By Matthew Bieniek
CUMBERLAND — At the same time the coal industry is fighting against what industry leaders say is a war on coal, several environmental groups have filed a lawsuit to fight multimillion dollar loan guarantees to export U.S. coal to foreign nations including Japan, South Korea, China and Italy.
Much of that coal leaves the country through the Port of Baltimore.
The suit was filed in a California federal court Wednesday by a coalition, including the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Center for International Environmental Law, Friends of the Earth, Pacific Environment, Sierra Club and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. The group is represented by attorneys from Earthjustice.
“Ex-Im Bank turned a blind eye to the toxic coal dust, heavy train traffic and disruptive noise that our members living near ports and railways experience on a daily basis,” said Diana Dascalu-Joffe, senior general counsel at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “People on the front lines of the U.S. coal export boom deserve to know the risks and to have a say over whether their tax dollars finance it.”
The government-financed bank’s support for sending coal overseas contradicts President Barack Obama’s stated concerns about global warming, said Justin Guay, associate director of the International Climate and Energy Program at the Sierra Club.
Air and water pollution from the increased exports should have been considered, the environmental groups’ representatives said. The pollution impacts from the coal exports will be “devastating,” Dascalu-Joffe said. A 1993 study in Virginia found that, on average, a pound of coal dust blows off each coal car per mile traveled, environmental leaders said.
“It’s not just a number on paper, it has real world impacts,” Dascalu-Joffee said.
“It’s not only bad for the global climate, but impacts people’s health as well,” said Doug Norlen of Pacific Environment. “One of the problems here is the lack of transparency,” Norlen said.
Trains carrying coal rumble through Cumberland each day and that concerns Desiree Bullard, whose statement is highlighted on the earthjustice.org website. Bullard and her mother live near the train tracks. Those experiences are among the reasons she’s become active in environmental issues.
“As much as we hear that things are changing, the bank’s decision proves that the changes are not necessarily true,” Bullard said. “The focus should be on reducing, not increasing, fossil fuel exports. Ultimately whether it’s burned here or in China, it’s going to impact climate change,” Bullard said.
“The groups filing the lawsuit charge that the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) violated federal law by providing a $90 million loan guarantee to Xcoal Energy & Resources without reviewing the environmental impacts as required under the National Environmental Policy Act. According to Ex-Im Bank, the taxpayer-backed financing, approved on May 24, 2012, will help leverage a billion dollars in exports of coal mined in Appalachia,” a press release from a coalition of environmental groups said.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank of the United States “is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank’s mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets,” according to the bank’s website.
The bank is actually increasing support for fossil fuel exports, environmental leaders said.
“Under Chairman Fred Hochberg, the agency’s annual fossil fuel financing has grown from $2.56 billion to over $10 billion,” said Doug Norlen, policy director for Pacific Environment. “What’s more, Hochberg has failed to meet a congressional directive to provide 10 percent of agency financing to renewable energy and energy efficiency, authorizing just 1 percent for such exports in 2012.”
Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies — large and small — to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy.
Those participating in the conference call said they’re not oblivious to the job concerns of those in the coal industry, and argue that green policies create jobs, not take tham away.
“Clean energy exports produce more jobs than investments in fossil fuels,” Guay said in response to a question about potential job losses in Western Maryland if coal exports are reduced.
