because of CO2 emissions, which are linked to global warming.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission spent Monday and Tuesday discussing a plan from Xcel Energy Inc. (NYSE: XEL) to meet its customers power demands for the next several years. A written order offering specific details of the decision is expected in a few weeks.
The closures are two to four years away, and Xcel has proposed using natural gas to make up for the lost power supplies.
In reaching the decision the commission was trying to move Xcel Energy toward carbon reduction goals that Gov. [Bill] Ritter has outlined in his climate action plan, PUC spokesman Terry Bote said Wednesday.
Also, they were adding renewable-energy resources in a cost-effective, technically feasible manner, ensuring an adequate supply of electricity in the future and being respectful of the cost that consumers have to bear, he said.
Xcel, based in Minneapolis, is Colorado's largest utility, serving about 70 percent of the population with natural gas and electricity.
When Xcel filed its plan in late 2007, the utility proposed shutting down the coal units at the Arapahoe power plant in Denver, near Santa Fe Drive and Evans Avenue, and the Cameo plant in Grand Junction.
We are pleased that the commission has agreed with our proposal to close two of our power plants, as we continually move toward reducing our carbon dioxide emissions in Colorado, said Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz.
Gov. Ritter last year called for a 20 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emission by 2020. These closures will reduce our emissions by 1.4 million tons a year and put us well on the way toward meeting the governor's goal, Stutz said.
The plants together can generate a total of 229 megawatts of electricity. Xcel proposed replacing the coal-fired generators at Denver Arapahoe power plant with ones that use natural gas and can generate 480 megawatts of power, but a decision on that plan has been postponed.
With the commissioners approval, the Cameo plant near Grand Junction is scheduled to close by December 2010. The Arapahoe station in Denver is slated for closure by December 2012, Stutz said.
The Colorado Public Utilities Commission has set a clear path for Colorado's energy future, said Keith Hay, energy advocate for Environment Colorado, an advocacy group. Colorado will be a leader in clean, renewable energy, and we'll close down coal-fired power plants and replace that energy with renewable resources.
We need to look at renewable resources first, and we need to get off of expensive and environmentally costly fossil-fuel resources. Solar is a better investment today and will be a better investment for tomorrow to supply energy for Colorado, Hay said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now this is the direction we need to go in! State regulators have approved a plan by Xcel Energy Inc. to shut down two coal-fired power plants in Colorado, citing benefits to pub... more -
New 1.8 billion dollar coal plant breaks ground
If you drive your car to work and know its bad the people of rual south west Virgina will go to work on a coal plant knowing its bad.
-
Navajo Nation targeted by King Coal!
After all these people have been through, coal wishes to poison there lives even further. The article says 66 of 73 tribal leaders are for the plant yet does not quote anyone other than the company spokesman. It also tells of a year long protest at the proposed site.
There , I edited. After all these people have been through, coal wishes to poison there lives even further. The article says 66 of 73 tribal leaders are... more -
EPA approves coal fired plant at Desert Rock despite opposition from Navajo Nation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an air permit for Desert Rock Power Plant on Thursday, the final day it was mandated to act on the long-delayed permit.
EPA agreed to act by Thursday after it was sued by the Dine Power Authority and Sithe Global Power earlier this year.
U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., informed The Daily Times of the decision after he received the news from EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on Thursday morning.
Opponents of the proposed 1,500-megawatt, coal-fired plant, which would be built near Burnham on the Navajo Nation, criticized the decision.
"This is a serious blow to the Navajo tribal members who provided comments to EPA. The U.S. EPA has failed us and undermined us", said Dailan Long, Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, one of the groups that opposed construction of Desert Rock. "Nothing is being done about the health issues we raised. The tribal elders are outraged that their comments were ignored."
Also outraged is Elouise Brown of Dooda Desert Rock.
"I hope and pray the people who made this decision never sleep again", she said. "How can people make this kind of decision that puts people at risk?"
Brown characterized the power plant as a "kind of torture to our people, Mother Earth and the environment.
"If they're part of EPA they have to realize the pollution goes worldwide, it's just not affecting my family ... somebody's paying off somebody", she said. "If your relative is sick (from pollution and its health effects) money will not buy their health back."
Brown vowed to continue fighting the Desert Rock plant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Johnson is a murderer. He is condoning cancer, asthma, toxic waste, and climate change. This is an outrage. Haven't we done enough to torture the Native American community in this country? The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an air permit for Desert Rock Power Plant on Thursday, the final day it was mandated t... more -
Climate activists occupy proposed site for coal plant in Britain
Climate change activists yesterday occupied the proposed site for Britain's first coal-fired power station in 30 years, claiming the development will cause huge damage to the environment if it goes ahead.
More than 150 protesters descended on the site near the village of Kingsnorth in Kent ahead of next week's Camp for Climate Action, which is expected to attract thousands of environmentalists.
Activist Connor O'Brien said: "The purpose of the climate change camp is to target those businesses and companies who are involved in bringing about destructive climate change. This is the first of six coal-fired power stations being planned in the UK and if they go ahead the impact on the environment will be catastrophic."
The protest started on Sunday when environmentalists gathered at Heathrow airport - the scene of last year's camp - before travelling across London in a "green caravan", stopping off each night to highlight their objections to the proposed power station. The caravan is expected to arrive at Kingsnorth on Sunday along with hundreds of other protesters.
O'Brien said: "We want to make the issue of coal-fired power stations so big and so toxic that they will be widely opposed by the public and it will be impossible for them to go ahead. What we need is properly sustainable solutions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amen. As long as no one gets hurt in these protests, I back them 100%. It is time to fight big coal and its destruction of our environment and humans and other species. If this is the only way to get that noticed, I'm for it. Too bad people in the US on the whole are more distracted by tabloid news than actually getting up and doing something to save this planet and ourselves. I hope we see more of these. Climate change activists yesterday occupied the proposed site for Britain's first coal-fired power station in 30 years, claiming ... more -
Appalachian residents have found the antidote to coal: Wind
If Senator Barack Obama ever needs a living symbol of change we can believe in, and a hopeful way to transcend the dirty politics of our failed energy policies, he should go and see the future of renewable energy in the Coal River Valley in West Virginia.
Yes, renewable energy in Appalachia.
Something historic is taking place in West Virginia this summer. Faced with an impending proposal to stripmine over 6,600 acres -- nearly 10 square miles -- in the Coal River Valley, including one of the last great mountains in that range, an extraordinary movement of local residents and coal mining families have come up with a counter proposal for an even more effective wind farm.
Mother Jones, the miners' angel, once declared: "Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living."
Having witnessed the destruction of over 470 mountains and their adjacent communities in Appalachia, the Coal River Valley citizens are doing just that. On the frontlines of one of the most tragic environmental and human rights scandals in modern American history, the community-wide Coal River wind advocates have devised a blueprint to get beyond the divisive regional politics and break the stranglehold of King Coal on the central Appalachian economies.
The Coal River Wind Project is the first bottom-up community-based full scale assessment to directly counter the nightmare of mountaintop removal with a renewable energy and economy alternative prior to the actual mining.
We have a choice. It is not simply coal or no coal. Jobs or no jobs. The issue is how do we create jobs and clean energy forever, and begin the transition in Appalachia and America away from dirty coal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is so wonderful. To see residents standing up to big coal to truly bring jobs and health to the Appalachians. Wind is the alternate energy source for this area, and I stand with them in getting this done. And if Barack Obama does care for change, he will stop touting "clean coal" and stand by these residents and their initiative to bring real clean energy and jobs to this part of the country that has been so devastated by the toxic legacy coal has left in its wake. If Senator Barack Obama ever needs a living symbol of change we can believe in, and a hopeful way to transcend the dirty politics of o... more -
Obama's record on coal support
In May 1998, at the urging of the state's coal industry, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill condemning the Kyoto global warming treaty and forbidding state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
Barack Obama voted "aye."
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee now calls climate change "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," and proposes cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050. But as a state senator, from 1997 to 2004, he usually supported bills sought by coal interests, according to legislative records and interviews.
Obama is not the only politician whose public stance has shifted on global warming, which a scientific consensus says has been caused chiefly by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, who now backs limits on carbon emissions, was among 95 U.S. senators who voted in 1997 to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, an emissions reduction scheme that had been negotiated by then-vice president Al Gore.
Still, Obama, who touts his independence from special interests, made a point of embracing the coal industry as part of his quest for statewide office. When he ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he was flanked by mine workers to proclaim that "there's always going to be a role for coal" in Illinois.
snip
Obama's other votes on coal in the state Senate included:
• In 1997, he voted to divert sales taxes to a fund for grants to help reopening closed coal mines and "incentives to attract new businesses that use coal."
• In 2001, Obama voted for legislation that offered $3.5 billion in loan guarantees to build coal-fired power plants with no ability to control carbon emissions.
• In 2003, he voted to allow $300 million in taxpayer-backed bonds to build or expand coal-fired power plants.
"You know, I am a strong supporter, I think, of downstate coal interests and our need to prop up and improve the outputs downstate," Obama said on the Senate floor before voting on the 2001 bill.
~~~~~~~~~
I expect to see this from a Republican. I expected better from a Democrat. In May 1998, at the urging of the state's coal industry, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill condemning the Kyoto global warmi... more -
U.S.coal company Brought to Trial in Canada
On Monday, July 7, 2008 the Ontario Court of Justice set a trial date in the prosecution of DTE Energy Company. The Michigan-based coal-fired power plant operator faces charges for polluting the St. Clair River. Judge Austin scheduled an ex parte trial after the accused declined to appear in Sarnia court on Monday. This is the first time that a U.S. company has faced prosecution in Canada for transboundary pollution.
Detroit Edison, a wholly owned subsidiary of DTE, operates the St. Clair/Belle River coal-fired power plant complex in eastern Michigan. Monitoring data show that these facilities emit hundreds of pounds of mercury each year, with more than half landing locally in Canada and the St. Clair watershed. In 2004 mercury reduction technologies that were installed at the St. Clair plant for a 30-day test period achieved a 94 percent reduction in emissions. At the end of the 30 days, the technology was removed and the company went back to emitting significant amounts of mercury.
When the mercury enters the St. Clair River, it spreads throughout the food chain, harmfully altering fish habitat and rendering fish unsafe for human consumption in violation of Canadian fisheries law. Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin; a single gram of mercury per year is enough to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point that fish are unsafe to eat. Both the state of Michigan and the province of Ontario have issued mercury fish advisories for the St. Clair River.
Scott Edwards, the Informant in Edwards v. DTE Energy, initiated the private prosecution in early 2007. Under Canadian law, citizens can use the criminal courts to prosecute individuals and corporations for violations of the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act is one of the country's most powerful environmental laws, making it an offence to deposit pollutants into waterways, harmfully impact fish habitat, or contaminate fish. Violators face potential fines and jail time if convicted. On Monday, July 7, 2008 the Ontario Court of Justice set a trial date in the prosecution of DTE Energy Company. The Michigan-based coa... more -
Coal killing the people of West Virginia
The Center for Disease Control estimates that 12,000 coal miners died from black lung between 1992 and 2002.
Coal plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the US.
For more check out: http://www.coal-is-dirty.com
A special thanks to: http://www.burningthefuture.com/
~~~~~
How can we as Americans sit and watch this happen in our country when there are viable alternate energies to bring jobs to Appalachia and health to its citizens with cleaner water and air? The Center for Disease Control estimates that 12,000 coal miners died from black lung between 1992 and 2002. ... more -
Tax-free financing for coal power plants under attack
Environmental activists and others are opening a new frontier in their fight against coal-fired power plants by questioning the use of tax-exempt bonds to help fund such projects.
New York City Comptroller William Thompson earlier this month called on the U.S. Treasury Department to investigate tax-free bond use in financing the plants. He cited the potential for expensive regulatory changes aimed at curbing greenhouse gases, the escalating cost of coal and subsequent risks to investors and taxpayers.
The Sierra Club also has been warning about the use of tax-exempt financing for coal plants owned by public or private entities, according to Becki Clayborn, a regional representative for the group.
"To us, it's a huge risk on taxpayers that doesn't need to be there," she said.
Last fall, the Sierra Club sent letters to municipal members of American Municipal Power-Ohio about financial risks attached to the nonprofit power wholesaler's involvement in the Prairie State coal-fired plant Peabody Energy Corp is building in southern Illinois.
"This massive power plant, which has not yet been built, would not only be a large source of water pollution, air pollution and global warming emissions, but will likely put your municipality at financial risk," the letter said. It pointed to escalating cost estimates for the project and legislation in the U.S. Congress that if passed, could raise the cost of power produced by the plant.
~~~~~~~~
Gee, why don't all those squawking about a carbon tax that would be revenue neutral complain about higher utility bills because of stunts like this? You are already being taxed by big coal. Environmental activists and others are opening a new frontier in their fight against coal-fired power plants by questioning the use of... more -
Blasting the Appalachian Economy
The Apppalachian people, along with our oldest mountains, are paying the full price for coal. Coal companies are really good at making promises.
The families and communities of Appalachia have, in fact, been the beneficiary of coal company promises for 150 years, with a lasting peace and prosperity always “just over this next dune,” or in the case of Appalachia…just under our next mountain.
Over the last 30 years in Appalachian coal country we have seen more than 1 million acres of some of the most bio-diverse forest in the world destroyed, more than 1200 miles of vital American headwater streams buried and polluted by mountaintop removal mining waste, and over 474 mountains blasted to rubble by mountaintop removal coal mining (check out Appalachian Mountaintop Removal in Google Earth ).
All the while, coal companies have promised up that while there may be some environmental trade-off to mountaintop removal mining – it was SURE to bring great jobs and prosperity to the region. But while many corporate zillionaires from outside the region have profited mightily off of our resources, the Appalachian people have learned that mountaintop removal does the same thing to our economy that it does to our beloved mountains.
In 1995, Harvard economists Jeffery Sachs and Andrew Warner discovered a clear negative relationship between natural resource-base exports, including agriculture, minerals, and fuels, and GDP growth.
They dubbed this phenomenon "The Resource Curse."
Of the 95 countries they investigated, only two achieved a 2% annual GDP growth rate between 1970-1989. A more common occurrence was increased poverty, warfare, and civil strife.
Electric power generation pulled in more than $380 billion in 2005. More than half of that electricity generation came from coal.
If we’ve been mining coal for 150 years...why are the people of Appalachia among the poorest in the country? The Apppalachian people, along with our oldest mountains, are paying the full price for coal. Coal companies are really good at making... more -
EPA proposes allowing coal plants to be built near national parks
Critics fear the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will adopt a rule in the waning days of the Bush administration that will make it easier to build coal-fired power plants near national parks.
The proposed change, pending since last June, comes as the utility industry moves into its biggest building boom in coal-fueled power plants in decades. To meet growing electricity needs, more than 20 plants are under construction in 14 states and more than 100 are in various stages of planning.
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, vowed in an interview with The Associated Press to push Congress to overrule the EPA if it enacts the rule, perhaps as early as this summer.
The new rule would change the way states, the EPA and others calculate the impact of a new pollution source, like a coal plant, on a park's maximum pollution load, said John Bunyak of the National Park Service's Air Resources Division in Denver. Instead of weighing peak periods of pollution, the new rule would use annual averages.
Don Barger, southern regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, compared it to a person sticking one hand in a block of ice and the other in a fire.
"Your average temperature is just fine, but your hands are not," he said. "You are getting some real impact there."
As an example, he said air quality in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the country's most-visited national park with more than 9 million visitors a year, recently reached an "orange alert" pollution warning. The park straddles the Tennessee-North Carolina border.
When that happens, "the park is getting hammered. People in the park are getting hammered. Plants in the park are getting hammered," Barger said. "It doesn't matter where it averages out some other time. You have a family from Ohio on vacation. It is the only time they are going to be there. What views can they see? What air are they breathing?"
EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn said the rule is part of an EPA program to prevent air quality degradation in national parks and would not change the level of emissions allowed in clean-air areas.
But in a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, Alexander writes that the National Park Service and the EPA's own regional air quality experts have determined the proposal would result in undercounting of actual pollution sources.
Alexander wrote that the National Park Service says the rule "provides the lowest possible degree of protection" for 156 so-called Class 1 areas that include the country's most revered national parks and preserves, from Acadia in Maine to Yellowstone in Wyoming. Critics fear the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will adopt a rule in the waning days of the Bush administration that will make i... more -
The Coal Hard Facts
#1: Coal Increases Rates of Disease
The United States burns more than a billion tons of coal each year – that’s 20 pounds of coal for every person in the country, every day.
According to the American Lung Association, 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and anadditional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2: Coal Kills Jobs
Despite coal industry claims that coal mining creates lots of jobs, the truth is that coal mining employment has been declining for decades, due to increased use of machinery instead of manpower.
In West Virginia alone, coal mining employment has plummeted from 126,000 miners in 1948 (who produced 168 million tons of coal), to just 15,000 miners employed in 2005 (who, with the help of machinery, produced 128 million tons of coal).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3: Burning Coal Emits Mercury
Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S. Mercury emissions from electrical generation continues to rise.
Mercury in mothers' blood and breast milk can interfere with the development of babies' brains and neurological systems and can lead to learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, problems with coordination, lowered IQ and even mental retardation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4: Burning Coal is Fuel for Global Warming
The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Burning coal contributes 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#5: Coal Kills Miners
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 12,000 coal miners died from black lung disease between 1992 and 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#6: Coal Wastes Huge Quantities of Water
Coal mining requires an estimated 70 to 260 million gallons of water every day.
~~~~~~~~
Continued at the link where you can find out how to stand up to 'clean coal' in your community and online. #1: Coal Increases Rates of Disease ... more -
China's Shoreline Waters Seriously Polluted
Vast stretches of China's coastal waters are seriously polluted, and the country's coastal wetlands and mangrove forests are vanishing, Xinhua news agency reported on Sunday, citing a marine specialist.
Luan Weixin, a professor at the Economics and Management College at Dalian Maritime University, said 50 percent of inland coastal wetlands had disappeared because of excessive reclamation and 80 percent of coral reefs and mangrove forests had been destroyed over the past 50 years.
Severely affected areas included waters near East Liaoning, Bohai and Hangzhou bays, and the estuaries of the Yellow, Yangtze and Zhujiang rivers, as well as inshore areas of major coastal cities, he told a conference in the northern coastal city of Tianjin.
"Over the past 20 years or so, China's marine economy has been developing at a staggeringly rapid pace and marine resources are being widely tapped. As a result, the condition of China's inshore environment is deteriorating and the ocean ecology has been seriously damaged," Luan said.
He was referring to the economic boom along coastal areas, including fishing but also land reclamation for development and construction of hotels and ports.
~~~~~~
Economic prosperity at what price? Vast stretches of China's coastal waters are seriously polluted, and the country's coastal wetlands and mangrove forests are... more -
Earth First! blockades dominion power Head Quarters
Some folks in our Bio-Region are heating things up on coal. Check out more pictures.
“Richmond VA – At 7:55am Tuesday morning, activists with Blue Ridge Earth First! established a blockade at the entrance to Dominion Power’s James River headquarters. Three youth activists locked themselves to one another, blocking both lanes of the only road in and out of the office complex for close to an hour. Supporters stood-by holding signs and banners demanding “No Coal for Virginia”. This action was done in solidarity with the growing campaign challenging Dominion’s proposed coal-fired power plant in Wise County, VA.
The youth activists maintained the blockade for approximately an hour and a half. After 45 minutes, the police dragged the three locked down to the side of the road, thus permitting Dominion employees to pass to work. After the blockade, the three activists locked down received a summons for blocking traffic.
Participants traveled from all corners of the state for this action. They represent the youth voice opposed to Dominion’s coal-fired power plant. “Climate change is jeopardizing my future and I’m not going to just sit by and let Dominion lock us into another generation of dirty coal,” added Marley Green, a student who participated in the roadblock. The youth movement has been gaining momentum around this campaign, demanding Dominion and Virginia politicians implement clean, renewable energy in place of dirty coal.
“It’s clear that if this power plant is going to be stopped, we the people are going to have to stop it,” said Hannah Morgan, a former Wise County resident and current landowner who was locked down in the blockade.
Since Dominion announced its plans for the plant in 2006, protests, petitions, public comments, and other displays of opposition have poured out from communities across the state. If built, the power plant would release 5.4 million tons of CO2 annually, making it one of the biggest polluters in the state. The plant would also emit other greenhouse gases, 49 pounds of mercury, and other dangerous pollutants into our air and water. Furthermore, the plant would accelerate the rate of mountaintop removal mining in Virginia. Mountaintop removal has already destroyed 25% of Wise County’s Mountains, and threatens the lives of all Appalachians.” Some folks in our Bio-Region are heating things up on coal. Check out more pictures. ... more -
Mounting costs slow the push for clean coal
For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground.
President George W. Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of "clean coal." All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology.
But it has become clear in recent months that the nation's effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.
In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.
Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.
Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming.
"It's a total mess," said Daniel Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.
snip
Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere.
Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is exactly why I have criticized and will continue to criticize the presidential candidates. They are lying to the American people about this. All of them have given campaign stump speeches intimating that this technology is already perfected and only a couple of years away.They use this lie to validate the fact thar they will allow coal companies to continue to spew their toxic and climate change causing garbage into our atmosphere for the next twenty years without real penalty under the guise of a "cap and trade" system that I am almost certain will be manipulated to benefit them.
We don't need carbon sequestration, and i personally believe it would be detrimental to underground water systems and acquifers. What we need is AGGRESSIVE action regarding bringing solar, wind, and other alternate energies to market.
I feel as though I type this over and over and over again, and still see nothing happening. We have deserts in this country that could hold enough solar arrays on them to power the homes of hundreds of thousands of people, and here they sit in Congress and on the campaign trail talking about "clean coal."
Like nuclear plants and desalination plants, carbon sequestration is a risky expensive bandaid to allow busniness as usual with the illusion of moral courage. That is all. I will not believe this Congress is serious about tackling climate change until they stand up to these toxic industries to wean us OFF of them and give the people what they want and what this planet must have in order to adequately sustain us and our children: CLEAN, affordable, SAFE alternate energies. For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from ... more -
How Clean Coal Cooks Your Brain
"Clean coal" is not an actual invention, a physical thing – it is an advertising slogan. Like "fat-free donuts" or "interest-free loans."
Several years ago, in Gillette, Wyoming, I fell into a long conversation with the vice-president of a large American coal company about coal's public image problem. Gillette is in the center of the Powder River Basin, the epicenter of the coal boom in America, where 60 foot seams of coal sit just below the surface.
This vice president, who did not want his name to appear in print, was deeply concerned about coal's future and expressed frustration with environmental attacks on coal, suggesting that it was all a problem of perception: "People don't like coal because it's black," he told me.
"If it were white, all our problems would be solved."
Whenever one of those slick ads for "clean coal" pops up on CNN, I think about that conversation in Gillette. The $35 million "clean coal" campaign, spearheaded by a coal industry front group called American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (formerly known as Americans for Balanced Energy Choices),is nothing less than a nationwide effort to paint coal white.
And to the coal industry's credit, they're doing a pretty good job. "Clean coal" is touted by Republicans and Democrats alike as the solution to America's energy troubles.
The logic is simple: America has lots of coal. We are a technologically advanced society. Ergo, we can clean up coal. What's the problem?
Well, here's one: "clean coal" is not an actual invention, a physical thing – it is an advertising slogan. Like "fat-free donuts" or "interest-free loans," "clean coal" is a phrase that embodies the Bush-era faith that there is an easy answer for every hard question in America today. We can have a war in Iraq without sacrifice. We can borrow more than we can afford without worrying about how we'll pay it back. We can end our dependency on oil by powering our SUVs with ethanol made from corn. And we can keep the lights on without superheating the climate through the magic of "clean coal."
Here's another: mining and burning coal remains one of the most destructive things human beings do on this earth. It destroys mountains, poisons water, pollutes the air, and warms the atmosphere. True, if you look at it strictly from the point of view smog-producing chemicals like sulfur dioxide, new coal plants are cleaner than the old coal burners of yore. But going from four bottles of whiskey a week down to three does not make you clean and sober. we breathe
Of course, the "clean coal" campaign is not about reality – it's about perception. It's an exercise in re-branding. Madison Ave. did it for Harley Davidson motorcycles and Converse shoes. Why not Old King Coal?
~~~~~~~
Time to stand up to King Coal for our future. Time for presidential candidates to start telling the truth about it. "Clean coal" is not an actual invention, a physical thing – it is an advertising slogan. Like "fat-free donuts" or... more -
Six Ways Coal Destroys Mountains
1. CLEARING
Before mining can begin, all topsoil and vegetation must be removed. Because coal companies frequently are responding to short-term fluctuations in the price of coal, these trees are often not even used comercially in the rush to get the coal, but instead are burned or sometimes illegally dumped into valley fills.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. BLASTING
Many Appalachian coal seams lie deep below the surface of the mountains. Accessing these seams through surface mining can require the removal of 500-800 feet or more of elevation. Blowing up this much mountain is accomplished by using millions of pounds of explosives.
Click here for a photo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. DIGGING
Coal and debris is removed by using this piece of machinery, called a dragline. A dragline stands 22 stories high and can hold 24 compact cars in its bucket. These machines can cost up to $100 million, but are favored by coal companies because they displace the need for hundreds of jobs.
Click here for a photo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. DUMPING WASTE
The waste from the mining operation, also known as overburden or spoil, is dumped into nearby valleys, burying streams. According to an EPA environmental impact statement, more than 1,000 miles of Appalachian streams were permitted to be buried as of 2001.
Click here for a photo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. PROCESSING
The coal is washed and treated before it is loaded on trains. The excess water left over from this process is called coal slurry or sludge and is stored in open coal impoundments. Coal sludge is a mix of water, coal dust, clay and toxic chemicals such as arsenic mercury, lead, copper, and chromium. Impoundments are held in place by mining debris, making them very unstable.
Click here for a photo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. RECLAMATION
While reclamation efforts such as stabilization and revegetation are required for mountaintop removal sites, in practice, state agencies that regulate mining are generous with granting waivers to coal companies.
Most sites receive little more than a spraying of exotic grass seed, but even the best reclamation provides no comfort to nearby families and communities whose drinking water supplies have been polluted and whose homes will be threatened by floods for the hundred or thousands of years it will require to re-grow a forest on the mined site.
Click here for a photo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coal is a dirty, destructive, antiquated form of energy. It blackens our skies, pollutes our water, and sickens our people. We must wean ourselves from it to save ourselves and look to solar, wind, and other alternate energies to provide our energy needs for the future. What coal companies do to get coal is immoral and their ad campaigns are the height of deception and propaganda. I'm ready to stand up to them. Are you? We must because we are running out of time to do what we must do to keep us at 350ppm. 1. CLEARING ... more
-
