Posts by Bruce Nilles

Wanted: A New Slogan for Coal
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on November 21, 2008 at 2:33 PM.

With dozens of new coal plants across the country now on hold because of last week's ruling requiring a second look at carbon emissions, the coal industry is stepping up its game. Already in Kansas they've sued the Sebelius administration in an attempt to prevent states from acting to fight global warming. 

We're stepping up our game in response and need your input. 

Already through our new website and online video at CoalIsNotTheAnswer.org, tens of thousands of people have learned the truth about coal -- revealing the reality behind the coal industry's slick $40 million advertising campaign that masks the harmful and polluting nature of coal-fired power plants.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

States Get Creative To Limit Coal Plants, But it's Not Enough
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on November 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM.

With the weak enforcement of environmental and health regulations by the Bush administration -- and the ever growing list of last minute rollbacks -- it is no wonder that  many states continue to take action into their own hands. Related to new coal plants, the Attorneys General in both South Carolina and New Jersey have spoken out against new coal-fired power plants in their state.

But more recently -- a consortium of Northeastern states have found an interesting way to make the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforce Clean Air Act rules in other states: use the Clean Water Act to go after mercury emissions.

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York are filing a provision "which requires the EPA to craft agreements to resolve multistate pollution issues, triggers a mandatory process for the EPA to control the atmospheric deposition of mercury that makes fish throughout the Northeast unsafe to eat."

We've heard this argument before in different ways -- but the basics are that even if one state is making great strides in utilizing clean energy to fight global warming and protect their air and water, other states' inactivity or further use of coal-fired power plants can negate that work. And many states have made the argument before that building a coal-fired power plant in one state will affect the quality of life in others.

So this move by the Northeastern states is not only a great way to force the EPA to do its job, but it also highlights how the problem of mercury emissions affects all Americans, no matter where the coal-fired power plant is.

Coal-fired power plants emit 42% of the country's industrial mercury pollution. When coal plants release mercury into our air, it rains down into our lakes, rivers and streams. The toxic mercury then makes it into our bodies via contaminated fish.

Mercury pollution causes brain damage and other developmental problems in unborn children and infants, and has been linked to a greater risk of coronary heart disease in men.

Yet coal-fired power plants keep resisting mercury regulations, claiming that mercury pollution sources can't be tracked.

But wait just a minute -- there are scientists also working now to discover the exact power plant and coal sources of mercury emissions -- as explained in this interesting article from the Christian Science Monitor. One article highlight:

"The new method relies on the ratio of mercury isotopes -- mercury atoms with differing numbers of neutrons -- to find where the mercury originates. Scientists gather coal from fields around the world, burn it, capture the escaping mercury, and determine its unique isotopic 'fingerprint,' says Joel Blum, a professor of geological sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor..."

Building new coal plants will only increase mercury pollution. -- yet another reason to oppose new coal plants and instead focus on increasing our reliance on clean energy. It's also another reason to push for more mercury regulation, much like the Northeastern states are doing.

p.s.- Want to know how much mercury is in your body? Which fish are safe to eat? Sign up to get tested and download our mercury survival guide: www.sierraclub.org/mercury

Voters Not Conned By Coal
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on November 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM.

This week's post was co-written by Mary Anne Hitt, the new deputy director of the National Coal Campaign.

Wow -- what an amazing and transformational time to be an American. Whether you have been voting for decades or you have just voted for the first time, the election of Barack Obama marks an incredible new chapter in the history of our nation, our planet, and our energy future.

In the midst of this renewed spirit of possibility and hope, it is worth noting that in the 11th hour of the Presidential election, as John McCain and Sarah Palin were making their last-ditch attempt to win swing states in America's heartland, they picked one final issue that they hoped would turn those states red. Of all the issues facing the nation -- the economy, health care, the war in Iraq -- which issue did the McCain campaign choose as its Hail Mary, its last hope to win the election?

Coal.

Did you notice something else?

It didn't work.

When the votes were counted, McCain lost critical coal-producing states he hoped to win over with his last-minute coal blitz -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, to name a few.

The coal industry spent millions this election season, sponsoring the debates and the conventions and blanketing the nation with so-called "clean coal" ads. But I imagine it didn't fool you, and if the election of Barack Obama taught us anything, it's that the American people are ready for honesty and integrity, not spin from well-funded industries. While we heard a lot about clean coal during the election, you know the facts:

- Coal is not clean
- Coal is not cheap
- Coal is not a replacement for oil
- Coal is not abundant

In local elections coal also took a beating, because citizens understand the economic benefits offered by clean energy and demanded that America move beyond coal. 

Here are just two examples:  In Missouri, a state with a long history of coal burning, voters by a margin of 2:1 passed a statewide initiative requiring the state's utilities to turn away from coal and meet 15 percent of their energy needs with clean energy. With its strong manufacturing base and great potential for clean energy, Missouri is now racing to catch up with other Midwest states, such as Minnesota and Iowa, to be a part of this clean energy revolution.   

In Sevier County, Utah, voters overwhelmingly approved an initiative that gives local residents the right to reject zoning for dirty coal plants.  This is likely the end of a long battle over plans to build a new coal plant in that county.

Clearly, the next four years presents us with an incredible, historic opportunity. We can halt the runaway global warming, restore clean air across America, and swiftly end mountaintop removal mining, by moving America beyond coal.  This is a challenge that America is ready to face with creativity and ingenuity, and we will need the help of each and every one of you to ensure we create a truly independent, clean energy future for our nation and our planet. Please join us and sign up here to support the Sierra Club's campaign to move America beyond coal.

How the Government Is Helping Mining Companies Destroy Our Water
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on October 23, 2008 at 2:50 PM.

And then there were none...The Stream Buffer Zone Rule, the last remaining legal impediment to devastating mountaintop removal coal mining is now just one step away from being abolished, thanks to an Office of Surface Mining decision announced late last week.

On Friday, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) released its assessment of stream buffer zones - basically giving mining companies the environmental green light to dump mining waste in or near streams.

For years the OSM has failed to enforce the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, which prevents mining within 100 feet of streams, in communities across Appalachia. So instead of enforcing the current law, the OSM decided to just get rid of it - saying this is best possible protection for the environment. In fact, OSM failed even to consider the concept of enforcing the current rule to protect streams and limit the size of mining waste disposal areas in its decision making.  All the alternatives considered involved mining in and around streams.

This decision seems to only aim for expediting mining without regard to environmental damage. And considering how frequently the Sierra Club and others keep finding coal mining companies conducting illegal mining (see Ison Rock, VA; Jellico, TN; and Fish Trap Lake, KY) and releasing unsafe amounts of toxic selenium (see Zeb Mountain, TN; and Hobet and Fola, WV) - you can see how this is just another excuse for these companies to avoid environmental regulations.

There is no doubt that mountaintop removal coal mining is devastating to water quality - one Environmental Protection Agency study found that 93 percent of streams downstream from mountaintop mining waste sites were unfit to support aquatic life.

The Environmental Protection Agency is now the only one standing between the mining companies and our waters. The Stream Buffer Zone cannot be repealed without EPA approval. A poll released today shows that two out of three people opposed repealing the rule, so contact the EPA today and demand that they to side with the American public.

China Sees the Light, Drops Coal-To-Liquid Plans
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on October 21, 2008 at 3:44 PM.

Just the other week, China's government took a bold step when it announced that it was halting immediately its plans to build all but two of its proposed coal-to-liquids projects.  Its rationale: "environmental and economic concerns."

This is the same argument we here at the Sierra Club have been making for the past year about the 10 coal-to-liquid plants proposed in the U.S: Liquid coal simply makes no financial or environmental sense.

Liquid coal is a major distraction of capital and attention away from the challenge and opportunity ahead. Liquid coal would emit 10 percent more global warming pollution than gasoline, all at a time when we are wrestling with how to slow and reverse global warming.  It is also extremely wasteful -- taking 3.5 gallons of water to make just one gallon of fuel.   

But U.S. coal companies, never missing an opportunity to push their harmful product, are strongly advocating liquid coal as the answer to our oil addiction.

The fight over liquid coal is centered in Ohio where Baard Energy wants to build a massive $4 billion coal-to-liquids plant on 650 acres near Wellsville in eastern Ohio. The plant would consume five billion tons of coal to produce about 50,000 barrels a day of diesel and jet fuels. The production of those 50,000 daily barrels will require 5.4 million gallons of water every day.

If allowed to proceed, the plant would begin construction this year and be ready for full operation in 2012.

When the Chinese government is saying coal-to-liquids projects are too dirty for China, what does it say about the current state of affairs in the United States when our government is still considering approving such filthy projects?

A Nasty, Four-Letter Word for Our Energy Crisis
Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club on October 9, 2008 at 2:51 PM.

While coal generates about half of America's energy -- it's also responsible for about 30 percent of our global warming pollution. Coal is the problem. And yet, as other industrial Kyoto-Protocol countries are working to cut their global warming emissions, the U.S. coal industry is pushing to build more than 100 new coal-fired power plants across the country.

Michigan is at the center of the coal versus clean energy debate. The state already:

• Has 19 technologically-outdated coal-fired power plants.
• Is sending $3 billion a year out of state to buy coal from Wyoming and Montana.
• Is lagging far behind many of its neighbors on clean energy investments.
• Has high unemployment.

Now the coal industry is pushing to build eight more old-fashioned coal-fired power plants in Michigan.

Just this week Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed into law a new energy efficiency and 10 percent renewable energy bill, the first step in her efforts to move the state toward a clean energy economy. The governor has also voiced support for requiring 25 percent of the state's energy to come from clean, renewable sources by 2025.

So how can Michigan move toward a clean energy economy while still increasing its use of coal? It can't -- Gov. Granholm's promise to create clean energy and cut pollution in Michigan will go up in smoke.

If just three of the eight plants are built, almost 15.5 million tons of CO2 pollution will be emitted each year, effectively nullifying all activities by the state to reduce global warming pollution. If all eight coal-fired power plants are built, they will emit as much new pollution as seven Northeast states are proposing to cut from all of their power plants.

That doesn't make much sense if you ask me.

The Sierra Club and other local groups are calling on Gov. Granholm to halt the construction of any new coal-fired power plants in the state until global warming regulations are in place -- a move that has broad public support.

In the meantime, Michigan has the technology today to begin meeting its energy needs with clean energy -- a transition that could have great economic benefits. Investing in the clean energy field could create over 61,000 jobs in the state, significantly lowering the unemployment rate.

The same is true across the U.S.: investing in clean energy will create jobs and boost the economy, all while fighting global warming. (It's already doing so in other states -- Iowa alone has 5,000 new jobs building windmills.)

And what's better: many clean energy jobs, such as those windmills builders, cannot be shipped overseas and use skills that workers already have.

The question facing Michigan is the same question facing many other states, and the same question facing our nation's leaders:

Do we put our ingenuity to work to power our future cleanly and create job ... or do we continue with business as usual, increasing our dependence on the fossil fuels that got us into this mess?