All posts by admin

EPA hears testimony on proposed carbon emissions rules

August 1, 2014Carbon Rules, EPA, Newsadmin

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

By Ben Wolfgang and Valerie Richardson
The Washington Times

Retired coal miner Stanley Sturgill of Harlan County, Kentucky, testifies that coal fired power plants are a danger to public health, on the first of two days of public hearings held by the Environmental Protection Agency on President Barack Obama’s plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent by 2030, in Denver, Tuesday, July 29, 2014. In hearings,
hundreds of people across the country are telling the EPA its new rules for power-plant pollution either go too far or not far enough. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

DENVER | The atmosphere outside was festive, with music, free T-shirts and ice cream giveaways, but the mood inside the Environmental Protection Agency’s first hearings on its proposed power plant regulations was anything but.

Hundreds of people testified Tuesday in three cities — Atlanta, Denver and Washington, D.C. — on the Obama administration’s proposed rules requiring a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2030.

The hearings conclude Wednesday, with a final two-day hearing slated to begin Thursday in Pittsburgh. Written comments are being accepted until Oct. 16, with the final regulations expected to be released next year, after the November election.

The timing may not be accidental: As Tuesday’s testimony demonstrated, the proposal causes bitter disagreement between environmentalists and renewable energy companies versus the coal industry, labor unions and local governments.

"[T]he environmental extremist war on coal is really a war on prosperity both for Moffat County and the entire nation," said Moffat County Commissioner John Kinkaid, whose county lies at the heart of Colorado’s coal country. "Coal means that kids can go to school and get an education. Coal means that families can buy homes and put food on the table."

Mr. Kinkaid said that the county’s coal-fired power plant is responsible for $428 million annually in direct and indirect economic impact.

"Maybe that’s not very much money in Washington, D.C., but here in the heartland of America, it is," said Mr. Kinkaid.

On the other side was Stan Sturgill of Kentucky, a retired coal miner, who said at the hearing he now suffers from black lung and other respiratory ailments as a result of coal. He asked the panel to implement even tougher restrictions on emissions.

"Your targets to reduce carbon dioxide pollution by 2030 are way too low and do not do enough to reduce our risk from climate change," said Mr. Sturgill. "The rule does not do near enough to protect the health of the front line communities from the consequences of this pollution. We’re dying, literally dying, for you to help us."

The Obama administration weighed in with a report Tuesday in an effort to justify its controversial actions on climate change, and also plans to roll out new executive moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The study shows the potential damages to the planet by delaying steps — such as harsh new limits on carbon emissions from power plants — to tackle global warming.

"First of all, we know way more than enough to justify acting today. Second, delaying action will increase the costs," said Jason Furman, chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, which produced the report. "And third … the large-scale risks associated with climate change are an argument for acting more today as a form of insurance against the worst consequences in the future."

Those supporting the regulations appeared to have the numerical edge at Tuesday’s Denver hearing. Dozens of people wore light teal T-shirts with the message "I [heart] Clean Air," which were being given away by Sierra Club organizers outside the EPA building in Denver’s trendy lower downtown.

Meanwhile, Climate Reality Project workers solicited comments on the proposal and gave out coupons for free Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Trucks with signs promoting the wind and solar industries, which stand to benefit from the regulations, parked across the street from the EPA building.

"Climate change is real and the impacts are being felt already through intensified storms, flooding, hurricanes, drought and wildfires," said Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition in Austin. "We are experiencing them now in Texas. We cannot afford the cost of not taking action."

A few blocks away, Americans for Prosperity held a rally next to the Colorado state capitol, giving away red T-shirts with the message, "Stop the EPA Power Grab." A prop plane flew over the capital pulling a banner with the same slogan.

Speakers from Colorado, Montana and Wyoming decried the proposed standards, which they said would result in higher energy costs and job losses while doing virtually nothing to counter climate change. Wyoming is the top coal-producing state in the nation, responsible for 40 percent of the nation’s coal production.

Jess LaBuff of the Boilermakers Local 11 of Montana said the EPA’s goals were "unrealistic and unachievable," while dozens of coal miners and family members arrived on five buses from Craig, Colorado, to speak out against the regulations.

"They’re going to regulate us to the point where they’re going to close up the coal mines," said coal miner Anthony Delgado. "It’s going to suck."

• Ben Wolfgang reported from Washington.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Valerie Richardson
Valerie Richardson covers politics and the West from Denver. She can be reached at vrichardson(at)washingtontimes.com.

Ben Wolfgang
Ben Wolfgang covers the White House for The Washington Times viagra generic.
Before joining the Times in March 2011, Ben spent four years as a political reporter at the Republican-Herald in Pottsville, Pa.
He can be reached at bwolfgang(at)washingtontimes.com.

Fair Use Notice
This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. SEED Coalition is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability, human rights, economic democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a "fair use" of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

China pledges to limit carbon emissions for first time

June 5, 2014Climate Change, Newsadmin

Absolute cap to come into effect from 2016, climate adviser says on the day after US announces ambitious carbon plan

Tuesday 3 June 2014

Adam Vaughan
The Guardian

The sun is seen behind smoke billowing from a chimney of a heating plant in Taiyuan, Shanxi province Photograph: JON WOO/REUTERS

China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, has pledged to limit its total emissions for the first time.

He Jiankun, chairman of China’s Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing on Tuesday that an absolute cap on carbon emissions will be introduced later this decade.

"The government will use two ways to control CO2 emissions in the next five-year plan, by intensity and an absolute cap," Reuters reported He, an adviser to the government, as saying.

China’s emissions have risen dramatically in the last two decades, overtaking those from the US – the previous biggest producer – in 2006. Although the average Chinese person’s carbon footprint is still much lower than the average American’s, it is catching up, and is now on a par with the average European’s.

The timing of the announcement – just a day after the Obama administration implemented tough new rules to cut carbon emissions from power plants 30% by 2030 – appears deliberately chosen to show China will also take a leadership role on climate change.

China set its first ever carbon targets in 2009, in the run-up to a major UN climate talks summit in Copenhagen, attended by Obama, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and other world leaders. The previous target was for a cut of emissions relative to its economic growth, by 40-45% by 2020, compared to 2005 levels, meaning absolute carbon emissions could still increase as China’s economy grew.

But the new cap will be the first time that the country, which has been plagued by pollution problems in large part due to the burning of carbon-intensive coal, has promised to limit absolute emissions. Officials have not yet put a figure on what level the cap will be.

He told Reuters that the country’s emissions were likely to peak at around 11bn tonnes CO2 equivalent – up from 7-9.5bn tonnes CO2e now – by 2030.

The move is likely to be welcomed by Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the UN climate secretariat, who oversees long-running efforts to reach an international deal on climate change. The Copenhagen meeting ended in a weak deal with non-binding targets, but countries have agreed to reach a new deal next year at a blockbuster summit in Paris.
Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, said that the move by China, so shortly after the US announcement, showed "momentum" in the climate talks process.

"In the last 24 hours we’ve had two major announcements from China and the US which send a powerful signal to other world leaders ahead of crucial climate talks later this year. The Chinese government has already set out ambitious plans to cut the country’s reliance on coal – an additional cap on CO2 suggests the country’s leaders are serious about tackling their emission problem," he said.

The UN climate negotiations resume on Wednesday in Bonn.

China considering cap on greenhouse gas pollution

June 5, 2014Climate Change, Newsadmin

04 June, 2014

Reuters and Li Jing

Official says Beijing mulling curbs on carbon dioxide emissions to combat climate change

China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, is considering plans to set an absolute cap on its carbon dioxide emissions from 2016, a top government adviser said.

The target will be written into China’s next five-year plan, which comes into force in 2016, He Jiankun, the chairman of China’s Advisory Committee on Climate Change, told a conference in Beijing.

"The government will use two ways to control carbon dioxide emissions in the next five-year plan, by intensity and an absolute cap," said He, a former vice-president at Tsinghua University.

This is the first time that a senior government adviser has publicly spoken about a timetable for China’s carbon cap, but He later tried to play down the significance of his statement.

"This is still a proposal made by Chinese experts after extensive research, [but is] not yet a government decision," he told theSouth China Morning Post.

The statement comes after the United Sstates, the world’s second-biggest emitter, announced for the first time plans to rein in carbon emissions from its power sector, a move the Obama administration hopes can inject ambition into slow-moving international climate negotiations.

China has set a target to reduce its carbon intensity, or carbon emissions per unit of economic growth, by between 40 per cent and 45 per cent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

Developed nations have accused Beijing of holding back progress in UN talks on climate change due to its reluctance to take on a quantified emission reduction target, which is considered more stringent than an intensity target vente pharmacie viagra.

Chinese negotiators have been arguing that as a developing nation, the country should not accept a binding target as do its industrialised counterparts.

But some senior climate officials at China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the powerful state economic planner, have been pushing for a limit on carbon emissions domestically, according to Li Shuo , climate policy officer at Greenpeace East Asia.

"With an energy cap already in place in the nation’s 12th five-year plan [2011-2015], it is only a natural and important step to move China’s carbon regulation from an intensity-based approach to one based on absolute carbon dioxide limits," Li said.

Having a domestic carbon cap would help pave the way for China to take on binding targets internationally after 2020, as more than 180 countries are negotiating a new climate treaty for the post 2020 period, to be agreed by the end of next year.

Despite the absolute cap on carbon dioxide, He told the conference that China’s greenhouse gas emissions would only peak in 2030, at around 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent. Emissions now stand at between 7 billion to 9.5 billion tonnes.

This scenario would depend on China achieving a real reduction in coal consumption from sometime between 2020 or 2025 and on the nation meeting its target of having 150-200 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity by 2030.

Li at Greenpeace said he was still waiting to see the official figure for China’s carbon cap.

"It would be meaningless if the target is too lax. Meanwhile, the world cannot wait for China to reach its peak emissions as late as 2030," he said.

Texas Environmental Leaders Applaud Landmark Climate Change Initiative

June 2, 2014Carbon Rulesadmin

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2014

Contact:
Nancy Nusser, 410 934 9588 nnusser@citizen.org
Katherine Owens, 512 691 3447 kowens@edf.org

Federal carbon safeguards will drive investment in clean energy industries and jobs

The Obama administration today announced its landmark climate change initiative – the first-ever protection against carbon emissions from existing power plants. Carbon emissions, or greenhouse gases, cause climate change and are already costing Texans millions of dollars in damage from drought, wildfires and extreme heat. The new standards, which will reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030, will clean up power plants that generate most of Texas’s carbon pollution. They will allow states to give power plants broad options for offsetting their emissions by investing in solar, wind and other renewable energy sources. In Texas, where climate change has already brought devastating drought and heat, leaders of environmental groups welcomed the safeguards, making the following comments.

"There is no state that suffers more from climate disruption than Texas. We have extreme drought, wildfires, and serious water shortages. There’s also no state in a better position to cut carbon emissions. We already generate more wind power than any other state, and our reliance on all renewable energy sources has increased 140 percent in recent years. We need to take advantage of the new standards to reduce climate disruption and invest in the 21st century energy industries – solar and wind power, energy efficiency and energy storage vente pfizer viagra.

Action on climate change now will save money in the future in lower electricity rates, health costs, food prices and disaster-related insurance. Texas’s shift to renewables is already generating good, high-paying jobs. Together, they employ five times more people than the state’s coal industry. If our state leaders handle these new carbon standards correctly, they can be a springboard for Texas into a new energy future." – Tom "Smitty" Smith, director, Public Citizen’s Texas office.

"Texans understand how critical it is to cut carbon pollution and we’ve already gotten started. Houston has adopted one of the country’s strongest energy efficiency standards for new buildings and is the nation’s largest municipal purchaser of renewable energy. San Antonio is ranked sixth in the nation for installed solar energy and has bold goals to install more solar panels across the city. All told, efficiency and renewable energy policies reduced carbon pollution in Texas equivalent to taking 3.7 million cars off the road in 2012. That’s a great start and we’ve got the right stuff to finish the job." – Luke Metzger, director, Environment Texas.

"It’s time to have an honest conversation around the carbon pollution standards and the impact to Texas’ power grid. As the nation’s energy leader, Texas has the resources and the know-how to create a diverse energy portfolio that relies on wind, solar, natural gas, energy efficiency, and other clean technologies to save Texans money and grow the state’s economy – without risking affordability or reliability. If state leaders take advantage of the standards’ flexibility by integrating more energy efficiency and renewable energy into the power mix, we can overcome any local or regional challenges." – Kate Zerrenner, clean energy project manager, Environmental Defense Fund’s Texas Office.

"Recent polling by the League of Conservation Voters shows that a majority of voters recognize that climate change is a serious problem and support the EPA setting limits on carbon pollution. Especially for a state that has been hit hard in recent years by drought, wildfire, and hurricanes, Texas elected officials should listen to the voters and enact a commonsense plan for reducing carbon pollution and protecting current and future generations of Texans." – David Weinberg, executive director, Texas League of Conservation Voters.

"The physicians of Texas have been working for over a decade to get the state to control air and water pollution from the oldest legacy coal-fired power plants that increase hospitalizations and deaths from asthma, lung disease and heart attacks in our patients. Despite our best efforts, these antiquated coal plants continue to emit 40% of the air pollution in our state for relatively little energy production. The Texas Public Utility Commission tells us that if these old coal plants announced a phase-out today, renewables and natural gas would replace them rapidly with no threat to the energy grid. The new air pollution limits on CO2 emissions announced today by the EPA will significantly improve the health of Texans while helping to forestall climate disasters in the lifetimes of our children." — Robert W. Haley, MD, medical epidemiologist, Dallas County Medical Society and Texas Medical Association.

"Electric coops can benefit from a once-in-a-generation opportunity to repower their communities, and create new local industries and businesses. The EPA is proposing an option to allow offsets of carbon if the utility or coop invests in energy efficiency or renewable energy. Coops can create local jobs to harness renewable energy and benefit financially by selling excess electric power to the grid for use in urban areas." – Karen Hadden, executive director, Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition.

Obama carbon rule requires 39 percent reduction in Texas

June 2, 2014Carbon Rules, Newsadmin

Monday, Jun. 02, 2014

By Dina Cappiello and Josh Lederman
Associated Press via Fort Worth Star-Telegram

WASHINGTON — In a sweeping initiative to curb pollutants blamed for global warming, the Obama administration unveiled a plan Monday that cuts carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by nearly a third over the next 15 years, but pushes the deadline for some states to comply until long after President Barack Obama leaves office.
In Texas, the emissions would need to decline by 39 percent by 2030 under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed greenhouse gas reduction proposal. The agency calls for a 32.6 percent average reduction nationally compared to 2012 emission rates.

Texas would need to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions from 1,298 pounds per megawatt-hour, the rate in 2012, to 791 pounds per mw-h, according to the agency. A megawatt is about enough electricity to power 200 average Texas residences during a time of peak demand, such as a hot summer day.

EPA officials said the standards are based on the 2012 "state of the fleet" for each state’s generation capacity, taking into account previous efforts to cut emissions through energy efficiency programs, renewable energy standards and other programs. According to EPA, Texas got about half its power in 2012 from natural gas, 32 percent from coal, 7.5 percent from wind and 8.9 percent from nuclear.

"It will be up to the states to define their plans … to meet the goals," one senior EPA officials said on a conference call with reporters this morning. "Ultimately if a state doesn’t set a plan the EPA will set one," said another EPA official on the call.

It could be a carbon tax or other system, the officials said, "and states will make their own choices of what makes sense for them." The goals set by the EPA also include considerations of what alternatives are available to a state, such as the supply of natural gas to replace coal.

The 645-page rule, expected to be finalized next year, is a centerpiece of Obama’s plans to tackle climate change and aims to give the United States more leverage to prod other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year. Under the plan, carbon emissions would be reduced 30 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, putting in motion one of the most significant actions on global warming.

The proposal sets off a complex regulatory process, steeped in politics, in which the 50 states will each determine how to meet customized targets set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

"The glue that holds this plan together – and the key to making it work – is that each state’s goal is tailored to its own circumstances, and states have the flexibility to reach their goal in whatever works best for them," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, according to prepared remarks released in advance of Monday’s formal announcement. She characterized the proposal as "ambitious, but achievable."

Luminant Generation, the state’s largest power company, in a prepared release called for the EPA to "give Texas broad flexibility and sufficient time to form an implementation plan tailored to its unique regional needs." It said it would submit comments to the agency "and also work with the state to develop a workable compliance plan for Texas that doesn’t harm reliability or the economy."

"Today, we applaud President Obama and the EPA for their move to clean up our air, improve the health of our children, and curb the worst effects of climate disruption," said Scheleen Walker, director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. "Climate disruption and extreme weather in Texas have already cost more than five billion dollars in federal disaster relief for 2011 and 2012 alone."

Initially, Obama wanted each state to submit their plans for cutting pollution to meet the new targets by June 2016. But details of the new proposal show that states could have until 2017, and 2018 if they join with other states to tackle the problem. That means even if the rules survive legal and other challenges, the dust won’t likely settle on this transformation until well into the next administration, raising the possibility that political dynamics in either Congress or the White House could alter the rule’s course.
S. William Becker, who heads the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said the rule gives states more time to develop strategies and gives them credit for steps they’ve already taken to cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

"Still, the regulatory and resource challenges that lie ahead are daunting," Becker said.

Power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., accounting for about a third of the annual emissions that make the U.S. the second largest contributor to global warming on the planet.

Yet the rule carries significant political and legal risks, which were heightened by the EPA giving states beyond 2016 to submit plans. The rule has already drawn intense scorn from Republicans – and even some Democrats waging difficult campaigns this year in energy-producing states.

The policy change will further diminish the role of coal in U.S. electrical production. Coal, which once supplied about half the nation’s electricity, has dropped to 40 percent as it has been replaced by booming supplies of natural gas and renewable sources such as wind and solar.

"If these rules are allowed to go into effect, the administration for all intents and purposes is creating America’s next energy crisis," said Mike Duncan of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which represents the coal industry. He accused the administration of "political expediency over practical reality."

Still, even with the new rules, the EPA predicted that coal and natural gas would remain the two leading sources of electricity generation in the U.S., with each providing more than 30 percent of the projected supply.

The EPA projected that carrying out the plan will cost up to $8.8 billion annually in 2030, but the actual costs will depend heavily on how states choose to reach their targets. The administration argued that any costs to comply are far outweighed by savings in health costs that the U.S. will realize thanks to reductions in other pollutants like soot and smog that will accompany a shift away from dirtier fuels.

EPA data show that the nation’s power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 13 percent since 2005, or about halfway to the administration’s goal. The agency is aiming to have about 26 percent cut by 2020.

Environmental groups hailed the proposal, praising both the climate effects and the public health benefits they said would follow. Former Vice President Al Gore, a prominent environmental advocate, called it "the most important step taken to combat the climate crisis in our country’s history."

But with coal-fired power plants already beleaguered by cheap natural gas prices and other environmental regulations, experts said getting there won’t be easy. Some states will be allowed to emit more and others less, leading to an overall, nationwide reduction of 30 percent.

Options for states to meet the targets include making power plants more efficient, reducing the frequency at which coal-fired power plants supply power to the grid, and investing in more renewable, low-carbon sources of energy. States could also enhance programs aimed at reducing demand by making households and businesses more energy-efficient. Each of those categories will have a separate target tailor-made for each state.

Despite concluding in 2009 that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, it has taken years for Obama’s administration to take on the nation’s fleet of power plants. Obama put them on the fast track last summer when he announced his climate action plan and a renewed commitment to climate change after the issue went dormant during his re-election campaign.

Obama has already tackled the emissions from the nation’s cars and trucks, announcing rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by doubling fuel economy. That standard will reduce carbon dioxide by more than 2 billion tons over the life of vehicles made in model years 2012-25. The power plant proposal will prevent about 430 million tons of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere, based on the 30 percent figure and what power plants have already reduced since 2005.

Staff writer Jim Fuquay contributed to this report.

Texas Loses Another One: Court Upholds EPA Carbon Standards, Again

October 24, 2013Clean Air Act, EPA, NewsEPAadmin

July 26, 2013

David Doniger’s Blog
NRDC Switchboard

State and industry groups led by Texas and coal-based power companies lost another challenge to EPA’s carbon pollution standards today, the latest in their string of unsuccessful lawsuits trying to block EPA’s climate protection actions under the Clean Air Act.

The Court of Appeals in Washington upheld actions EPA took in 2010 to make sure that someone would be there to issue permits to big new sources of carbon pollution when Clean Air Act permitting requirements took effect in 2011.

To make a long story short, in 2009 and 2010 EPA issued the long-overdue "endangerment finding" – the scientific finding that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants contribute to dangerous climate change – and a set of carbon pollution standards for new cars and trucks. Those standards automatically triggered Clean Air Act permitting requirements for large new carbon pollution sources – under the law no such plant could be built after the start of 2011 without a permit demonstrating that it will use the best available carbon pollution controls.

The Court of Appeals rejected Texas’s attack on those requirements in June 2012, in a case called Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA.

The present case concerns steps EPA took to make sure that companies wanting to build big new plants had some permitting agency, state or federal, to turn to – some entity that could grant the permits they need to legally begin construction.

Every state except Texas worked with EPA to make sure that either the state or EPA would be available to keep new plant construction going by reviewing permit applications and making the necessary best-technology findings.

Only Texas refused. Texas flat-out denied that carbon permits were needed – a claim the Court of Appeals rejected in the 2012 case.

And so EPA stepped in as a temporary permitting agency. If EPA hadn’t kept the permitting lights on in Texas, then building or expanding a major industrial plant in the Lone Star State after January 2011 would have been a violation of federal law.

Texas sued, joined by Wyoming and trade associations for some of the biggest carbon polluters. Federal courts rejected Texas’s repeated attempts to block EPA while the case proceeded (see here and here).

Today’s court decision reaffirms that the Clean Air Act applies even in Texas, that it would have been illegal to build plants without the needed permits, and that EPA’s stepping in saved Texas companies and the Texas economy from all kinds of trouble.

In short, EPA’s actions helped, rather than hurt, Texas and its industry allies. Because they could not show injury, and because they’d be worse off if the court blocked EPA’s steps to keep the permitting lights on, the Court of Appeals ruled they had no standing to complain. Case dismissed.

Texas and its allies are on a long losing streak. The Supreme Court has twice upheld EPA’s Clean Air Act authority and responsibility to curb carbon pollution, in Massachusetts v. EPA and American Electric Power v. Connecticut. The Court of Appeals in Washington has turned away at least four challenges by these states and industry groups. I already mentioned the big 2012 decision in Coalition for Responsible Regulation (Texas is appealing to the Supreme Court, but that’s what’s charitably called a long-shot). A group of would-be new coal plants lost a challenge to EPA’s proposed carbon standards for new power plants. Just this month, the court overturned an industry-backed exemption for so-called biogenic carbon sources. And now today’s decisions.

When you are on a losing streak this bad, it’s time to fire somebody and look for a new strategy.

Texas is Number One State for Mercury Pollution: Houston We’ve Got a Problem!

August 3, 2013Air Pollution, Mercury Pollution, Newsadmin

JULY 27, 2011

BY: GINA CARROLL
The Examiner

We Texans love to be number one. We like to say, "don’t mess with Texas" and "everything’s big in Texas." These sayings embody our pride in our state and our collective spirit to do things well and right and for the greatest possible impact. This winning attitude is often evident on Texas athletic fields, in Texas board rooms and with regard to our stellar reputation in philanthropy.

But we excel at some things that do not at all reflect well on us. Texas ranks number one among all states for its mercury pollution and we are first in the entire nation in mercury pollution from power plants. I recently wrote about the fact that Texas is on the "Toxic 20" List of the most polluted states. The fact that Texas ranks #13 is misleading. Being #13 on the pollution short list is terrible. And still, this ranking does not even begin to disclose the trouble we are in here in Texas.

As far as pollution is concerned, mercury is some of the nastiest and most harmful! Mercury is a highly potent neurotoxin that poses especially serious risks to pregnant women and infants. Mercury can damage brain development; cause learning disabilities; result in language disorders and memory problems; and impair vision and hearing.

Over 400,000 newborns in the United States are exposed to mercury levels that can cause this kind of damage. Since Texas’ mercury emissions account for a whopping 85% of all state mercury air pollution, it follows that Texas polluters are exacting the most damage upon infants and children. In addition, adult exposure to mercury is associated with heart disease and other cardiovascular illnesses. (Learn more about mercury HERE)

This is not the kind of record we Texans should want to maintain, nor we parents want to subject our families to. Many of us feel helpless in the face of such an enormous hurdle as cleaning up our air. But there are lots of ways to make an impact. And we must. It’s time to take our Texas can-do spirit and stand up to polluters. The first necessary act is to arm yourself with the facts—

Check out this article to learn more about the fight in Texas to stem pollution from coal-fired plants- Dispatches from the front(s): Texas’ multifaceted coal war rumbles on

Below are local Houston organizations that are working to clean up the air and make polluters take responsibility. Join them, spread the word. Taking action to make Texas a safe place for our children and our children’s children is a vital part of our job as parents!

Air Alliance Houston – This is the organization that merged with Moms For Clean Air. They still utilize mothers as activists and community liaisons.

CLEAN (Citizens League for Environmental Action) Houston- The CLEAN website offers lots of information and ways to act.

Clean Air Action– Clean Air Action and Commute Solutions Houston focus mostly on vehicle emissions and alternative fuels. Check out there calendar of events.

Commute Solutions Houston

Then when you are all informed and furious about the poor quality of your air and how it is making Texas kids sick and poorly functioning, JOIN Mom’s Clean Air Force. Send the message–DON”T MESS WITH TEXAS MOMS! Go HERE to join.

Mercury from power plants

August 3, 2013Mercury Pollutionadmin

March 2011

Environmental Defense Fund

EDF identifies the top 25 emitters of mercury from the electric sector

Coal-fired power plants are the primary source of toxic mercury air emissions in the U.S. Mercury pollution contaminates our land and waters, causing serious human health impacts.

In Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives [PDF] EDF identifies the top 25 emitters of mercury from the electric sector.

Key report findings

A large amount of toxic mercury pollution is released from a relatively small number of plants.
These 25 plants alone are responsible for nearly a third of all mercury emissions in the power sector, while providing only eight percent of our electricity.
Twenty of them are located within 50-100 miles of some of the largest metropolitan areas in the country, including Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis and Austin.
Texas led the nation in mercury air pollution from coal-fired power in 2009.

Some states are making progress to reduce mercury emissions from the electric sector, but we need a strong national Utility Air Toxics rule to protect the health of all Americans.

Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives from Environmental Defense Fund

If Mercury Pollution Knows No Borders, Neither Can Its Solution

August 3, 2013Mercury Pollution, Newsadmin

December 12, 2012

By KATE GALBRAITH
New York Times

AUSTIN, TEXAS — The harm that can be caused by consuming or breathing mercury is well known and terrible. A pregnant woman, eating too much of the wrong kind of fish, risks bearing a child with neurological damage. Adults or children exposed to mercury can experience mood swings or tremors, or sometimes even respiratory failure or death.

In January, representatives of dozens of countries will gather in Geneva to discuss combating mercury emissions, which are rising in Asia even as Europe and the United States have tightened controls. The meeting is the last of five negotiating rounds — the first took place in 2010 in Stockholm — and a legally binding treaty on mercury contamination is expected to come together next year.

The signing of that treaty is set to take place in the Japanese city of Minamata, where widespread mercury poisoning occurred in the mid-20th century after discharges from a factory contaminated the seawater.

But the extent to which countries will commit to reducing mercury, and whether they will follow through on those commitments, are open questions.

Read the whole article on the New York Times website…

Texas Power Plants #1 In US For Mercury Pollution

August 3, 2013Mercury Pollution, Newsadmin

August 9, 2012

by: Carrie Feibel
KUHF FM News – Houston

A new report ranks all 50 states for toxic air pollutants coming from power plants. Texas comes in at number ten.

The new report is from the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.

It puts Texas in the top ten for toxic power plant emissions, behind some Big Coal states like Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The good news, however, is that power plants in the U.S. overall are releasing 19 percent less toxic chemicals than a year ago. These chemicals include mercury, arsenic and acid gases.

John Walke, an attorney with the NRDC, says there are two main reasons why:

"The first is the increasing use by power companies of natural gas which is a cheaper and less polluting fuel. The second factor is the installation of state-of-the-art pollution controls by many plants."

Walke says power companies have begun installing new technology because new EPA rules go into effect in a few years.

When you take a closer look at these pollution rankings, Texas emerges as a special case. Texas does rank #10, but it’s #1 when you look at just one pollutant, mercury. That’s because many Texas power plants burn lignite, a type of coal that is high in mercury.

Peter Altman is also with the NRDC:

"Mercury is the one that we have been the most concerned about because it has such profound impacts on our brains and our neurological systems, particularly those of children and unborn children."

The coal-burning power plant closest to Houston is NRG’s W.A. Parish plant in Fort Bend County. It ranks fourth in the state for toxic air pollutants.

But spokesman David Knox says Parish is ahead of federal deadlines when it comes to installing the best pollution controls.

"Due to the low sulfur fuel we use and the emissions controls we’ve installed, on a per megawatt basis, it is significantly cleaner than a number of other plants in the nation."

The new EPA rules for power plants don’t go into effect until 2015, but they are already under political attack and the focus of lawsuits.

The state of Texas is one of the states that has sued to stop the new rules.