Strong Grassroots Activism Helps Defeat Mountaintop Removal Scheme in Virginia

Even in coal country, Big Coal is being met with grassroots resistance it hasn't experienced before.

Last week, the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME) upheld an earlier decision to deny a permit for a mountaintop-removal mine on Ison Rock Ridge in Wise County in southwest Virginia after an appeal by the A&G Coal Corporation. The opposition was led by activists from the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards (SAMS) and the Sierra Club, and residents fed up with the destruction and devastating health effects from mountaintop-removal mining.

"I'm so pleased to finally see the DMME stand up for the people they are supposed to represent," said Sam Broach, president of SAMS. "The people living in the areas affected by surface mining can sleep well tonight knowing that the mountains above them won’t be blown up, and the air they breathe will be a little bit cleaner. This courageous decision will save our waterways, too."

The permit would have threatened to decimate nearby Callahan Creek -- already considered legally impaired by pollution -- and affect the health of families in the area. Nearly two dozen peer-reviewed studies have confirmed high rates of cancer, birth defects, and heart and lung diseases in people who live near mountaintop-removal sites -- a fact ignored by Big Coal. 

Dr. Kim's Deadly New Coal Plant?

That's a headline I never imagined I'd write. Those who follow the World Bank have grown painfully accustomed to ample rhetoric followed by limited results. It's par for the course. But even the most cynical and hardened rejoiced at the thought of a public health champion at the helm of this notoriously recalcitrant institution. But far from steering this ship in the right direction, World Bank President Dr. Jim Yong Kim is on the verge of overseeing his first deadly new coal plant.

Dr. Kim's new coal plant is a highly controversial project planned in Kosovo which has been described by Kim as a nightmare scenario where Kosovars are 'freezing to death' because they lack energy. Dr. Kim used those words to justify a painful trade off - a highly polluting new coal plant in a country where 835 people die from coal every year. Yes another coal plant that will kill people is needed to avoid more death by freezing. Is this the kind of tradeoff a pre-World Bank Dr. Kim would have accepted?

U.S. Taxpayers & the Great Barrier Reef Coal Scandal

A scathing new report out today outlines just how risky some of the world's largest coal export projects are. Funnily enough, they're not the risks environmentalists care about - the fact that they're going to be built inside the Great Barrier Reef for instance. No, what the report is concerned with are the risks to the billions in investment at stake if the projects go sideways. If I had my money on the line (which I might if U.S. Ex Im Bank President Fred Hochberg uses U.S. taxpayer dollars to subsidize this boondoggle), I'd pay attention because the report doesn't come from just anyone, but from financial industry heavyweights Tom Sanzillo (former New York State Comptroller) and Tim Buckley (former head of Australasian equity research at Citigroup).

Before we get into the risks outlined in the report, let's start with the project as the developer (GVK) sees it: India has 300 million people without electricity, the country is facing a supply crunch of epic proportions, and the government is hell-bent on building a massive pipeline of projects. GVK is well suited to help fuel this pipeline and alleviate the supply crunch by developing one of the world's largest integrated coal mine, rail, and export projects in nearby Australia. Seems pretty cut and dry right?
 
So what exactly has these analysts so worried? Leverage, leverage, leverage. It turns out GVK is trying to pull a fast one on Australian investors by getting them to pony up the cash for the project to cover the holes in their own balance sheets - which are enormous. Check out the graph below comparing the project's costs ($10 billion) with the current market capitalization of GVK ($243 million). That combined with net deb t of ~$2.7 billion and GVK faces a whopping 1,149 percent debt to market ratio. For the financially illiterate - it's a financial crisis waiting to happen.

VIDEO: Building Advocates for Clean Energy on Global Wind Day

Building Competition for Global Wind Day from Kristen E on Vimeo.

On June 15, the Sierra Club celebrated Global Wind Day, a worldwide event that is dedicated to showing the public the power and possibility of wind.

As part of the celebration, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), held a “Construct a Turbine” competition on June 14 in which people from the Washington, D.C. area built their own wind turbine models while helping to promote clean, renewable energy. Participants included representatives from James Madison University, the League of Conservation Voters, Environment America, American Wind Energy Association and the Sustainable Business Council.

For many attendees, the competition was a chance to continue to support renewable energy while gaining knowledge of how wind power works. Ashley Friedman, a member of the team from LCV, attended the event because she supports the cause. She’s already participated in a lobby day in support of the investment tax credit for wind energy and said she hopes that participants will advocate for increased use of wind energy in the future.

AWEA CEO Tom Kiernan stated that AWEA put on the event in order to raise awareness of the power, simplicity and cleanliness of wind energy. Kiernan sees wind energy as a critical part of the solution to global climate disruption - and he thinks wind can provide at least 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States sooner rather than later.

It's a prediction that doesn’t seem unreachable. Wind power is currently one of the fastest growing sources of American manufacturing jobs, and 45,000 wind turbines are already installed across the United States.

For more information, check out the video above.

--Sierra Club Interns Lauren Lantry and Kristen Elmore

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