Clean Coal is an Oxymoron
-
-
Tell Obama and McCain we need clean energy not 'clean coal'
You can send a message direct to the campaigns by signing at this site. Tell both Obama and McCain campaigns that their misrepresentation of "clean coal" is only hurting the progress we should be making on the climate crisis. It is we who must set the agenda, and the agenda now to save our planet and ourselves is renewable energy.
From the site:
During the Vice Presidential debate, both Senator Biden and Governor Palin touted their support for "clean coal". But both presidential campaigns and Congress are missing the point: Conventional coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of global warming pollution in the United States. "Clean Coal" is a myth--a contradiction in terms. Coal companies claim they can develop coal plants at some point in the distant future that will capture and sequester carbon pollution. But carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is unproven and exorbitantly expensive.
We need real solutions, not coal industry myths. Use the form below to send a message to both Presidential campaigns: We need clean, green energy now! You can send a message direct to the campaigns by signing at this site. Tell both Obama and McCain campaigns that their misrepresentat... more -
Coal's dirty legacy one of our nation's greatest denials
Published on Thursday, October 9, 2008 by The Huffington Post
The Banality of Clean Coal: Extraction Crimes
by Jeff Biggers
"Three more retired coal miners died of black lung today. Over 105,000 Americans have suffered and died from black lung related diseases; 10,000 miners, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have died from black lung in the last decade.
Despite a recent spike in black lung diagnoses, U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration chief Richard Stickler recently announced he was too busy "to tackle respirable dust." Stickler's apathy is nothing new to coal miners and their families--until an aggressive grassroots campaign and a tragic accident attracted national media in 1968, most politicians and coal operators denied that black lung ever existed. Some doctors on the payroll of the coal companies even claimed that coal mining cured TB. In truth, the medical community had been aware of black lung disease since the 1830s.
Sound outrageous? Coal's dirty legacy has been one of our nation's most unbelievable denials.
In the 1970s, as the nation panicked during another oil crisis, the coal industry and its political allies announced a massive "clean coal" plan for coal-to-liquid gas conversion that would free us from foreign oil dependence. Sound familiar? Unfortunately, the coal conversion program turned into a prohibitive boondoggle, and the grand plans disappeared into the dirty air once the OPEC crisis subsided. In the process, the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from coal-fired plants ravaged our forests and lakes to the extent that we coined the term, "acid rain," to describe its devastation.
As they had done with black lung, the coal operatives and their political allies denied acid rain as an invention of environmentalists, despite the fact that scientists had been aware of the impact of sulfur dioxide emissions since the 1850s. Once again, it took an aggressive grassroots campaign to nudge Washington into signing the Clean Air Act in 1990.
According to a recent Gallop poll, the majority of Republicans do not believe global warming has begun, or that coal-fired plants generate over 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions. A quarter of the Democrats are on the same side of denial.
In the meantime, a new 1500 megawatt coal-fired plant being built in southern Illinois--one of the biggest in the nation--not only stands to emit 12 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, but sits on the edge of the New Madrid earthquake fault line." article continued below or at link above. Published on Thursday, October 9, 2008 by The Huffington Post The Banality of Clean Coal: Extraction Crimes by Jeff Biggers ... more -
Obama faces coal conundrum
As an environmentalist this is the one reason why Obama (and McCain to clarify) will not get my vote, because neither of them have gained my trust on this. I was looking this time for someone who would truly lead on the environment to bring the country to a higher consciousness to see that solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels (not ethanol) were what this country must have now to lead us into the 21st Century not only to save our planet but ourselves. It is an understatement to say that I am disappointed that there is not one candidate who is on that higher level of consciousness about this important crisis.
There is no change and there will not be significant progress regarding the climate crisis and political will if Obama (and yes, others as well) still plays to the coal industry while touting an environmental plan. As the article states, there is no such thing as clean coal... and it isn't only about that. It is about the cancer, and the mercury, and the asthma, and the lung diseases, and the toxicity, and the pollution... and the mountaintop removal that is destroying the beauty of this country. Yet, we didn't hear any of them talking about this in any campaign speech or in any debate.
Nothing about the devastation done to Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and other states in blowing up the mountains that will continue to be blown up regardless of how the coal is burned. This is why I concentrate on Obama. I know McCain is not going to care... I was hoping Obama would, but have seen more and more that he does not and I will not give him a free ride on it. I expect better and I expect truth from those who claim to want 'change' because real change means telling the people the truth. Yet he continues to lie every single time he discusses clean coal technology when he doesn't tell people the truth about the availability or feasability of it.
Some say this isn't enough to change their vote... all well and good. It is for me, because the longer candidates think they can still get votes no matter how much they fail us they won't ever try to keep their promises and earn them. I have had enough of politicians who claim to want to do the right thing but then turn around and do exactly what everyone else does or as the money dictates. And pushing 'clean coal' out of political expedience at a time when our Earth's delicate climate balance is on the brink of tipping instead of taking a true and bold moral stand is not the right thing to do now. As an environmentalist this is the one reason why Obama (and McCain to clarify) will not get my vote, because neither of them have gai... more -
'Clean coal' policies absent, Government Accounting Office finds
Federal policy-makers have taken few of the steps necessary if greenhouse emissions from coal-fired power plants are to be captured and stored underground, according to a new government report.
Coal industry backers are banking that "carbon capture and storage" will allow the industry to survive efforts to control global climate change.
But the U.S. Government Accountability Project report, released this week, adds to growing concerns that the technology isn't ready now - and might not be for a long time.
GAO investigators cited underdeveloped and costly emissions-capture technology and legal uncertainties about the permitting and liability for carbon dioxide that would be stored underground. National studies, industry leaders and top scientists have all pointed to key problems with CCS becoming a reality, the GAO noted.
"Federal agencies have begun to address some CCS barriers but have yet to comprehensively address the full range of issues that would require resolution for commercial-scale CCS deployment," the GAO said in a 69-page study made public Tuesday.
GAO officials also concluded that widespread deployment of CCS is unlikely to happen unless Congress passes binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
"The absence of a national strategy to control CO2 emissions not only leaves the regulated community with little incentive to reduce their emissions, it also leaves regulators with little reason to devise the practical arrangements necessary to implement the reductions," the GAO report said.
Scientists are becoming increasingly concerned about finding a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, while dealing with increasing worldwide demand for energy. Despite this concern, atmospheric concentrations carbon dioxide and emissions of the heat-trapping gas continue to increase.
Last week, international researchers reported that carbon dioxide emissions increased by 3 percent between 2006 and 2007. Greenhouse emissions have grown four times faster since 2000 than during the previous decade, according to a report from scientists with the Global Carbon Project.
Scientists believe that the greenhouse effect has already increased global temperatures by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the 20th century. Temperatures are expected to rise another 2 degrees, and perhaps as much as 11 degrees, over the next 100 years.
This warming will cause significant changes in sea level, ecosystems, and ice cover, among other impacts, the GAO noted in its new report.
more at the link Federal policy-makers have taken few of the steps necessary if greenhouse emissions from coal-fired power plants are to be captured an... more -
Al Gore calls for civil disobedience regarding coal plants at Clinton Global Initi...
Al Gore, the former vice president and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is nothing if not passionate on the issue of global warming. But his usual fired-up remarks on the subject took a step into the Gandhian realm on Wednesday when he told an audience at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York that the crisis was so severe and intractable that it was time for direct action.
If you are a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration, he said at the third annual meeting of former President Bill Clinton's initiative, which arranges partnerships between the very rich and the very needy.
Mr. Gore said the civil disobedience should focus on stopping the construction of new coal plants, which he said would add tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere despite half a billion dollars worth of advertising by the coal and gas industry claiming otherwise. He added, Clean coal does not exist.
The audience at the Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers, which was composed of hundreds of heads of state and chief executives, as well as representatives of philanthropic groups, reacted with scattered applause. There was a lot of shifting in seats.
Mr. Gore did not elaborate on his call for action. And almost as soon as the words civil disobedience were out of his mouth, Mr. Clinton, moderating a panel that Mr. Gore shared with the singer Bono, the president of Liberia, the chairman of Coca-Cola and Queen Rania of Jordan, turned to the queen to ask whether Middle Eastern countries might ever become models of clean energy usage. The discussion continued in a less-fiery vein from there.
_____________
I can just bet people at the Clinton Global Initiative were shifting in their seats. ;-) Mr. Gore, I love you for this and am with you 100%. The climate crisis is getting lost in all of the talk about this 'election' and the 'financial crisis' that is actually related to our current energy policy. We do need more young people out here peacefully protesting to save their environmental future which also means saving this economy. And we also need older people as well to set an example for younger people about how change is really made. It isn't made by going to a rally of someone who claims to have charisma and can talk us out of it and thinking you have done something. It's taking action ourselves. I hope his endorsee is listening. Al Gore, the former vice president and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is nothing if not passionate on the issue of global warming. B... more -
Carbon capture coal plant opens in Germany amid reservations
Energy giant Vattenfall has launched an emissions-free coal-fired test plant near Berlin using a technology touted as a huge potential breakthrough in the fight against global warming. But critics aren't convinced.
Swedish energy utility Vattenfall sees carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a revolutionary answer to global warming which is largely blamed on carbon dioxide released when fossil fuels burn.
"This technology will become more important than offshore wind farms," said Vattenfall boss Lars Josefsson.
"Our project at Schwarze Pumpe puts us at the forefront of this technology in the world," said Tuomo Hatakka, the chief executive of Vattenfall Europe, referring to the the 70-million euro plant in eastern Germany.
Vattenfall, one of Europe's largest energy companies, hopes the project will help provide energy security through plentiful coal supplies while avoiding the CO2 emissions that are blamed for global warming.
Critics aren't convinced
But environmentalists say the technology uses far more energy than existing power generation and warn that there are no secure long-term storage facilities for the gas.
German conservation group BUND on Monday denounced the project as simply a cover allowing Vattenfall to expand its network of conventional coal-fired power stations in Germany.
Some critics say the focus should be on expanding cheaper renewable energy rather than on polluting coal
Thorben Becker of BUND said it was still uncertain if CCS worked on a large scale. CCS power stations would obtain 10 per cent less power from the coal than conventional plants did, and it was not clear if there were enough suitable sites to dump the CO2.
"Instead of concentrating on far cheaper renewable energy, Vattenfall is locking itself in for decades to converting climate-damaging brown coal into electricity," he said.
******
And reservations that are well warranted. Pumping carbon into the porous rock as a liquid does nothing to dissipate it and may well effect groundwater supplies. Not enough is really known of the effects of continual pumping of CO2 into the ground. And what of the mercury and other toxic gases that are produced by burning and generating coal? And what of how it is extracted? How can any company claim CCS is "emissions free" when it takes emissions to strip the land for the coal in the first place? Not even to mention the environmental devastation coal mining leaves behind.
Also, what happens when you run out of room or places to pump it? Are we now to carbonize every square inch of our land because we are too lazy to actually work to not emit it at all? Whether you spew it into the air or pump it into the ground you are not cutting emissions you are hiding them. This is simply a slight of hand way for coal companies to continue emitting the same CO2 emissions by looking as though they have gone green. It is a way for them to continue the status quo with a new package and the same old ways.
I actually thought Germany was more advanced than this. I thought they would be one of the countries actually leading the way on doing the only thing we really can do to be sure that emissions are cut... actually cut them. Hiding them is not cutting them, it is just one more way humans will find as a short cut to make it easier for themselves (or what they think is easier) rather than looking to the other options right under their noses that do not require so much energy and environmental destruction.
There is no such thing as "clean coal." Energy giant Vattenfall has launched an emissions-free coal-fired test plant near Berlin using a technology touted as a huge potential... 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 -
Who will face up to the climate change crisis?
Obama and McCain both say global warming a problem, but are their proposals enough to make a difference?
The Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls put forward their respective energy and environmental platforms last week, addressing offshore drilling, coal, nuclear energy and fuel efficiency. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have said that Global warming is a problem and would make it a top priority. But would they go as far as NASA's Dr. James Hansen says is necessary before reaching what he calls the tipping point? The Real News spoke with Ben Wikler of Avaaz.org and Professor Catherine Gautier about the promises and shortfalls of the candidates' plans.
Ben Wikler is a campaign director for Avaaz.org, a global version of MoveOn.org, where he oversees efforts on climate change, global health, and other issues. Previously, he worked as press secretary for Congressman Sherrod Brown's US Senate campaign in Ohio, and was a founding producer of The Al Franken Show on Air America Radio.
Catherine Gautier is involved in educational aspects of climate change science and policy. Originally from Paris, France, Gautier directs the Institute for Computational Earth Systems Science at the University of California Santa Barbara. the book 'Facing Climate Change Together' was compiled and edited by Catherine Gautier and Jean-Louis Fellous. Obama and McCain both say global warming a problem, but are their proposals enough to make a difference? ... 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 -
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 -
National disaster, right under our noses.
Today I met a man ( around 60 yrs old) wearing a shirt that read Clean Coal on the front and Abundant, Cheap and Clean on the back. As I passed him I asked " Did Santa Clause bring you that shirt? " He replied "F#*kin' treehugger" I laughed as I walked away. How lucky was this man that I don't believe the marijuana B.S. either. Today I met a man ( around 60 yrs old) wearing a shirt that read Clean Coal on the front and Abundant, Cheap and Clean on the back. As... more
-
Solar not "clean coal"
My view on clean coal not being safe and to reiterate that if we truly want to bring ourselves into the 21st century, solar power is the answer. My view on clean coal not being safe and to reiterate that if we truly want to bring ourselves into the 21st century, solar power is t... 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 -
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 -
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 -
Celebrate clean coal, come on!
In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in America. In another, white and black, young and old, male and female, and even someone in a doctor's green scrubs, stare into the camera and soulfully declare: "I believe" American know-how will make coal clean and stop it from contributing to climate change. Not sold? Maybe you missed the newspaper ads and billboards warning that turning away from coal could mean blackouts, unemployment and higher electric bills.
These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as prospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more environmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants were either canceled or halted across the nation.
When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral right now."
The coal industry's woes have risen as worries over climate change have increased. Today's coal-fired plants emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. One new plant planned for Iowa, for example, would dump 5.9 million tons of the stuff into the air in just one year. Two proposed Kansas plants would add 11 million tons annually.
snip
As the coal debate continues, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced April 23 that global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 19 billion tons in the last year. The worldwide concentration is now 385 parts per million. The level that is expected to tip the world into disaster is 450 parts per million.
But climate change isn't raining on the coal industry's campaign. In April, Barack Obama acknowledged a voter sporting one of the industry's hats at a campaign stop in Dunmore, Penn., and then used the industry's own terminology to talk about his support for investing in carbon storage research. In an appearance in Charleston, W.Va., Hillary Clinton also used the industry's own words to pledge her support for doing the same.
Obama, Clinton and John McCain all favor legislation to fight climate change. The nearly identical programs proposed by the two Democrats are more far-reaching than that put forth by McCain. However, none of them support a moratorium on building new coal-fired plants.
Meanwhile, the Clean Coal marketing machine keeps rolling. As one commercial declares, coal powers "our way of life." On the soundtrack, Kool and the Gang sing, "Celebrate good times, come on!"
~~~~~~
What an insidious campaign. And all the presidential candidates go along with it! It is time to tell them to stop this pandering to those industries who care about nothing but their own balance sheets. CO2 levels are now the highest they have been in 650,000 years and it is because of the very garbage being spewed by coal plants.
"Clean coal" is an assault on reason! Shame on Obama, Clinton, and McCain for giving it credence to get votes while people die from its effects. In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in Am... more -
Clinton, Obama talk up clean coal
US Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking more about "clean coal" and less about global warming as they woo voters in West Virginia and Kentucky - two states that sit at the heart of the nation's coal economy.
In a bid to draw voters ahead of Democratic primaries in West Virginia tomorrow and Kentucky on May 20, both candidates are playing up the ascendant role of commercially untested and so far economically nonviable ways of converting America's plentiful coal supplies into electricity without spewing massive quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
"We need some big investments right now in figuring out how to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal," Senator Clinton told a rally in the rural town of Clear Fork.
To get there, she took a windy road through the Appalachian Mountains that passed at least four big coal mines cut into the mountainside.
Not to be outdone, Senator Obama's campaign has distributed flyers in Kentucky stating that "Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal." The flyers show a picture of giant barges carrying coal down the Ohio River.
Coal-fired power plants generate about half of US electricity supplies, and account for about 40 per cent of US greenhouse gas emissions - the biggest single industrial source. US Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking more about "clean coal" and less about glob... more
-
