COAL POLLUTION KILLS PEOPLE 

The scientific studies stack up as high as an elephant’s eye.  The American Lung Association says “Nearly half (46 %) of the U.S. population lives in counties that have unhealthful levels of either ozone or particle pollution.  Old coal-fired power plants are among the biggest industrial polluters…   Studies showing the dangers of particle pollution are pouring in by the thousands… showing the strong relationship between particle pollution, illness, hospitalization and premature death.  The toll of death, disease and environmental destruction caused by coal-fired power plant pollution continues to mount.  An analysis released in 2004 attributed 24,000 premature deaths each year to power plant pollution. In addition, the research estimates that over 550,000 asthma attacks, 38,000 heart attacks and 12,000 hospital admissions are caused annually by power plant pollution.  These new power plants could add significantly to the local air pollution burden for ozone and particulate pollution. Even if they use the best emissions reduction technology available—and current law does not ensure that—pollution levels are likely to rise in some locations”  -  American Lung Association: State of the Air: 2007   www.lungusa.org

More about the health effects of coal plant pollution in our Coal Impact Guide, Coal Plant Emissions and Health Effects

COAL IS COOKING THE PLANET

About one third of CO2 emissions in the U.S. come from coal, more than all the plains, trains, and automobiles combined.  The best science based analysis of global climate change comes from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Their most recent report says that the climate of our planet is warming and this is an undisputable fact.  They further say that they have a 90% level of confidence that human emissions of greenhouse gasses, primarily CO2, are contributing to that warming. 

In 2007 the National Academies of 13 Countries, including the US, signed a statement which said in part:  “Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”  NASA’s head climate scientist has said that if we want to preserve creation and the planet, the first step is to stop building new coal plants that emit CO2.

Find out more about global warming in our Coal Impact Guide, Global Warming  

"CLEAN COAL" IS A LIE

As Long as Mountaintop Removal coal mining continues in the Appalachian Mountains there will never be clean coal.  Visit I Love Mountains and see for yourself the kind of devastation now being visited upon the mountains ant their inhabitants.

Senator Harry Reid’s opinion of clean coal -  "The coal industry around the country is spending tens of millions of dollars to give false and misleading information to people saying 'all we want to do is have clean coal. Why won't they let us do the clean coal’,   my answer to that is it doesn't exist. There is no clean coal technology. There's cleaner coal, but there's no clean coal technology."

“Clean coal” is a marketing strategy by big coal to persuade the public and elected officials to continue to support coal despite the harmful effects of coal generation on public health and the environment, and despite the fact that there are, available today, cheaper, healthier, and smarter ways to generate electricity.  First, they are implying that newer technology, planned for only a tiny fraction of the proposed new plants, which can produce significant reductions in harmful pollutants, is somehow “clean” in terms of pollution.  It is not.  Pollution is pollution, less of it does not equal “clean”.  Three skunks in your house is better than six, but if you claimed your house was “odor free” now that you only had three skunks would that be the truth or a lie?

Second, they are suggesting that possible future deployment of unproven technology to capture and store the greenhouse gas CO2 - technology no one expects to be ready for broad deployment for 10 to 20 years, and only then if our tax dollars are spent in the Billions to support the technology - somehow this idea that they may have a workable way to reduce CO2 emissions at some point makes the hundred odd plants proposed now “clean”.  The possibility that a plant might, someday, be able to operate with reduced CO2 emissions does not make it “clean” today and does not insure that it will ever be “clean”.  If you owed someone a hundred dollars and on the day you devised a plan about how you think you should be able to get the money at some point in the future so that you could repay the debt, if on that day you started telling people you were “debt free” because you had a plan to repay, would that be the truth or a lie?

More about “clean coal” and carbon capture in our Coal Impact Guide, Carbon Sequestration 

THERE ARE CHEAPER, SAFER, MORE STRATIGIC WAYS TO MEET OUR ELECTRICITY NEEDS

The CEO of one of the major coal burning utilities, Duke Energy, has said that “Energy efficiency is the ‘fifth fuel’ — after coal, gas, renewables and nuclear.  Today, it is the lowest-cost alternative and is emissions-free. It should be our first choice in meeting our growing demand for electricity, as well as in solving the climate challenge.” We could not agree more.

Renewable energy is cost-competitive. Xcel Energy's recently submitted Colorado Resource Plan (November 15, 2007) estimated these capital costs: Wind-$1645/kW (with Production Tax Credit); Wind-$2,000/kW (no PTC); Concentrating Solar with 6 hrs thermal storage- $2572; IGCC with 50% capture-$3912/kW; Pulverized Coal, dry cooled with 50% capture-$3688/kW.   - go to Vol. 1, p.55

We are told that coal is protecting ratepayers from increased electricity bills and is necessary for job creation. First, the folks doing the telling all have a tremendous financial stake in the continued dominance of coal in the market. 

Second, the market fails to include in the price of coal enormous health and environmental costs directly attributable to coal plant pollution.  The province of Ontario Canada, where the government pays those health costs, commissioned a study which found that if you included the health and environmental costs in the price of electricity, natural gas generation is actually cheaper than coal.  The study showed that fully three quarters of the real cost of coal generated power comes in the form of health and environmental damage that doesn't appear on anyone's electric bill.  Another way of saying this is that for every dollar you or I pay our utility for coal generated electricity, someone, somewhere, is suffering three dollars worth of health and environmental damage.

THE BEST SOLUTION:        

• A MORITORIUM ON ALL NEW COAL PLANTS

• IMPLIMENT AN ENERGY POLICY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS CENTURY, INCLUDING EFFECIENCY MEASURES AND INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLE RESOURCES.