The Coal Stops Here

Note: This will be my column in the issue of Sierra magazine that just went to the printer, but this news is so exciting that I want to share it with you in advance.

I'm usually skeptical of absolutes. But not when it comes to coal. Remember that Edwin Starr classic that Springsteen revived in the '80s? "War, huh, yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!"

In just about every way, that's how I feel about coal, which is why I was so excited when Bloomberg Philanthropies donated $50 million to the Sierra Club this summer to help us move America beyond coal.

The Club's Beyond Coal campaign started modestly nine years ago, when government officials proposed building more than 150 coal-fired power plants across the country. Believing it would be almost impossible to oppose all those plants at the same time, Club volunteers and staff mobilized against just two of them, and won. We took the lessons learned from these early battles to train more volunteers and staff to oppose a couple of dozen more proposed plants.

We won the majority of those battles too, but discovered to our dismay that every time we scored a victory against coal in one community, new proposals cropped up for plants in other locations. To prevent dirty coal from being locked in as a dominant energy source for another half century or more, we made defeating these plants our top priority, mobilizing the power of our chapter activists, lawyers, energy experts, and supporters like you as part of a national coalition of grassroots organizations in almost every state across the country.

Coal mining has always been a dirty, dangerous business, but mountaintop removal takes the devastation to new lows. After blowing up more than 500 mountains to uncover coal seams in Appalachia, mining companies have dumped millions of tons of waste into the valleys below, permanently burying more than 2,000 miles of streams, poisoning drinking water, and wiping out entire communities.

Twenty-five million Americans have asthma. If, like me, you're a parent, you probably know that children are most affected. My kids thankfully do not have asthma, but nationally 1 in 10 children do, and coal-fired plants are a primary contributor to their misery.

It gets worse: Every year, soot from coal-fired power plants kills an estimated 13,000 Americans prematurely and is responsible for $100 billion in healthcare costs. Old, outdated coal plants are also the single biggest source of mercury pollution, which causes birth defects and developmental damage in young children.

After coal is burned, the leftover toxic ash is dumped in thousands of poorly regulated sites nationwide. Even though it contains arsenic, lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals, the ash is regulated almost as if it were household garbage. These poisons spill or seep into the ground and contaminate drinking water.

Finally, coal plants are our largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Every ton of coal burned generates three tons of carbon dioxide pollution. The 150 new coal-fired power plants proposed in 2002 would have emitted an estimated 585 million tons of CO2 pollution annually for the next 50 years.

Here's the good news: Thanks to a combination of community organizing, strategic communications, and aggressive litigation, we stopped those 150 plants and more. Our once-tiny campaign has grown into one of the most effective environmental efforts in history despite fierce opposition from the influential and well-funded coal lobby. Countering those deep pockets took all the passion and commitment we could muster.

Now, though, the playing field has been leveled a bit. The generous gift from Bloomberg Philanthropies is a recognition of how much we've achieved and a challenge to go further. Besides stopping new coal-fired plants from being built, we can clean up or shut down the existing fleet of deadly plants. Equally important, we can advance the solutions, like solar and wind power, that will protect our air and water and offer enduring well-paying jobs. This really is the beginning of a clean-energy transition.

And there's absolutely everything to like about that.

Ready to join us? Take our pledge to end coal and usher in a new clean-energy future. And then start spreading the word!

Open Season on the Endangered Species Act?

Earlier this year, I wrote about an unparalleled assault on the Endangered Species Act after an amendment to the federal budget bill specifically excluded gray wolves in Montana and Idaho from protection. Since then, things have gotten worse both for the wolves and the ESA.

Last week, the bad news came from the state of Wyoming. The state is very close to having an approved plan that would put wolves under state management. Unfortunately, Wyoming's idea of a wolf-management plan may have more in common with the buffalo massacres of the 19th century than with responsible science. If state regulators have their way, most of the wolves outside of Yellowstone National Park would be on "shoot on sight" predator status. Nearly half of Wyoming's endangered wolves could be killed.

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that Wyoming's wolves should be managed at least as responsibly as in other Rocky Mountain states.

Unfortunately, what has happened to gray wolves is only the beginning. Already, other species are being singled out by politicians who want to circumvent the ESA. The sand dune lizard in Texas and the lesser prairie hen in Oklahoma were each the subject of recent amendments in the Senate that would have exempted them. More such attempts are sure to follow.

At the same time, though, congressional opponents of the Endangered Species Act are trying to cripple the law itself. Current proposals include prohibiting consideration of the impact of climate change on species, decimating or outright eliminating programs that work with landowners and others to promote wildlife conservation, and even forbidding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to spend money on new listings of threatened and endangered species or on designations of critical habitat for current species.

Apparently, it's open season on the Endangered Species Act -- a law that for nearly 40 years has successfully prevented the extinction of plants and animals and helped threatened populations recover. The ESA has worked because it's based on sound science and backed by the rule of law. But once you start undermining the law to satisfy the demands of special interests, each new crack in the foundation weakens the entire structure.

The timing couldn't be worse. The reality is that the work of protecting species will only get tougher on a warming planet as habitats shift and the scramble for scarce resources intensifies. Even with the protections afforded by the ESA, some species aren't going to make it. If we allow greed and politics to take the place of science and the law, then the wolves, the panthers, the polar bears, and, yes, the sand dune lizards, won't get even the chance to survive. 

American Public: 1, Polluters: 0

This week, the New York Times ran a profile on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who some people think has the toughest job in the Obama administration. I was struck by how the article described her as being "behind enemy lines with only science, the law and a small band of loyal lieutenants to support her."

What an odd perspective. From that viewpoint, Jackson appears to be a solitary, lonely warrior, and there's hardly anyone to be found in all of America who really cares about clean air, clean water, and public health besides a "small band" of do-gooders inside the EPA. Of course, the opposite is true: A supermajority of the American public -- across party lines -- believes that we need to do more to stand up to polluters. A bipartisan poll released this spring by the American Lung Association revealed how three quarters of Americans want to see stronger, updated standards on all forms of air toxics, soot, smog, and carbon pollution.

Yesterday, the EPA met this sentiment with action by announcing the first of a series of air pollution regulations that will be rolled out during the next few months. This one, called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, addresses the long-standing problem that pollution from coal-fired power plants frequently travels hundreds of miles and across state lines. Here's how a different article in the New York Times described what the new rule means:

By the time the new requirements take effect in 2014, power plants will need to have cut their sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent and their nitrogen oxides by 54 percent from 2005 levels.

Cutting down on pollution that leads to soot and smog -- as well as acid rain and hazy outdoor air -- is expected to prevent 13,000 to 34,000 people from dying prematurely each year. The benefits would be greatest in northeastern states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, which would see an estimated 3,100 and 2,900 early deaths avoided annually.

What wasn't mentioned is that investing in modern pollution controls mandated by this rule will cause net savings for American consumers. Save lives and save money -– what's not to like?

Polluters opposed this, not because it will save lives, but because, and this comes straight from the president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: "America's coal-fueled electric industry… needs adequate time to install clean coal technologies."

How much more time do they want? Another 20,000 deaths? 40,000? You don't need science or the law to see the absurdity of that argument. Just common sense and a little humanity.

So kudos to Administrator Jackson for standing up to polluters and doing her job of protecting our health. She may be behind enemy lines, but she's most definitely not alone.

There's more work to be done.  During the coming months, the EPA will finalize important new air-pollution rules on ozone, toxic mercury, and carbon pollution. All of them face opposition from polluters and their allies. So for those of us who'd rather stand on the side of science, the law, and common sense, let's make it very clear that America is ready to move beyond the tired arguments of dirty energy industries. Make your voice count! Send a message here to the EPA that we need them to continue to stand firm against polluters.

Let's Think Differently and Move Beyond Oil

Americans will fill their tanks with at least 400 million gallons of gasoline today as we prepare for Independence Day weekend. Don't know about you, but the family and I will be in the redwoods in Northern California. Because so many of us will head to mountains, lakes, oceans, and other beautiful landscapes to celebrate our nation’s independence, I must assume that we want to protect the natural world. But to do that, we need to adjust our collective thinking about how we get from point A to point B. We’re going to have to recognize that it's time to move beyond oil as a transportation fuel.

Here are two recent examples of how thinking differently can powerfully and positively affect policies that will safeguard our nation and our planet. The Obama administration is preparing to set fuel-efficiency standards for car fleets produced from 2017 through 2025. The final decision will be announced in September, but word is that the administration has put a number on the table (56.2 mpg) that they think "splits the difference" between the wishes of automakers and environmentalists.

OK, stop right there. Think differently. This is the most important step we can take to move beyond oil. Let's forget about "special interests" for once and do what's best for our country. Yes, consumers will actually save money, but it's the overall benefits to our country from breaking our oil addiction that are even greater. There’s no difference to split. We can achieve more than 60 mpg standard and go well beyond by 2025. Let's invest in America and do it. (The Sierra Club's got a fun way to send that message to Obama, too.)

Here's another way to think differently about the challenge of moving beyond oil. In addition to getting more mileage out of our cars, we can invest in getting more mileage outside of our cars. About 60 million of the 400 million gallons of gas we buy today will be used for trips of less than one mile. Talk about low-hanging fruit! We would save millions of gallons a day just by making it easier for people to walk or bike more of those trips. So why not invest in things like sidewalks, bike lanes, bicycle/pedestrian bridges, bike/transit connections, and secure bicycle parking?

Well, in some places, we have been, and the results in cities like Portland, Minneapolis, and San Francisco are impressive. (Anyone who thinks adding bike lanes won't increase the number of bicycle commuters hasn't seen San Francisco's Market Street at rush hour lately.)

And yet some naysayers are still stuck in old ways of thinking. When modest funds for bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure were included in the 2009 economic stimulus bill, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina tried to introduce an amendment that would specifically have prohibited spending on bicycle and pedestrian projects. Of course, the senator and everyone in his party have been enthusiastic supporters of extending tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans.

Time to think differently. Sure, encouraging bicycling and walking makes our cities and communities more livable. Yes, there are significant health benefits. And there are those millions of gallons of gas we could save. But, according to at least two different studies, it also turns out that stimulus money spent on cycling and pedestrian infrastructure creates significantly more jobs than that spent on highway projects. Score another one for clean-energy solutions.

This weekend, Americans will be celebrating the birth of our nation.  Let's honor those revolutionaries of days gone by and build the best America we can dream -- the one where we are free to spend less money on gas and more time outside our cars.