Leave Carbon in the Ground or Humans Won't Be Around

By Richard Whiteford
Sierra Club Member & Environmental Communications Consultant

Congressional legislators who deny climate change typically focus on free market economics and fail to acknowledge the destructive impacts and associated costs that we experience now from climate driven extreme weather events.

They grouse about the Obama Administration’s request for a 2014 climate change budget of $11.6 billion and the expansion of government agencies to combat climate change. 

While realizing that the Republican party’s platform rests on smaller government and cutting government expenses to the bone, you can’t help wondering why their budget fetish ignores the fact that, according to  the U.S. Treasury Department, between 2011 and the first quarter of 2013 extreme weather events cost us more than $136 billion and that doesn’t count the endless numbers of flood, sand storm, drought, and wild fire damages that happened since then.

They claim that while the President stated a willingness to work with Congress toward enacting a bipartisan, market-based scheme to reduce GHG emissions, the Administration has also taken steps to move ahead with Executive Branch actions to address climate change concerns without Congressional support. 

They express outrage that President Barack Obama has advanced a series of unilateral regulations without appropriate legislative review – including a proper assessment of the cumulative influence, regional effects, and distributional impact of such actions on states and localities – would do more harm than good. 

The Republican Party, while vehemently denying the existence of global warming, ditched every proposed climate bill leaving the Obama no other choice.

At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, increasing the cost of energy and cutting more American jobs is not the right way to move forward.”

Here again, like so many people, these legislators fail to recognize the real issue because their only measure is money, revenues in particular.

The critical issue is: in the past 150 years humans increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by 117 parts-per-million by burning fossil fuels. For over 800,000 years before that CO2 levels hovered around 280 parts-per-miliion. 

Now because we pump 90 million tons of CO2 up there every 24 hours, CO2 has risen to an average of 397 parts-per-million and actually spiked into the 400 parts-per-million level twice in early 2013. It won’t be long until that will become the average as it continues upward.

Burning fossil fuels has already raised the global temperature from preindustrial levels by 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and we are already experiencing sea level rise, extreme storms, droughts and wildfires around the planet. Even more alarming, 80 percent of the Arctic ice cap melted in the summer of 2012.

Scientist believe that we can’t allow the preindustrial global temperature to rise higher than 2 degrees Celsius or human survival will be very challenging. We are almost half way there now.

The oil, gas and coal industries and their paid henchmen like the Heartland Institute and bought politicians distract the public with red herring issues like claiming that switching to clean energy will hurt the economy, kill jobs, and cause energy shortages while overlooking the job creation that clean energy creates.

What is tragically overlooked by them and the media is that if humans want to survive on this planet we have to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible. Scientists say that we can’t put much more than another 565 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere without disastrous results. At this time, financial analysts calculate that there is already 2,795 gigatons of CO2 contained in readily available oil, gas and coal reserves. 

That’s five times more CO2 than we can afford to burn and expect to survive yet the plan remains drill baby drill; burn baby burn.

There is enough carbon just in the Canadian Tar Sands oil deposits to send the global temperature above the 2 degree limit. That is the reason environmentalists are protesting the Keystone XL Pipe Line. We just can’t afford to burn that carbon and expect to survive.

Again, the critical issue is carbon output. If we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere jobs and the economy will be a moot point. What good will money be if we don’t live to spend it? 

Our first step should be to tax all carbon at its source of extraction and give that money directly to our tax-paying citizens to cover the increase in price that fossil fuels will go through until we are 100% clean energy and stop burning them. This points to another blind spot. Legislators want to cut subsidies to clean energy but they vote in lock-step to support the $90 billion in tax subsidies that the oil companies get from taxpayers each year in the name of “leveling the playing field.”

The bottom line is, leave carbon in the ground or humans won’t be around.

Originally published in the Patriot News Op-Ed on December 16, 2013. 

Ontario, Canada, Goes Coal Free

Today Ontario, Canada, is showcasing a path for a world working to prevent runaway climate change. Today, Ontario retired their last coal-fired power plant. Part of a bold plan launched by former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty in 2003 to cut pollution in the province, this is great news for everyone who loves clean air and is working to provide a safe and liveable planet for future generations. 

What's more, the steps Ontario has taken over the past decade to retire its five coal-fired power plants is a great guide for the U.S. in making a speedy transition to a modern, clean, carbon-free energy system. 

What can we learn from Ontario?

1) Be honest about the costs of coal. In 2003 Ontario looked at the full cost of coal, both the costs of coal-generated electricity, and the health costs the province was paying related directly to the health costs of burning coal. An honest accounting concluded that coal is among the most expensive ways to generate electricity.

2) Be bold. Long before other states and cities were talking about phasing out coal, then Premier McGuinty announced he would lead the effort to replace all the coal plants in a decade. This took a lot of courage, but also a profound belief in our scientists and engineers to imagine and build a coal-free electricity sector.

3) Invest heavily in energy efficiency. The province demonstrated that the cheapest source of power is efficiency, or reduced demand. In fact, according to Scientific American, these savvy actions made Ontario one of the first places in the world where energy demand began to decline, rather than increase.

4) Provide clear and fair rules for clean energy developers. With a clear roadmap and and balanced incentives wind power quintupled over the past 6 years in Ontario. Today wind and energy efficiency will make up much of the replacement for the retiring coal plants. A carbon-free grid is now within reach, as clean energy continues to grow and will back out the remaining natural gas.

This move by Ontario is the latest in a string of great clean energy news across North America. Last week the Tennessee Valley Authority announced the retirement of 3,300 megawatts of coal power in the Southeastern U.S. Earlier in 2013, Los Angeles and Chicago both announced they were going coal-free, with L.A. even announcing a major solar power deal with the Moapa Band of Paiutes in Nevada. The U.S. has been ditching coal (as fast as its investors), because a mix of hard-hitting grassroots advocacy, new EPA protections, and rising coal prices, has brought about the retirement or announced retirement of 155 coal plants.

With the largest grassroot environment movement in the U.S. working together to de-carbonize the electric sector, activists are fighting for clean energy and climate solutions from coast to coast. In the past week activists in Florida and Arizona rallied for solar power; North Dakota approved a new wind farm; Sudbury, Massachusetts just flipped the switch on a solar array that will save the city $100,000 annually.

This is also the latest in a string of great clean energy news across the globe. Sparked by the President's climate action plan which called for an end to public financing of coal overseas, the United Kingdom and multilateral banks like the World Bank and the European Investment Bank have also stopped throwing taxpayer dollars at dirty coal projects. These governments and institutions will instead be investing in clean, renewable energy.

While coal has powered the U.S. economy for much of the 19th and 20th centuries, we now know it is the leading source of climate disruption, it pollutes our air and makes our kids sick, and it has no place in a modern, high-tech economy. We live in the most innovative country on earth -- the first country to put a man on the moon, the nation that brought the Internet to the world. Our neighbors to the north are showcasing leadership. Let's build on their leadership, our incredible progress here in the U.S., and get to 100 percent clean energy in less than two decades. I know we can.

-- Bruce Nilles, Senior Director of the Beyond Coal Campaign

Time to Update Water Quality Standards

Opinion by Karen Melton

Published in Roxborough Review, Sept. 4. 

Standards governing water pollution from coal-fired power plants have not been updated in 30 years.  Pennsylvania has 28 active coal power plants and only 8 have permits that limit dumping of any toxic metal, while only 4 plants have permits that limit selenium, mercury, and lead.

According to the EPA, more than half of all toxic water pollution in the country comes from coal-fired power plants, making coal plants the number one source of toxic water pollution in the U.S. More than 23,000 miles of U.S. rivers and streams are being damaged by steam electric plant discharges, which include arsenic, mercury, lead, boron, cadmium, selenium, bromides and more.  Each year nearly 65,000 pounds of lead, 3,000 pounds of mercury, and 80,000 pounds of arsenic are discharged into surface waters.

The health effects of many of these pollutants are well known, ranging from increasing risk of certain cancers as a result of exposure to arsenic, and neurological and developmental damage in children exposed to lead.  Once in the environment, these toxics can remain for many years.

In June the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published new proposed national standards on discharging toxic metals into waterways. The updated standards would also require coal power plants to monitor and report the amount of pollution being dumped.

The period for public comment on the new standard ends September 20^th.  A number of local organizations such as the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network have been working to inform the public about the proposed standards and the opportunity for citizens to provide comments to the EPA.

You can read more by logging onto water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/proposed.cfm and you can submit comments in support of clean water standards by sending an email to OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819 or by logging onto www.regulations.gov and referencing the docket ID.

Pennsylvania Ranks 4th for Global Warming Pollution from Power Plants

For Immediate Release: September 10^th, 2013

Contact: Erika Staaf, (412) 491-4801, Estaaf@PennEnvironment.org

Pennsylvania Ranks 4th for Global Warming Pollution from Power Plants

[Johnstown, PA] –A new report from PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center finds that Pennsylvania ranks 4^th in the country for most carbon pollution from its power plants, the state’s largest single source of global warming pollution. Scientists predict that extreme weather events will become more frequent and severe for future generations, unless we cut the dangerous carbon pollution fueling the problem.

“America's dirtiest power plants are the elephant in the room when it comes to global warming," said Erika Staaf, Advocate for PennEnvironment. "If we want a cleaner, safer future for our kids, we can't afford to ignore power plants' overwhelming contribution to global warming. into our atmosphere would be to build more power plants like Blah Blah that would dump even more carbon into the air."ng carbon For Pennsylvania, tackling the problem means cleaning up the dirtiest power plants.”

The report, titled, ‘America’s Dirtiest Power Plants,’ comes as the Obama administration readies a new set of rules to tackle global warming. It illustrates the scale of carbon pollution from Pennsylvania power sector and ranks Pennsylvania biggest carbon polluters.

Key findings from the report include:

•         Pennsylvania’s power plants are the 4th most polluting in the country.
•         In Pennsylvania, the top five most polluting power plants are, in order, FirstEnergy’s Bruce Mansfield; Allegheny Energy Supply’s Hatfield Ferry Power Station; GenOn’s Keystone Station; GenOn’s Conemaugh Station; and Midwest Generation’s Homer City Station.
•         Pennsylvania’s power plants are its single largest source of carbon pollution - responsible for 47% percent of statewide emissions.
•         First Energy’s Bruce Mansfield’s plant is the 8th most carbon-polluting power plant in the nation.
•         Pennsylvania’s power plants produce as much carbon each year as nearly 25 million cars.

“We in this nation and throughout world have some big choices to make, and we have to make them soon, before it’s too late,” said Rev. William Thwing, Pastor of St. Paul’s United Church of Christ. “It’s time we woke up and stopped this out of control freight train that is climate change.”

This summer, President Obama directed his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose limits on carbon pollution from new and existing power plants, the largest single source of carbon pollution. In a major step, the EPA is expected to propose an updated rule for cutting carbon pollution from new power plants on September 20. 243,000 Pennsylvanians have already submitted public comments in support of limiting carbon pollution from power plants.

"We cannot afford any further delays in limiting the carbon pollution that increases the risk of floods, powerful storms, and dangerous heat waves.  But we can lead the transition to clean energy and efficiency and create many family-supporting jobs in the process,” said Tom Schuster, Campaign Representative with the Sierra Club.

PennEnvironment Research and Policy Center called on state leaders like Senators Bob Casey and Pat Toomey to join them in supporting limits on power plants’ carbon pollution. PennEnvironment Research and Policy Center also advocated state-level strategies to avert the worst impacts of climate change, including increasing the share of renewable energy in our energy portfolio and making Pennsylvania a leader again in terms of our energy efficient building standards.

“Pennsylvania is the 4^th biggest emitter of carbon pollution from the biggest sources. Pennsylvania cannot wait to act on climate, so it’s critical that our elected leaders step up and support action,” said Staaf.

###

PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center is a statewide, environmental organization dedicated to protecting our air water and open spaces. For more information, visit www.PennEnvironment.org/center  

Acid Rain: Not Just an 80's Throwback

By Phil Coleman, Co-Editor The Sylvanian

In the 1980’s, the general public became aware of acid rain. Ecologists had been aware of acid precipitation for some time before that, but, as is usually the case, time passed until the term caught on. “Rain” is a better catch word than “precipitation.” And the fact was that sulfur and nitrous oxide compounds were in the air and coming to earth in rain, snow, sleet and plain old dust.

These compounds and a handful of others – especially mercury – were poisoning lakes and stunting trees, as well as giving people health problems. Acid rain was a growing problem because industrial processes were growing. The most serious contributor was the burning of coal. Coal-fired power plants, without adequate emissions cleaning processes, were the worst perpetrators.

Another Look   

But then along came the global climate crisis. Carbon dioxide emissions are affecting the ozone layer, causing the temperature to increase, glaciers to melt, and oceans to rise, and the climate to change, which makes farm land into desert and encourages violent storms. 

Global climate disruption is a serious world problem. And the culprits who produced acid rain are the same culprits who are the principal producers of climate disruption -- coal-fired power plants. Faced with a new problem, the coal industry developed a theory that carbon from coal plants could be “sequestered” by being pumped underground where it wouldn’t harm the ozone layer.

The industry called this “Clean Coal” technology. Sequestering carbon is technically doable if you ignore the expense involved, the energy required to transport and pump the carbon, and the increase in coal burning required to produce a unit of electricity. But the industry loved it. Companies petitioned the government to fund studies and trials to sequester carbon. They didn’t wait for the results: billboards proclaiming “Clean Coal” went up all over coal country.

The industry is much better at advertising than is the environmental community. Our response was vigorous but not as effective. And no one is talking about acid rain anymore.

Juggled

We all admire the juggler who can keep three or more balls in the air at once. But most of us most of the time are not jugglers. We can’t keep two slogans going at once. When we learned about global warming, we lost track of acid rain. The facts haven’t changed, but our attention was diverted. Isn’t it remarkable that the power plant wanted to continue polluting our rivers and lakes and stunting our forests even while they were proclaiming Clean Coal?

Fortunately, not everyone has dropped the ball. Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign has been at work forcing the dirtiest power plants out of business. Using the Clean Air Act, they filed suit just last year against the Homer City, PA, power plant, one of the biggest polluters and one of the slowest to clean up.

The global climate crisis is a serious global problem. But let’s not forget that acid rain is an ongoing and closely-related problem. And Pennsylvania is one of its targets.

Photo Courtesy of glogster.com 

Protect Renewable Energy Policies from Attack

By Tom Schuster, Beyond Coal Campaign Representative

Alternative energy policies are meant to spur innovation and build a clean energy economy, but across the country and right here in Pennsylvania, dirty energy interests are trying to pollute the best clean energy job creator we have.
Cleaner Tier I sources are required to supply at least 8% of our electricity by 2021, which includes 0.5% of total electricity sales from solar.  This law has already helped spur development of enough wind and solar power to more than compensate for the recently retired coal plants in the state, and has helped create thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania's wind and solar industries.

Cleaner Tier I sources are required to supply at least 8% of our electricity by 2021, which includes 0.5% of total electricity sales from solar.  This law has already helped spur development of enough wind and solar power to more than compensate for the recently retired coal plants in the state, and has helped create thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania's wind and solar industries.

Cleaner Tier I sources are required to supply at least 8% of our electricity by 2021, which includes 0.5% of total electricity sales from solar.  This law has already helped spur development of enough wind and solar power to more than compensate for the recently retired coal plants in the state, and has helped create thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania's wind and solar industries.

In 2004, Pennsylvania passed the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS) - our state's most meaningful action to address climate disruption to date. This law requires electricity distributors and suppliers to deliver a minimum percentage of electricity from alternative sources by 2021.  The sources are divided into two tiers.  

Similar laws exist in 30 states, and many have more aggressive targets than Pennsylvania's.  And they are having an impact. So far in 2013, 82% of all new generating capacity, nearly 1900 MW, has been wind and solar. Nine US states now get at least 10% of their electricity from wind, and Iowa and South Dakota both get over 20%.

The recent success of renewable energy has finally caused the fossil fuel interests to see these energy sources as a threat to their polluting business model.  Renewable energy standards are now under attack in many states, as part of a coordinated campaign by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the climate change denying Heartland Institute, and the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity.  Here in Pennsylvania, the Beacon Hill Institute, an ALEC front-group, released a biased report in late 2012 attacking our AEPS, similar to reports in other states that are facing challenges to renewable energy standards. The report's methods and conclusions were thoroughly debunked by Synapse Economics, but the arguments persist.

In April, two bills were introduced in the Pennsylvania House that would weaken or effectively repeal the AEPS in this state. HB 1151 would make energy from garbage incineration eligible for Tier I credits under the AEPS. Tier I credits are reserved for cleaner energy sources, like wind, solar, geothermal, and low-impact hydro power.  This could allow incineration to absorb 30-50% of the credits that would otherwise spur more investment in cleaner sources.  This bill has been referred to the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.

The other bill would effectively repeal the AEPS entirely if it became law. HB 1073 would make electricity from natural gas an eligible Tier I fuel. Because we already get more electricity from natural gas that the AEPS requires by 2021, the requirement would be meaningless.  This bill has been referred to the House Consumer Affairs Committee.

Incinerators emit extremely toxic air pollutants, like dioxins and furan, and even more carbon and mercury pollution per unit of energy, than coal plants. These pollutants can lead to severe health problems such as cancer, birth defects, and respiratory problems. Composting and recycling can conserve 3-5 times more energy than can be recovered from incineration, so we should be promoting these solutions over burning of trash.  Natural gas, meanwhile, is an established fuel that does not need any government incentives.  It already commands the third-highest market share in the state, and is therefore not an "alternative."  It does not help us address our climate problem because fugitive methane emissions throughout the production and distribution chain make it comparable to coal in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions.  And of course there are the well documented threats to water quality posed by fracking.

Click here to find your Representative and tell him or her that we need to promote true clean energy sources, not garbage incineration or natural gas!