Coal Industry in Limbo Over Regulating Greenhouse Gases

Scores of new coal-burning power plants were set to begin construction soon, but the plans are now on hold as the industry awaits decisions by the Obama administration about the regulation of greenhouse gases.

Coal industry lawyers are nervous after the Environmental Protection Agency appeals panel recently rejected a federal permit for a Utah Plant, which one lawyer described as “a punt to the Obama adminstration”. The panel said that the EPA’s Denver office had failed to adequately support its decision to create the plant without requiring controls on carbon dioxide.

From MSNBC:

The matter was sent back to that office, which must better explain why it failed to order limits on carbon dioxide. This is “an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting process,” the panel said.

EPA spokesman Jonathan Shrader said the agency was reviewing the ruling by the appeals panel, which traditionally gives great deference to agency decisions.

Environmentalists and lawyers representing industry groups said the ruling puts in question permits — some being considered, others approved but under appeal — of perhaps as many as 100 coal plants.

“It’s going to stop everything while EPA mulls over what to do next” about how the federal Clean Air Act is to be used to control carbon dioxide, said David Bookbinder, a Sierra Club lawyer. “And that will be decided by the next administration.”

Though we don’t yet know exactly how Obama is going to tackle the regulation of greenhouse gases, it’s safe to assume that his approach will be different from that of George W. Bush, who opposed using the Clean Air Act to do so. The Supreme Court has told the EPA that it must decide whether carbon dioxide endangers public health and welfare, and if it does it must be regulated. Obviously, it does, but under Bush, the EPA wouldn’t admit it.

The people Obama chooses for top spots in the EPA will make all the difference in cases like this – and we’re pretty confident that for once they’ll be capable of doing the job.

Link [MSNBC]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Al Gore Urges Civil Disobedience to Fight Coal Plants

Al Gore has a message for you, environmentalists: it’s okay to engage in a little civil disobedience here and there when the goal is as important as stopping the construction of coal plants that don’t have the ability to store carbon.  After all, civil disobedience is one of the few ways ordinary citizens still have to make sure our voices are heard.  Gore, speaking to a philanthropic meeting in New York, said on Wednesday that “the world has lost ground to the climate crisis”.

From Reuters:

“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

“I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact,” he said. “I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that.”

According to the government, about 28 coal plants are currently under construction in the United States right now and another 20 projects have permits or are near the start of construction.  The carbon emitted from coal plants are a key factor in global warming.

Part of the problem is the fact that we, as a nation, have been apathetic for too long.  We’ve allowed money-hungry corporations to control our lives and dictate our futures, to the extent that every living creature on earth is now in danger. The truth is that we do hold a lot of power in our hands.  We outnumber the executives and the government officials.  If we all stand together and demand something, it will be done.  We just haven’t taken that power into our hands on a mass scale.  So we say, hell yeah, Al.  Civil disobedience is definitely called for in these frightening times.

Link [Reuters]
Photo credit: Sydney Indymedia

UK Court Decides Threat of Global Warming Justifies Breaking the Law

Talk about a precedent: a UK court ruled last week that the threat of global warming is such a pressing issue, that Greenpeace activists were right to cause more than $62,000 dollars in damage to a coal-fired power station.  Last October, the six protesters had scaled the chimney at the Kingsnorth power plant in Kent and painted Prime Minster Gordon Brown’s name on it.  The activists were upset about a plan to build another coal-fired power plant, which they said would be ‘a disastrous setback in the battle against global warming’.

From The Independent:

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a “lawful excuse” to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of “lawful excuse” under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

During the eight-day trial, the world’s leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from American to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to “take a leadership role” in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.

The activists said they acted lawfully, believing that their attempt to stop emissions from Kingsnorth would prevent further damage to properties worldwide caused by global warming.  They said that their actions were designed to cause only the amount of damage necessary to close the plant down.

It’s pretty amazing that Johnny Law came down on the side of the earth – especially given the fact that the jury was made up of ordinary people, not necessarily environmentalists.  It’s a good sign that people are starting to take the threat of global warming seriously, and yet another wake-up call to turn away from coal and start using cleaner technology.

Link [The Independent]
Photo credit: Greenpeace

EPA: Sit Back, Relax and Breathe in Some Coal Smoke at National Parks

Once again, the EPA is failing in what’s supposed to be their main goal: protecting the environment. You just fell over with surprise, right? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

The EPA will soon be allowing coal-fired power plants to set up shop next to national parks, lowering the protection of these areas from the highest level to “the lowest possible degree of protection” against spikes in pollution. The proposed changes would act to hide pollution from regulators, according to Mark Wenzler, clean air director of the National Parks Conservation Association.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Despite blunt internal criticism by its own staff experts, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proceeding with a plan by year’s end to revise regulations under the Clean Air Act that currently safeguard areas with some of the nation’s cleanest air.

Across the United States, 156 national parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges have been designated by Congress as Class-1 areas, granting them the toughest legal protection.

Officially, the EPA says it is proposing “refinements” to regulations that measure Class-1 air-quality standards.

But federal air-quality experts at the EPA and the National Park Service say the planned changes would be a backward step for air quality.

Naturally, what we all want when visiting national parks is to choke down black smoke and have formerly beautiful views obscured. Because, we aren’t there to enjoy the meager tracts of somewhat-untouched land that are left in America – no, we’re there to be poisoned and polluted.

Link [Christian Science Monitor] via [Treehugger]

Photo credit: Flickr user OneofThem