who doesn't love t-shirts?

Here are the awesome Beyond Coal t-shirts that just came into the office! Check out the Beyond Coal website to learn about the campaign: http://beyondcoal.org/.

NASA Climate Expert James Hansen Will Urge UNC to Stop Burning Coal

This upcoming Tuesday, the UNC Beyond Coal Campaign will be hosting a press conference with Dr. James Hansen, NASA's foremost expert on climate change. Dr. Hansen heads NASA's Goddard Institute which predicts atmospheric and climate changes in the 21st Century, he is also an adjunct professor at Columbia University. The press conference comes on the heels of Chancellor Thorpes formation of a new Energy Task Force. That task force is expected to take 6 to 12 months exploring ways to reduce the University's carbon emissions.

Dr. Hansen is expected to warn students,faculty and administrators of the dangers coal poses to the environment and surrounding communities. In a 2008 letter to a number of world leaders including Barack Obama and Gordan Brown, Mr. Hansen called coal, "the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." In the pre-industrial era carbon dioxide levels in the air were about 280 parts per million(ppm), by burning coal, oil and gas humans have drastically increased this to 385ppm today. If we continue to burn fossil fuels this number will grow by more than 2ppm each year. In that case in less than 50 years all of the worlds glaciers will be gone, species of animals and plants will become extinct as ecosystems are destroyed and the worlds sea levels could rise by nearly 75 meters. These are dangerous statistics that could be devastating for life on earth. Yet there is still hope.

Dr. Hansen predicts that if we stop using coal we could bring carbon dioxide levels down under 350ppm. Universities across the country are taking steps to lead the way, Cornell will go coal free by the end of the year and Duke is cutting its coal consumption by 70%. With the support of concerned citizens UNC can also achieve this goal. Please join us at Tuesday's press conference, and show your support for a coal free campus. Below are the details.

When: TUESDAY, February 2nd, 11:15 am to 11:30 am

Where: In front of UNC's co-generation facility on Cameron Ave., Chapel Hill. Address: 501 W. Cameron Ave, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2713. Parking is available in visitor spaces at the facility and along Cameron Ave.

Speakers will include: Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA's climate research center, the Goddard Institute; Patricia Leighton, Chapel Hill resident and neighbor to the plant; Dr. Jose Rial, Glaciologist and Faculty at UNC-CH.

High Hazard coal ash disposal sites in NC

A coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, formally asked the Dept of Homeland Security, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency to make public a list of 44 "high hazard" coal ash disposal sites across the country. With 12 (10 controlled by Duke Energy, 2 by Progress Energy), North Carolina topped the list.

Coal ash sites contain harmful amounts of mercury, lead, arsenic and other toxins, which can leak slowly into neighboring water supplies or rapidly, as the toxic sludge disaster in Tennessee illustrated. Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign said about the release of the high hazard list, "People have a right to know if mountains of toxic coal ash are threatening their communities so they can take action and put pressure on their local utilities to demand clean up."

Find coverage all over the place. Busy? Start here: Institute for Southern Studies, Charlotte Observer. Important to note: the high hazard status doesn't reflect current safety but the likelihood of public harm should the dams fail. Want to see where they are and who's running the sites? Visit our coal ash page.

CCS is in the same league as fusion power : The Energy Grid

CCS is in the same league as fusion power : The Energy Grid

CCS stands for "carbon capture sequestration." The above link is to an interesting article on ScienceBlogs that presents a strong counterpoint to political and coal rhetoric about Clean Coal. Choice quotes:

Still, if it's just a matter of improving efficiency levels of a technology based on well understood principles, then why should we treat CCS any differently from photovoltaics, which still costs about five times as much as coal-fired electricity? Because photovoltaics are coming down in cost rapidly. CCS, which uses concepts at least as old as solar panels, shows no signs of following a similar path. Consider the example of the Mountaineer coal-fired power plant in New Haven, W.Va., which is being equipped with demonstration CCS technology:

Of the 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted annually by the Mountaineer plant, only 100,000 to 300,000 will be removed with the new technology. And American Electric and the maker of the technology, Alstom, are spending $100 million on the initiative -- a daunting expense for some producers. (New York Times, Feb. 15, 2009)

Colbert vs Jim Rogers

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Jim Rogers
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Stephen Colbert in Iraq

Chevron debates Sierra Club

Cliffside not the right step

I'll post the article in its entirety below, but here's the link to a Charlotte Observer Op-Ed by Glen Hooks, regional director (Eastern U.S.) of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign.

---

The landmark Clean Smokestacks Act, which required utilities to better protect citizens from the hazardous pollutants of dirty coal plants, remains one of North Carolina's proudest environmental accomplishments.

And North Carolina continues to inspire today, with the aggressive leadership of Attorney General Roy Cooper, who forced TVA and other out-of-state polluters to clean up their coal-produced pollution drifting into North Carolina.

So it is disappointing to see North Carolina lose the high ground on the very issue for which it distinguished itself nationally.

Last week's decision by the Perdue administration's Division of Air Quality to grant Duke Energy's request to reclassify the massive Cliffside Unit 6 as a “minor source” of toxic air emissions will result in our citizens having less protection from harmful emissions than the citizens in neighboring states, such as Virginia. There, regulators required emissions controls for toxic mercury pollution more than 20 times stronger than would be the case for Cliffside, under the revised permit.

Duke Energy promotes the new coal boiler at Cliffside as a state-of-the-art facility that will replace more polluting and antiquated units on the plant's site. But under the Clean Smokestacks Act, Duke is already mandated to achieve pollution reductions from its existing coal fleet. In promoting how much cleaner Cliffside Unit 6 will be than what came before, Duke Energy is simply taking credit twice for the same cleanup.

The days of conventional coal plants such as Cliffside's new coal boiler are rapidly drawing to a close. National trends are running so heavily against coal that over the past two years, 95 out of a proposed 150 new plants have been dropped or postponed indefinitely due to escalating costs, regulatory uncertainty and concerns over greenhouse gas emissions.

Much of this has to do with the escalating costs of coal, which are rising sharply and expected to increase further over time. But what cannot be ignored is the increasing viability of alternative energy sources. Last year more wind power came on line in the United States than power generated from new coal plants.

Once the Obama EPA begins to regulate CO2 emissions – expected as soon as April – it is unlikely that there will be new applications for conventional coal-fired power plants like Cliffside that can't capture or store carbon. The shortsightedness of Cliffside's design and its failure to be truly state-of-the-art makes Unit 6 obsolete – and assures that it will be costly for ratepayers – before it's built.

Nationwide, governors of both major parties have led the trend away from coal in many states. Gov. Katherine Sebelius of Kansas has steadfastly refused to permit new coal in her state despite repeated efforts by the state legislature to force her hand. Michigan's Gov. Jennifer Granholm recently issued a virtual moratorium on proposed new coal plants in her state. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford recently came out in opposition to a proposed plant in that state. And Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle directed the conversion of a public coal-fired generator to natural gas, citing the need to move away from coal.

North Carolina seems to be heading in a different direction. In granting Duke Energy's request to be treated as a “minor” source of toxic air emissions, Gov. Perdue, who ran on a clean energy platform, said it was her administration's job to keep “hazardous emissions to an absolute minimum.”

But instead, Duke Energy will now be allowed to emit far higher amounts of more than 50 toxic pollutants – including mercury, arsenic and dioxins – than allowed under the Clean Air Act.

Sadly, while Duke may reap the profits of this short-sighted decision, the health and welfare of North Carolinians will suffer for decades to come.

Controversial Permit goes to Cliffside

FYI - the below is a press release we issued today. I took what I thought was blog appropriate, but you can read the full thing here.

---

Today, the Perdue administration agreed to declare the massive 800-megawatt Cliffside Coal Boiler Unit 6 a “minor” source of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The decision helps Duke Energy avoid stringent federal controls on toxic air emissions for the facility, which is under construction 55 miles west of Charlotte.

In contrast to today’s decision, on February 3, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm put a virtual moratorium on new coal plants in her state through an executive order. Granholm also pledged to reduce Michigan’s reliance of fossil fuels for generating electricity by 45% by 2020. Governor Jim Doyle on February 6 announced that a power plant operated by the University of Wisconsin would begin burning biomass instead of coal. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford on February 11 announced his opposition to a coal plant planned for the Pee Dee River area in Florence County.

Utilities themselves are increasingly abandoning plans for new coal, citing regulatory and economic uncertainties. Since the US Dept of Energy’s 2007 projections of 150 new coal plants in 2007, plans for 95 have been dropped or put on hold, according to the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

The pace with which plans for coal-plants are being put on hold has accelerated in light of recent court actions and anticipated action by the Obama EPA. In February, the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the Bush era mercury rule. The Obama administration has indicated that it may seek new, stricter limits on mercury from coal plants. And, published reports have indicated that the Obama administration will announce by April 16 that it will begin the process to regulate carbon dioxide, making it further unlikely that there will be new applications for conventional coal plants, which are not designed to capture or control carbon.

Capping Carbon - Duke Energy's Way

As Congress begins work on climate change legislation, the most likely mechanism for tackling global warming is a “cap and trade” system that would limit and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. Both presidential candidates campaigned on the idea last fall.

But depending on how it is designed, such a system can be heavily tilted toward the public interest or, as some would prefer, the interests of polluters. That debate is just beginning.

Jim Rogers, the high-profile CEO of Duke Energy is on record supporting cap and trade legislation — but on Duke’s terms.

Last week, Rogers blasted President Obama’s plan to charge polluters who emit greenhouse gases and invest the proceeds from the sale of carbon permits into speeding up the transition to clean energy. Rogers called Obama’s plan a tax that would hurt consumers.

Duke Energy has a different plan: for Congress to give valuable carbon permits free of charge to polluters, who can then sell them for profit. The stakes are enormous for Duke Energy, which is the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide among U.S. utilities.

Cleaning up our coal burning plants will be costly. It is likely those increased costs will be passed on to ratepayers regardless of the outcome of this debate.

The details won’t always be easy to follow, but a few principles should be clear. Permits to emit carbon should be used for public benefit, not private windfall. And free allocations, if any, should be limited in size and restricted to a short transition period.

Carolina Blue Skies, Still Blue

In a decision late yesterday on a challenge brought by the Southern Environmental Law Center, its clients [including the Sierra Club] and the state under the Clean Air Act, a federal appeals court rejected the basis for the Environmental Protection Agency’s denial of relief to North Carolina from upwind sources of pollution that significantly contribute to the state’s air quality problems.

The federal agency must now act quickly to require reductions in fine particle and ozone pollution from the offending upwind sources. More than 1,000 people in North Carolina die each year due to exposure to power plant pollution-- the ninth highest rate in the country. Hundreds of thousands more suffer related asthma attacks and other respiratory problems, including about 170,000 children.

This is another important benchmark in North Carolina’s campaign to force coal-fired power plants in other states to clean up pollution that harms the health of our citizens. You can read the SELC press release here.

More Sierra Coal Victories

President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it will reconsider the midnight memo issued by former EPA Administrator Steven Johnson which sought to prohibit controls on global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants. The decision should halt virtually all new coal plant development until the EPA decides how to address global warming pollution from coal plants (Washington Post, NYTimes).

David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel for the Sierra Club, had this to say:

This decision stops the Bush Administration's final, last-minute effort to saddle President Obama with its do-nothing policy on global warming.

Moreover, in response to a Sierra Club petition concerning a Utah coal plant, EPA head Lisa Jackson announced that the EPA would revisit the permit and solicit public comment.

Tennessee Valley Authority: Not Just About Sludge

Yesterday, a US Circuit Court Judge ruled that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the nation's largest public utility, has to clean up four coal-fired power plants that spew emissions into western NC (the AP, the Charlotte Observer, the Asheville Citizen-Times).

Attorney General Roy Cooper brought suit to force TVA to reduce emissions in 11 power plants - in 3 neighboring states - to levels that would meet North Carolina's Clean Smokestacks Act by 2013. The judge ruled that TVA must install pollution controls on the 4 plants closest to NC. As for the seven remaining plants were denied, the judge found that NC did not adequately prove emissions from those plants hurt NC's air quality.

This is TVA's third environmental problem to get national press in the past few weeks.

1. Air Pollution (January 13th)
2. Coal Ash Disaster (December 22nd)
3. Waste Spill at Widow Creek (January 9th)

Coal ash for Christmas?

(Photo of the Buffalo Creek Flood of 1972.)

No doubt you've heard about the 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash and sludge dumped on Eastern Tennessee on Dec 22 (Bloomberg, Associated Press, NYTimes). Merry Christmas, Tennesseeans, the arsenic levels of your local water sources are anywhere from 35-300 times the allowable rate. From the Huffington Post article just linked:

"I've never seen levels this high," said Dr. Shea Tuberty, Assistant Professor of Biology at the Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Lab at Appalachian State University. "These levels would knock out fish reproduction ... the ecosystems around Kingston and Harriman are going to be in trouble ... maybe for generations."

The disaster in Tennessee, which TVA is apparently newspeaking as an "ash slide", is just another example of why coal-fired power plants are a persistent threat to public and ecosystem health; too risky as energy sources; and an unwanted source of toxic emissions, like mercury.

In North Carolina, Duke Energy operates 10 coal ash basins, 4 of which are labeled "high hazard" by the state (labels are based on environmental damage should the containment dikes fail, as explained in this excellent report by the Charlotte Observer). We know the degredation to our countryside, our air, and our health, and yet we are building another coal-unit at an estimated ratepayer/taxpayer expense upwards of $2,000,000,000.

There are many, many reasons to move away from coal (how about mountain-top removal coal mining? or climate change?) But, an important question, one of common sense, is this: why handcuff ourselves to an outdated energy source, one that is a terrible, foreseeable waste of state funds, especially when all that money could go towards renewable sources?

The Sierra Club has been opposed to Cliffside expansion since day one. Want to tell the incoming Perdue Administration how you feel about all this? At one of the following public hearings, voice your disapproval and state that Cliffside will not be a "minor" source of toxic emissions:

• 6 p.m. Jan. 22 at Statesville Senior High School, 474 N. Center St. in Statesville.
  


• An initial hearing will be held at 6 p.m. Jan. 15 in Forest City, near the plant, at Chase High School, 1603 Chase High School Road.

Monumental EPA ruling on coal plants

In a move that signals the start of our clean energy future, the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board has ruled that the EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit carbon dioxide emissions, which cause global warming, from new coal-fired power plants.

(Sierra Club Press Release, Decision)

What's the take home point, you might ask? Carbon dioxide, the principle source of global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.

Coal plants emit 30% of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, and this decision will affect all new and proposed plants. What does this mean for the Cliffside unit? Time will tell, but a green economy in NC seems a whole lot closer.

So-called clean coal

Check out the Sierra Club's new site to cut through the myth of 'clean coal': coalisnottheanswer.org.