Indian Coal Plant Standards are Four to 20 Times Deadlier Than China's

In March of 2013, Conservation Action Trust, Greenpeace India, and Urban Emissions revealed a shocking death toll from coal-fired power plants in India. They found that 80,000 to 115,000 people die every year from air pollution caused by coal plants. Their report thrust the 'silent killer' into the spotlight. With numbers as high as those, the groups were curious to figure out why coal was killing so many Indians. They commissioned a subsequent analysis (see analysis here) comparing Indian power plant air emissions standards with those of China and Japan. It turns out the reason is somewhat obvious and perhaps even more shocking: Indian standards are anywhere between four and twenty times worse than those in China.

That's right, China - home to the "airpocalypse" and 1.2 million deaths from air pollution - has stronger coal plant pollution standards than India.

But just how bad are India's standards? Glad you asked, because you'd be shocked to know they are quite literally off the charts (Check out the comparison below). That's because India doesn't even have standards for sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides - both of which lead to deadly Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 pollution (A quick note: The charts below use 'nominal' figures to show what emissions from an uncontrolled coal plant might look like).

To help you understand why these standards are so important in controlling pollution, it's important to distinguish between technology-based and health-based standards. Many countries employ a multi-tiered approach to managing air pollution using a mix of both technology-based requirements and health based limitations. The technology based requirements affect coal plants and are those that are described above.

Kazakhstan: From Coal to Clean Energy?

Why is Kazakhstan, one of the world’s major oil producing countries, with 3 percent of recoverable oil reserves within its borders and an energy sector dominated by coal, going green? Because it makes economic sense, it is good for growth, it will create jobs, and it will reduce carbon emissions.

In 2008, the United Nations Development Program found that coal-fired power made up the majority of Kazakhstan’s energy sector, but just five years later the country is prepared to make a seismic shift. Last week, President Nursultan Nazarbayev announced a program to devote 1 percent of the country’s GDP towards slashing coal's share of the energy portfolio from 80 percent to less than 50 percent by 2030, replacing it with wind, sun and hydropower. This effort will not only help preserve Kazakhstan’s environment and conserve its resources, but also use Kazakhstan’s geographic location between Europe and Asia to position the nation as an international environmental and trade leader. By leading the green revolution, Kazakhstan can grow its GDP by 3 percent annually through 2050 and add 600,000 new jobs.

U.S. Coal Exports Causing Deaths in Europe

Increasing coal burning in Europe caused 2,000 additional premature deaths, with exports from the U.S. accounting for two thirds of that increase.

Coal-fired power plants are silent killers. Hour after hour these plants fill the air with toxic pollutants, including mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium and tiny sulphate and nitrate particles that go deep into people's lungs and bloodstream. These emissions caused 22,000 premature deaths in the European Union in 2010, through strokes, heart attacks, lung cancer and other diseases, as estimated in a new report from Greenpeace, based on research by the University of Stuttgart.

The EU has seen a problematic short term rise in coal burn over the past three years (though the long term trend is down, down, down). New statistics from BP place the increase at 11% with imports increasing a whopping 26%. One of the biggest sources of those deadly coal imports was the U.S., whose exports to the EU almost doubled. In fact the U.S. accounted for 65 percent of Europe's increased coal consumption. Which means, according to Greenpeace modeling results, 65 percent of the 2,000 premature deaths in the EU were caused by U.S. coal exporters. Not exactly an export to be proud of.

The Mayor of Indianapolis Is Electrifying his City

Ever wonder how fueling a gasoline car compares in cost to fueling a plug-in electric car? At this week's annual Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA) conference in Washington, D.C., the Department of Energy’s David Danielson announced a handy new web tool called eGallon that allows you to do just that. The site shows that on average in the U.S., it costs $3.65 per gallon in gasoline to fuel a car and the equivalent of only $1.14 per gallon to fuel a car with electricity.

The most interesting part of this tool is that you can search by all 50 states and D.C. to see how this differs throughout the country (check out your home state). In Illinois, for example, it costs an average of $3.84 per gallon with gasoline and $.99 per gallon equivalent in electricity to fuel a car. Danielson said DOE will update these numbers each month to reflect current gasoline and electricity prices in each state.

The fueling cost differential adds to the growing case being made for just how cost competitive are plug-in vehicles these days, as many manufacturers have recently announced new lower pricing options, especially for leasing EVs.

Maine Town Tells Coal Plant to Clean Up Its Act

Every week it seems like yet another small town gets fed up with the coal industry and demands action. This week's fantastic example comes from Eliot, Maine, where Tuesday night residents voted 906 to 560 to ask the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate dangerous sulfur dioxide pollution coming from the Schiller Station coal plant just across the border in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

I recently blogged about the dangers of sulfur dioxide pollution:  Exposure to sulfur dioxide for even five minutes can trigger asthma attacks and respiratory distress - a serious problem for the more than 3,500 kids in York County, Maine suffering from asthma.  Sulfur dioxide is also associated with aggravation of cardiac conditions, increased rates of hospitalization, and even death.

This fight against the Schiller Station coal plant started earlier this year, when Eliot residents embarked on an education and awareness campaign showing just how much the coal plant was polluting local air. Here's a model showing how much the coal plant's pollution affects people in New Hampshire and Maine. Over the past few months, our activists worked with local and state officials, and the plant owners as well.

Then the Eliot town council voted to put the issue of filing a "Good Neighbor" petition (part of the Clean Air Act) before the city. Communities can file a "Good Neighbor" petition requesting that the EPA investigate cross-border and out-of-state sources of air pollution that pose a threat to public health in their community.

"With just a handful of concerned citizens in the very beginning, we have been able to effectively raise awareness to the important issue of ensuring that our air is clean and healthy to breathe," said Kimberly Richards, an Eliot resident. "Our message that we won't allow large companies to dictate our living conditions has been embraced by communities beyond just Eliot, (even as far as Lee, NH). To me, that is what has made this campaign a great success. And I couldn't be more proud."

People power - that is what's making cities nationwide wake up to the dangers of coal. It was people power, Kimberly's neighbors and friends who, together, voted to protect their air.

"It's inspiring to see a group of concerned citizens, especially in a small town like Eliot, come together to take on and win against a powerful polluter," said Glen Brand, director of Sierra Club Maine. "Despite threats of frivolous lawsuits and a slick, misleading corporate ad campaign, the residents of Eliot sent a clear message that they want the coal plant cleaned up and that everyone in the Seacoast region deserves to breathe clean, healthy air."

The people of Eliot have spoken; Schiller should clean up its act. Clean air is a right no one should be denied and today’s vote is a victory for the town of Eliot and every family concerned about the air they breathe. When put to a vote, the right to clean air free of dangerous coal-fired pollution will always win out over corporate smoke and mirrors.

Today, thanks to Kimberly and her community, we're one step closer to a clean air victory in Maine, and in all of New England. As Catherine Corkery of Sierra Club New Hampshire said: "Pollution doesn't respect state lines. This isn't just a victory for the people of southern Maine, but for folks in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and across the Seacoast who suffer from the same pollution and deserve clean air."

-- Mary Anne Hitt, Beyond Coal Campaign Director

Five Senators Urge President Obama To Address Climate Change with Tough Standards on Carbon From Power Plants

Extreme weather is here once again. As I type this blog the threat of a major storm and possible derecho wind storm are causing many offices in Washington D.C. and the Federal Government to close early. Meanwhile four Western states are currently battling large raging wildfires fire because of the hot and dry conditions.

As the the impacts of climate change grow more severe, the pressure mounts on President Obama to address climate change by curbing the country’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions: coal-fired power plants.  Today, five senators from mid-Atlantic States -- Senators Robert Menendez (NJ), Charles Schumer (NY), Kristen Gillibrand (NY), Chris Murphy (CT) and Richard Blumenthal (CT) took a stand on this issue by urging President Obama to fulfill his obligation to address the causes of climate change and set tough standards to cut carbon pollution from new and existing power plants.   The Senators represent communities that were hit hard by 2012’s Hurricane Sandy, which destroyed thousands of homes and businesses, and inflicted massive damage to transit systems, infrastructures, and coastlines.

In April, the Obama administration missed a key deadline for finalizing carbon pollution standards from new power plants. The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set carbon pollution reduction standards for major emitters, and in 2012 the agency proposed standards that limit carbon pollution from new power plants. These first-ever standards would assure that new power plants not be built unless they could control and significantly limit their carbon pollution. Setting the standard for new power plants will also trigger the Agency’s requirement to set carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. Unfortunately, the EPA has missed its April 13, 2013 deadline to finalize the proposed rule, leaving the fate of these critical safeguards up in the air.

This past weekend the Obama administration and China agreed to limit hydrofluorocarbons in the two countries, and President Obama's top climate adviser said yesterday that the White House would follow that announcement with other major steps to curb greenhouse gases at home and internationally.  We must dramatically reduce carbon emissions and we urge President Obama and the EPA to finalize safeguards for coal plant carbon pollution as soon as possible. We also thank Senator Menendez and his mid-Atlantic colleagues for their strong leadership on this critical issue. 

--Liz Perera, Senior Washington Representative, Sierra Club

Sierra Club Demands End to Obstruction of Nominees in Senate

On December 6th, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed a piece of legislation in the Senate that would allow the debt ceiling to be raised. Just a few hours later, McConnell stood up on the Senate floor and filibustered his own legislation, effectively killing the bill that he had authored.

On May 9th, eight Republican members of the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works refused to do their jobs, failing to attend the confirmation hearing for EPA nominee Gina McCarthy and delaying a confirmation vote.

The ridiculous state of affairs in the Senate has reached comic proportions, and its having an impact not just on the prospects for new legislation, but on laws that are already in place. That’s because McCarthy’s not alone. Obstruction and inaction in the Senate has resulted in dozens of highly qualified nominees - tapped by President Obama to lead everything from the EPA to the National Labor Relations Board to courthouses across the country - being blocked from doing the jobs they were appointed to do. That doesn’t just mean vacancies at key watchdog agencies - it means the key safeguards those agencies are supposed to enforce are threatened.

In a new ad published today in the Roll Call newspaper, Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said it best: “We can’t hold big polluters accountable or protect the rights of American workers and consumers if we’ve got no cops on the beat...The Senate Majority needs to break the logjam and confirm the President’s qualified nominees to fix the Senate and show the American people they can still get things done.”

The facts are simple: they key safeguards we’ve fought for to protect our air, our water, our wildlife, and our planet are supposed to be enforced by agencies that are left without leaders because of Senate inaction. That’s why the Sierra Club is continuing to advocate for an end to the obstructionism.

A member of the Fix the Senate coalition, the Sierra Club is working with labor, civil rights, and other public interest organizations to demand an end to not just obstructionism on President Obama’s nominees but also filibuster reforms that will stop the legislative logjam in the U.S. Senate.

The ad pictured here is part of a series launched by the “Give Us 5” campaign - which includes a forthcoming ad from the NAACP - that focuses on increasing support for confirmation of stalled nominees for the National Labor Relations Board and highlighting the ongoing obstruction of candidates like Gina McCarthy.

Gina McCarthy has worked for both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. She has 25 years of experience protecting our air and water and has been praised by environmental groups, utility companies and Reagan-era officials alike. If there has ever been a qualified, bipartisan nominee, it is her. Yet, the only reason her confirmation has been delayed is politics.

It’s time the obstruction ended and we let government do its job. The Senate Majority can take action to end the inaction, fix the outdated Senate rules, and prove to the American people that they can actually get something done. The Sierra Club is proud to be working with a diverse coalition of allies to tell them to do just that.

--Sierra Club Media Team Intern Lauren Lantry

Annual Electric Vehicle Symposium Highlights Early Success

For electric vehicles, it's only the beginning.

That was the takeaway at last week's third annual EV symposium in Palo Alto, hosted by SAP and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. More than 250 people attended, and plug-in vehicles of several models filled the parking lot outside, including a Ford Fusion, Tesla Model S, and the Mini E. (A Honda Fit EV was supposed to be there, too, but it was sold that morning!)

Palo Alto is a suitable location for this event. Mayor Greg Scharff heaped praise on his city, saying that alternative fuel vehicles have helped the city decrease emissions by more than 20 percent in 2012. "Within a two-block radius of my house, there are five Teslas. Leafs, Volts, and Teslas are everywhere here," he said. California in particular is leading the charge, so to speak. The state adopted a goal of 1.5 million plug-ins on the road by 2025, which is projected to reduce carbon emissions by 1 million metric tons.

Since last year's event, the plug-in industry has grown healthily. Last month, U.S. sales of hybrids and plug-ins jumped 30 percent from May 2012. Tesla recently announced it is tripling its Supercharger network. And with so many models available, auto companies are responding to the demand and competition by making them more affordable than ever, especially when considering monthly lease and/or fueling costs. "For the first time, electric vehicles are penciling out cheaper than their gas-powered counterparts," reported the Los Angeles Times.

In Massachusetts, Being "Green" Is About More than Words

In a debate on Tuesday, Massachusetts’ Republican Senate candidate Gabrial Gomez claimed to be a “green Republican” who looks down on those in his own party who “deny science.” Unfortunately, his claims are based in a denial of reality.

While Gomez touted his supposed “green” credentials, he declared his undying support for the dirty and dangerous Keystone XL pipeline in the same breath. That’s a position that’s totally out of line with any desire to protect the air we breath, the water we drink, and the planet we love for generations to come.

The facts about Keystone XL are simple: it would create no new Massachusetts jobs, it would threaten the water supply for millions of Americans, and it would dump more climate-disrupting carbon pollution into our atmosphere than if you put 37 million more cars on the road or built 51 new coal plants.

If Gomez thinks that’s “green,” he must be colorblind. And if Gomez has a problem with those who “deny science,” maybe he should look at the company he keeps.

While Gomez may be trying to tell voters that he is a different kind of Republican politician, he’s taking the same position of those in the Senate like Mitch McConnell who been pushing fossil fuel boondoggles like Keystone XL while denying climate disruption and causing disarray in Washington. But Gomez isn’t just taking McConnell’s lead on Keystone XL - he’s taking his money, too.

In fact, Mitch McConnell’s been trying to funnel campaign cash straight to Gomez, sending out a fundraising plea declaring Gomez as a crucial part of “a Republican majority in the Senate.” Minority Leader McConnell even said he would match three times any donation to as much as $32,000!

If Gomez has a problem with people in his party like McConnell denying science, maybe he should stop taking their money.  

Massachusetts deserves a Senator who will stand up for a better, cleaner future - not play politics with our air, our water, and the future of our planet. Luckily, there is a real “green” candidate on the ballot who has been championing clean energy and climate action for decades - Congressman Ed Markey.

Markey’s name was on the most significant piece of climate legislation to ever pass the U.S. House. His name was on the bill to end the tax handouts the nation’s largest oil companies rake in every year. He co-sponsored energy-efficiency legislation that would create more than 100,000 new American jobs and save families thousands of dollars on their electricity bills. He has supported life-saving protections from toxic mercury pollution that will prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths and 130,000 asthma attacks every year, and has voted to turn back assaults on the Clean Air Act and curb the emission of neurotoxins and other poisons from coal-fired power plants to help prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths every year.

The list goes on - and the best news is that Markey is making it a centerpiece of his campaign. In fact, the National Journal called Markey the “first real climate candidate.”

The difference in Massachusetts seems to be between rhetoric and reality. While Gabriel Gomez may be trying to convince voters he’s something he is not, Ed Markey has already proven what he is - an environmental hero.

--Sierra Club Media Team Intern Lauren Lantry

Paid for by the Sierra Club Political Committee, www.sierraclub.org, and authorized by The Markey Committee.

 

 

A Sweetheart Deal for Big Coal is a Slap in the Face to American Families

Imagine your neighbor was the only person allowed to go shopping at the local grocery store. What's more, she negotiated a special arrangement with the store manager, where she can name her own price for everything they sell. After paying pennies for milk, eggs and bread, she then takes those groceries home and sells them to you and your neighbors for a staggering profit. A system like that wouldn't be sustainable to the grocery store - who is losing money every time your neighbor walks through the door - and it wouldn't be fair to you and the rest of your friends who are effectively subsidizing the neighbor's profits.

But that is exactly the system the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has set up for coal companies in Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin (part of which is pictured above). This week a highly-critical report (PDF) from the Department of Interior's Inspector General (IG) detailed a litany of flaws in the BLM's coal leasing program. The report found that big coal companies are essentially dictating their own prices to mine the coal under public land in Wyoming and Montana, then turning around and selling it at a huge premium. Taxpayers are losing out on billions of dollars, and the coal companies are reaping the profits.

The report identified numerous ways that BLM fails to accurately calculate the fair market value of its coal leases: it doesn’t include the potential for exporting coal in developing fair market value appraisals, it only allows one person in each BLM office to calculate the fair market value (which the report concluded could lead to a higher risk of fraud or undetected errors), and it regularly violates an Interior Secretary Order by failing to use the Interior's Office of Valuation Services to conduct independent fair market value appraisals.