EPA took a giant leap in the direction of greenhouse gas regulation yesterday. The agency issued a
URGENT: Call Your Senators Today!!
I’m thinking many people who read our blog have heard this by now…But, just in case you’ve gotten an email from us or one of our coalition partners today and haven’t gotten around to making this call, now’s the time. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has introduced a rider to the Senate Appropriations bill that would halt the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from stationary sources – i.e. coal plants, oil refineries, the biggest carbon polluters nationwide.
EPA Releases locations of 44 "high risk" coal ash impoundment sites.
Yesterday the EPA performed a turn-around on its protection of the locations of 44 “high risk” coal ash impoundment sites, signaling a desire to make the regulatory body more transparent.
Formerly protected under the auspices of national security, the ash impoundments, located in Ohio, Arizona, and throughout the southeast, have been determined to be particularly vulnerable to failure. In a time where the future of American energy remains stuck between antiquated fossil fuels and cleaner, renewable technology, concerns over proper disposal of coal ash has risen to the top of the debate, particularly after last December’s TVA sludge disaster in Roane County, Tennessee.
The reason behind this concern is, of course, fairly easy to identify. Coal slurry ponds, which may hold several billion gallons of the toxic sludge, are typically held in place by earthen dams made of rock and other fill material. While typically sturdy, history has shown us that these dams are definitely prone to failure, especially when not regulated properly. In fact, the dangers surrounding slurry dams have been well known and well documented for decades. West Virginia’s Buffalo Creek Flood of 1972 destroyed over 500 homes with a 30-foot high, 132 million gallon wave of the toxic stuff. When blasting occurs near these ponds (as it does near Marsh Fork Elmentary in Sunrise, WV), the risk becomes intensified as nearby shockwaves may threaten the structural integrity of the dam.
Fly ash, though dry and therefore less at risk to flooding, presents just as serious a hazard to the local ecosystem, including surrounding communities, wildlife, and groundwater reserves. Fly ash is stored in landfills, most of which are lined, but all of which are failure-prone. Particles in the air, blown from these ash impoundments, can cause serious health problems such as asthma and other respiratory diseases. Like wet slurry, fly ash contains a cocktail of harmful heavy metals and other contaminants that present a serious threat to the local and regional ecosystem
Shame on the EPA
Cross posted from here
Obama’s EPA has done some good things already, but there is one really big black mark on their record which is extremely disappointed. With the commotion of the climate bill moving through Congress, I hadn’t had a chance to comment on the EPA’s ruling that 42 of the 48 Mountaintop Removal mining permits were “environmentally responsible””. I’ve documented plenty of reasons why coal use needs to be phased out Continue reading
Will the EPA regulate greenhouse gases? It's up to YOU!
Here’s some background. Two years ago, on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. Then, last month, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) announced its finding that global warming pollution endangers our public health and welfare.
This is excellent (if somewhat old) news. However – and here’s the big surprise – industry and the usual host of global warming deniers are already lining up to block the EPA actually taking any action. Big polluting companies have spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts in Washington D.C., and they will fight hard to weaken any rules that result from the endangerment finding. We know they will fight hard to preserve the failed status quo and block any progress on fighting global warming and clean energy production.
So here’s the deal. As part of the EPA’s endangerment findings, they are holding a public comment period. This is our opportunity to stand up and make our voices heard loud a clear. We need a clean energy economy to tackle global warming and create good, green jobs, and we need it now.
The really cool part is that one of the two public hearings are happening in Arlington, VA! This is your opportunity to show your support for the EPA moving forward in regulating global warming pollution.
Details:
When: Monday, May 18th. 9 AM – 8 PM
Where:Environmental Protection Agency
Conference Center Continue reading
Obama Should Play Hardball
Cross-Posted from HERE
I’ve been blogging consistently about the climate bill written by Congressmen Markey and Waxman which is being considered by the Energy and Commerce Committee. Right now, the bill is in sub-committee and about to be marked up and negotiated on. Although the short term target of 20% by 2025 is not strong enough, moderate and conservative Democrats on the committee are looking to weaken the bill. Right now the main compromise looks as though it’s going to be on emissions targets and permit allocations. Excerpt below..
“The talks suggest that utilities that distribute electricity from coal-fired plants are making progress in their efforts to get free access to 40 percent of the emissions permits, underscoring the challenge lawmakers face in seeking strict limits on carbon dioxide and other contributors to warming.”
Of course, allocating permits to polluters for free really defeats the purpose, which is to make the polluters pay for polluting. The risk of selling permits for free is that utilities raise prices anyways on consumers, but the government has not sold enough permits to offset this increased cost by spending the revenue on energy relief. In otherwards, people are not going to fare any better under 40% permits sold for free than 100% sold for a price. In fact, they may fare worse. It also means it will be harder to hit reductions targets.
However, Congressman John Dingel has predicted a bill will pass in some form because of the fact that the EPA has deemed greenhouse emissions a health hazard, and can exercise the authority to regulate them if Congress does not. In otherwards, if the EPA wanted to right now, they could set their own rules for polluters with their own targets without needing the Congress. Here is what was said regarding this in the article I posted last week…
“EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cautioned that regulations are not imminent and made clear that the Obama administration would prefer that Congress address the climate issue through a broader “cap-and-trade” program that would limit heat-trapping pollution. But she said it was clear from the EPA analysis “that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations” and steps are needed to curtail the impact. Even if actual regulations are not imminent, the EPA action was seen as likely to encourage action on Capitol Hill. It’s “a wake-up call for Congress”
Environmental Protection Agency Intervenes to Block A&G Coal's Ison Rock Ridge Mine
Community members applaud decision to protect streams, residents
Appalachia, Virginia
EPA & Clean Cars
Right now, the Environmental Protection Agency is considering reversing a Bush administration decision that has prevented California and other states from taking action to reduce global warming pollution from cars – they’re holding a hearing on this very issue today, March 5th. In addition, the EPA is taking public comment before making a ruling.
What does this mean? It means that MD, DC and the 11 other states that passed the California standard for stricter vehicle emissions can actually start implementing this law, something that was blocked by the EPA under our friend George W.
So what can you do? The We Campaign has a petition going to the EPA, showing people’s support for the California clean cars waiver. Check it out. By which I mean: take a moment to sign it – it’s another small step in the right direction.
EPA to regulate CO2, or How coal plants die
In the death throes of the Bush administration, then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson put the agency on record stating that CO2 is not a pollutant that should be regulated by the Clean Air Act. This week, the current EPA administrator Lisa Jackson announced her intent to overturn that memorandum, putting the EPA on the path toward regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
As a result of this decision, coal plants are dropping like flies. The latest victim comes out of Oklahoma. Opposition groups cite the EPA decision and public outcry, but the reps from the company building the plant say it’s “purely a business decision.” With more and more planned coal plants biting the dust due to “business decisions,” how much longer can coal companies insist that building new coal plants is our best option?
But this hilarious video from 2006 reminds us that the fossil fuel industry isn’t confined to the truth when defending its turf. (No, it’s not a spoof. It’s real.)
Coal's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Poor King Coal can seem to get a break these days. After the election saw three global warming deniers lose their elections in VA, Thursday saw a huge shift toward a rational policy on coal. The Environmental Appeals Board ruled that the EPA must regulate CO2 as a pollutant from coal plants, and Virginia’s Climate Commission nearly banned new coal plants.
The EPA ruling sets a very persuasive precedent in our case against Dominion’s Wise County coal plant. The State Air Pollution Control Board did not include CO2 as a pollutant when they were permitting the plant