EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: WVNS story: Are EPA Coal Plant Rules what the Public Wants?
by James Kotcon 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

Not sure if you saw this, but this is an important public opinion poll done for the American Lung association. Significant majorities support EPA's proposed new greenhouse gas rules, and even larger majorities support mercury and air toxics rules. Most people view these as health rules, and we need to keep emphasizing that aspect as we talk about the rules. Ohio and PA voters were surveyed separately, and even these coal-friendly states support EPA rules. JBK >>> Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> 4/4/2012 4:29 AM >>> Are EPA Coal Plant Rules what the Public Wants? Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/25687-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService ( http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService ) Twitter: @pns_news ( http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news ) @pns_WV ( http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV ) Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice ( http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866 ) (04/04/12) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - The Environmental Protection Agency's new rules to protect Americans from carbon pollution emitted by new coal plants are getting a chilly reception from some in West Virginia. Sen. Joe Manchin has criticized them, and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is calling on the public to object to them. However, a new bipartisan survey ( http://www.lung.org/healthy-air/outdoor/resources/clean-air-survey-mar2012.… ) finds tougher air-pollution standards are exactly what American voters want. The results show that 72 percent agree with the EPA's new carbon-pollution limits, according to Peter Iwanowicz, assistant vice president of the American Lung Association, which commissioned the survey. "EPA has taken this step to address carbon pollution from power plants but, as we saw in our poll, the public expects EPA to do more when it comes to dealing with power-plant emissions and other pollution problems." Iwanowicz says the survey also found that a 2-to-1 majority believes these first-ever limits will create jobs rather than destroy them, by encouraging innovation. Opponents argue the measures will raise electricity prices and slow the coal industry. The public sees this as a health issue, Iwanowicz says, adding that that's the right way to look at it. "With carbon pollution or any pollution from power plants, it's simple: Power-plant pollution kills, and it makes people sick. So for us, enforcing these clean-air protections are going to improve public health." He says the combination of pollution and raising the air temperature, which carbon dioxide does, leads to more smog - which can be deadly. "For people with asthma, especially children, smog triggers asthma attacks. For seniors with chronic lung disease, their symptoms are worse when smog levels are high. More people are hospitalized for respiratory ailments during levels with high smog than otherwise. It's a serious public health threat that needs to be addressed." Survey results are online at lung.org ( http://www.lung.org/healthy-air/outdoor/resources/clean-air-survey-mar2012.… ). Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/25687-1 ( http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/25687-1 ) --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org and put the word "remove" in the subject line.

1 0

Awesome letter Re: Manchin says he'll fight new EPA rules
by Jim Sconyers 04 Apr '12

04 Apr '12

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elisa Young <elisayoung1(a)yahoo.com> Date: Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:29 AM Subject: Fw: Re: Manchin says he'll fight new EPA rules To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)lists.sierraclub.org Maybe send Manchin a word or two. I fired off this letter to Manchin from his website with the subject line: Employment statistic request. You can send your own here: http://manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form Dear Senator Manchin: I read an article in the Charleston Gazette this morning where you expressed concern about the number of jobs that would be lost if environmental protections to protect public health and safety that the EPA has approved move forward, and your vow to fight these protections: http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/201204030140 My family has long lived on the border of Ohio and West Virginia (Meigs/Mason/Gallia Counties) where 4 of AEPs power plants are concentrated (2nd largest concentration in the United States, second only to Morgantown, WV). I have personally witnessed the lives of people in community being harmed and even shortened due to coal dependency and specifically American Electric Power's emissions. Ohio has consistently taken home the prize for the worst air quality in the nation, and within that ranking, our county has the highest asthma rate in the state, the highest lung cancer death rate, the shortest life expectancy, the highest uninsured rate for children and families, and rank the second highest in the state for all cancer deaths combined (second only to another rural, coal-producing county in Southern Ohio). The air quality in our schools under the power plants was ranked as being in the top third percentile for the worst air quality in the nation (post scrubbers). I lost one neighbor to lung cancer who never touched a cigarette in her life. Her husband also died of respiratory illness. I lost 6 neighbors to cancer, had cancer myself (and 2 more precancerous conditions that we have no family history of - did I mention I don't have health insurance?), and remember when one friend's husband died, her sharing this story: Both she and her best friend's husbands were dying of cancer in the same hospital, one room apart from each other (one lived almost immediately under the power plants, the other about 2 miles out from the power plants on the Ohio side of the river - the majority of the pollutants fall within 15). When Sue's husband died (an hour before Lola's), she shared that within the next month, they would have exceeded their lifetime maximum health care benefits of $1 million. She didn't want her husband to go, but had no idea how they would have made it once their health insurance ended. Another story (just to put a face on this), a friend who's husband worked at the Gavin plant in Cheshire (a village my family helped found when they moved here in 1798 and that AEP bought and depopulated recently due to "clean coal" experiments gone wrong), who died from cancer, told me that as he was dying, she promised to get him a black granite headstone with yellow roses. The cemetery where he was buried was immediately behind the power plant he gave his life to. Within a year of his death, the roses had been eaten off the granite. When Dorothy called the company to have the granite headstone recarved, they asked her what on earth she'd done to it. SHE hadn't done anything. Did I mention the cemetery is next to the school? I remember when my best friend got cancer, I drove her to the hospital to get the pathology results from her biopsy, and then had to call her husband, who did consulting work as an engineer and was traveling, to give him the news, because she couldn't speak except to hand me the phone and tell me to do it. She was sitting their staring into the air on one side of me, and he was yelling at me to put his wife on the phone on the other side, while I'm trying to process that I will probably lose my best friend. I should probably tell you that both her dogs died from cancer, too. One died while she was receiving radiation and chemo treatments in Chicago - I had to give she and her husband the vet report when Hoofie was diagnosed with terminal lymphoma, and was the last one to see her alive. The other, Wheezy, died from cancer after she moved away to New England. Her oncologist had told her if she wanted to get healthy she would have to move away from here. So yes, I lost my best friend. I was dumbfounded to read, "Those workers installed more than $1 billion worth of scrubbers and other equipment to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 90 percent, he said." What those scrubbers meant was worse air emission problems around John Amos (Maybe you've forgotten) http://www.opinionbug.com/2379/mysterious-blue-haze-frightens-charleston-wv… http://www.google.com/search?q=John+amos+haze+charleston&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&… These were the same emissions problems caused by the scrubbers on the Ohio side of the river - a stone's throw away - that lead to the purchase and depopulation of Cheshire - a village my family founded in 1798 that AEP destroyed after the scrubbers were installed. The scrubbers cause that blue haze you all experienced down in Charleston, same as they did here, triple the amount of solid waste, and create much more toxic waste. Since the scrubbers were installed, the radiation levels have skyrocketed to being 1000 times higher than the EPA says is "acceptable." http://manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form I could send you a volume about the people I've know who have died here, but I'm sure you are a busy man. I would like to hear your side of the statistics, since it bears no resemblance to the reality that exists in my community, compliments of coal. I would like to see the actual numbers your quote is based on that states, "Between 2006 and 2011, at AEP power plants in West Virginia, you created 27.7 million work hours on environmental construction projects," Manchin told his audience. Your jobs are killing us. Sincerely, Elisa Young P.O. Box 518 Athens, Ohio 45701 --- On *Wed, 4/4/12, Vivian Stockman <vivian(a)ohvec.org>* wrote: From: Vivian Stockman <vivian(a)ohvec.org> Subject: [fom] Manchin says he'll fight new EPA rules To: fom(a)lists.riseup.net Date: Wednesday, April 4, 2012, 11:26 AM April 3, 2012 Manchin says he'll fight new EPA rules By Paul J. Nyden<http://www.wvgazette.com/News/contact/cwalqra+jitnmrggr+pbz+return=/News/20…> WINFIELD, W.Va. -- Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said Tuesday he will vigorously oppose new greenhouse-gas rules proposed last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. During a speech at the John Amos Power Plant near Winfield, Manchin stressed the importance of national energy independence and the impact coal, gas and other energy resources have on creating good-paying jobs. Today, Manchin said, coal generates 45 percent of all energy used in the United States and "is projected to produce the lion's share of energy decades into the future." Between 2006 and 2011, Manchin said Tuesday, AEP had as many as 3,200 construction workers at its John Amos plant, now one of the world's cleanest coal plants. Those workers installed more than $1 billion worth of scrubbers and other equipment to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 90 percent, he said. "Between 2006 and 2011, at AEP power plants in West Virginia, you created 27.7 million work hours on environmental construction projects," Manchin told his audience. "This plant is an example that when government works as a partner, not an adversary, we can put thousands of people back to work, and find the balance between the economy and environment." Last week, EPA officials proposed what the agency called a "common-sense" requirement that any new coal-fired power plants include equipment to control their greenhouse-gas emissions. "Right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that future power plants will be able to put into our skies -- and the health and economic threats of a changing climate continue to grow," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said at the time. "We're putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American-made technology to tackle a challenge that we can't leave to our kids and grandkids." m <http://www.wvgazette.com/storyfooter/News> ore here: http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201204030140 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Call for contributions to special issue on Hydrofracking
by Paul Wilson 03 Apr '12

03 Apr '12

This seems to be in the editing stage so we should see it sometime in the near future. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Dow <ddow420(a)comcast.net> Date: Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:44 AM Subject: Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Call for contributions to special issue on Hydrofracking To: Patricia Matejcek Gmail <patachek3(a)gmail.com>, Paul Wilson < pjgrunt(a)gmail.com>, Alison Robb <nature(a)cape.com> fyi Begin forwarded message: *From: *Scott Bearer <sbearer(a)TNC.ORG> *Date: *April 2, 2012 10:12:30 PM EDT *To: *ECOLOG-L(a)LISTSERV.UMD.EDU *Subject: **[ECOLOG-L] Call for contributions to special issue on Hydrofracking* * * Dear Colleagues, Apologies for the limited timeframe in this Call for Papers. We will be editing an upcoming issue of the journal Environmental Practice< http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ENP>, published by Cambridge University Press and the official journal of the National Association of Environmental Professionals<http://www.naep.org/>. For publication in December 2012, this special issue of Environmental Practice will focus on the various environmental, socio-economic, and policy issues surrounding hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas development. We hope that you find Environmental Practice, and particularly this "Hydrofracturing" issue, to be of interest and will consider submitting a manuscript. The deadline for manuscript submission is 15 May 2012. Sample issues of the journal can be found at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=ENP Guidelines for publication can be found at: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayMoreInfo?jid=ENP&type=ifc Sincerely yours, Scott Bearer, The Nature Conservancy Tamara Gagnolet, The Nature Conservancy Scott L. Bearer, Ph.D. Senior Scientist The Nature Conservancy Community Arts Center 220 West Fourth Street, 3rd Floor Williamsport, PA 17701 sbearer(a)tnc.org (570) 321-9092 (Office/Mobile) nature.org -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: Big feature story on Beyond Coal in Mother Jones magazine
by Paul Wilson 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orli Cotel <orli.cotel(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM Subject: Big feature story on Beyond Coal in Mother Jones magazine To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Team, I'm excited to share this lengthy feature on the succeses of the Beyond Coal campaign that came out today in Mother Jones magazine. This very thorough article by Mark Hertsgaard shows the strategy and power of the Beyond Coal effort. This piece was months in the making and involved many people on the Beyond Coal team - big thank you to everyone who helped out and talked with this reporter. I've copied and pasted the whole article below, but I recommend clicking through to the actual story online so that you can see all the interactive maps, graphics etc that they've included in the story: http://motherjones.com/print/169521 Please help share, tweet, and spread the word - and congratulations on all of the amazing work you are doing that makes a story like this possible. Orli -- http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/04/beyond-coal-plant-activism * * * * How a Grassroots Rebellion Won the Nation's Biggest Climate Victory Activists have imposed a de-facto moratorium on new coal—and beat the Obama EPA to the punch. By Mark Hertsgaard <http://motherjones.com/authors/mark-hertsgaard> | Mon Apr. 2, 2012 3:00 AM PDT ------------------------------ By most accounts, the summer of 2010—when climate legislation died its slow, agonizing death on Capitol Hill<http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/07/we-know-we-dont-have-votes> [1]—was not a happy time for environmentalists. So why was Mary Anne Hitt feeling buoyant, even hopeful? Part of the reason, no doubt, were the endorphins of first-time parenthood. Baby Hazel, born in April 2010, was fair like her mother and curly haired like her father. She was also an 11th-generation West Virginian, which perhaps explained her mom's other preoccupation: stopping mountaintop-removal coal mining<http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/blowing-mountains-not-great-idea> [2] in Appalachia. Hitt had spent the better part of a decade in Boone, North Carolina, running an organization called Appalachian Voices that sought to end mountaintop removal <http://appvoices.org/end-mountaintop-removal/> [3]. [image: Emission Impossible]<http://motherjones.com/special-reports/2012/03/emissions-impossible-deposin…> [4] - How a Bunch of NIMBYs Won the Nation's Biggest Climate Victory Yet <http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/04/emission-impossible>[5] - Map: The Cross-Country Fight Against Coal <http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/cross-country-fight-against-coal> [6] - Calculator: How Much Does Using Coal Really Cost You?<http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/calculator-true-cost-using-coal-…> [7] - Why Is It So Hard to Clean Up Coal?<http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/clean-coal-myth> [8] - Timeline: How We Learned to Love—and Hate—Natural Gas<http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/timeline-how-natural-gas-frackin…> [9] - A Photographer's View of Big Coal<http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/coal-photos> [10] Wading through her backlog of emails after she returned from maternity leave, Hitt was struck by how "defeated and despondent" her fellow environmentalists sounded. She understood why, of course: "We'd just spent a great deal of money, time, and energy trying to pass a climate bill," an effort that had cost mainstream green groups more than $100 million<http://climateshiftproject.org/report/climate-shift-clear-vision-for-the-ne…> [11]. But Hitt's emails were telling other stories, too—stories that were not getting her Beltway colleagues' attention. Across the country grassroots activists were defeating plans to build coal-fired power plants, the source of a quarter of America's greenhouse gas emissions. The movement's center of gravity was in the South and Midwest, "places like Oklahoma and South Dakota, not the usual liberal bastions where you'd expect environmental victories," she recalls. (The defeat of the Shady Point II plant<http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/getBlurb.aspx?case=ok-shady…> [12] in Oklahoma was particularly sweet, coming in the home state of DC's leading climate denier, Sen. James Inhofe<http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/inhofe-climate-skeptic-roadshow> [13].) Hitt knew about these victories because she had helped bring them about. In 2008 she had left Appalachian Voices and taken a job as deputy director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign <http://beyondcoal.org/> [14], which aimed to defeat every proposed coal plant, anywhere in the country. "I realized the Sierra Club was winning," she explains, "and I wanted to win." By the time Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared the cap-and-trade bill dead in July 2010, the Beyond Coal campaign had helped prevent construction of 132 coal plants and was on the verge of defeating dozens more. It had imposed, noted Lester Brown<http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2011/update101> [15] of the Earth Policy Institute, "a de facto moratorium on new coal-fired power plants." To be sure, the activists had help. The recession caused electricity demand to plummet <http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2009/10/29/1> [16], as did a shift to more energy-efficient appliances, motors, and industrial processes. Why build a power plant, coal or otherwise, if demand didn't justify it? Coal was also hurt by its own rising costs—especially as natural gas, its chief competitor, stayed relatively cheap<http://205.254.135.24/forecasts/steo/report/natgas.cfm> [17]. But those economic trends only made coal somewhat vulnerable, argues Tom Sanzillo, a former New York state deputy comptroller who has worked with the Beyond Coal campaign; it was grassroots activism that leveraged vulnerability into outright defeat. The movement's strength was grounded in retail politics—people talking with friends and neighbors, pestering local media, packing regulatory hearings, protesting before state legislatures, filing legal challenges, and more. The movement had no official membership rolls; it was populated by clean energy advocates, public health professionals, community organizers, faith leaders, farmers, attorneys, students, and people like Verena Owen, a self-described permit nerd from Illinois who was inspired to oppose coal by a friend who died of lung cancer in her 40s. Stopping new coal plants may be "the most significant achievement of American environmentalists since the passage of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act," says one activist. "My friend had four boys, just like I do," says Owen. "I never had to read the news to find out what the air quality was; I could just call her, and if she was having trouble breathing, that told me all I needed to know." Owen proved so capable, she was recruited to work with Hitt in leading the Beyond Coal campaign. Stopping new coal plants may be "the most significant achievement of American environmentalists since the passage of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act" in the 1970s, says Michael Noble of the Minnesota environmental group Fresh Energy. As this article goes to press, 166 proposed coal-fired power plants have been canceled, legally barred, or otherwise stopped from going forward in the United States. That means that each year, 654 million metric tons of carbon, the equivalent of 9.5 percent of US emissions<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html> [18], won't be entering the atmosphere. The proposed cap-and-trade legislation would, at best, have reduced annual emissions by 16 percent as of 2020. (That's compared with 2010—though compared with 1990, the baseline used by scientists and international negotiations, cap and trade would have achieved only a 5 percent reduction<http://pdf.wri.org/usclimatetargets_2010-06-08.pdf> [19] (PDF).) [image: The River Rouge plant on the banks of the Detroit River emits enough pollution to cause 44 deaths each year. See more photos of the River Rouge plant.]See more photos<http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/coal-photos> [10] of the River Rouge plant.So why does this landmark shift in the fight against climate change remain unknown to most Americans? Largely it's because national media and even many environmentalists view the climate issue through the lens of official Washington. When cap-and-trade legislation failed, the conventional wisdom became that the US was simply incapable of taking meaningful action; corporate polluters were too strong, the political system too dominated by industry money, the public too confused and apathetic. But the moratorium on new coal shows that Americans "don't have to wait for Washington to get the country on the right climate track," Hitt argues. "This campaign has demonstrated we can do this state by state, plant by plant, town by town. Not just that we can do it, but we *are* doing it." That success—a clear demand backed by a grassroots campaign, rather than an incremental, inside-the-Beltway strategy—presents a lesson for organizers, but it also presents challenges as Beyond Coal grapples with the complexities inherent in its name. What will replace the power from the coal plants not being built? How will communities deal with the loss of the taxes they pay, and the decent-paying, often union, jobs they bring? How the movement answers those questions may shape climate politics—including whatever ultimately happens in Washington—for years to come. Last year, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg put $50 million into the Beyond Coal campaign, with the explicit goal of shutting down a third of the nation's coal plants by 2020. Beyond coal's one moment in the national spotlight came last summer, when on a searing July morning, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg stood before a microphone<http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=520210BA-C29C-7CA2-F3FA50FC…> [20] in Alexandria, Virginia. Behind him, shimmering in the 100 degree heat, loomed the five smokestacks of the Potomac River Generating Station. The plant, which began operating in 1949 and was never required to install modern pollution controls, has been in the crosshairs of local activists for years; shortly before Bloomberg's appearance, Beyond Coal had released a study that showed its pollution was drifting across the Potomac to Washington, DC. (The plant is now slated to shut down<http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2011/2011-08-30-091.html> [21] this year.) Flanked by Hitt and Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, mayor Bloomberg announced that his personal foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, would contribute $50 million<http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/07/bloomberg-sierra-club-align-agai…> [22] to the campaign's new push to close existing coal plants. Bloomberg, who has long been passionate about public health (recall his 2006 restaurant trans-fat ban<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/nyregion/06fat.html> [23]), cited EPA data<http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf> [24] (PDF) to explain his decision: "Every year, coal-burning power plants like this one cause more than 200,000 asthma attacks nationwide, many of them affecting children," he said. "Coal pollution also kills 13,000 people every year and costs us $100 billion in medical expenses. "Thirteen thousand people," he repeated, "from something that's *planned*. And it's going to happen again next year and the year after, unless we do something about it." Map: The Cross-Country Fight Against Coal Bloomberg's donation will enable Beyond Coal to double down on its second phase—moving beyond blocking new plants to seeking to close a third<http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=4D1722F5-C29C-7CA2-FCB63853…> [25] of the roughly 580 existing ones<http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/table5.1.pdf> [26] (PDF) by 2020. The money, says Brune, will help expand the campaign's paid staff from 102 to 192, including 84 organizers who will be "working on nothing but figuring out how to shut down these plants and replace them with clean energy." But boots on the ground are only as effective as the battle plan they are executing. Thus, Beyond Coal will also use some of Bloomberg's millions to develop a detailed blueprint for the challenge ahead. How can communities that rely on coal move beyond it without committing economic suicide? It's not an easy task, Beyond Coal leaders concede. And few places illustrate the difficulty—and the urgency—better than a small town with the deceptively gentle name of River Rouge. Five minutes south of downtown Detroit, Interstate 75 crests a rise. Below, unfurling for miles on both sides of the highway, is a vast industrial landscape: chemical, steel, and cement factories, a tar sands refinery, a wastewater treatment facility. Webs of piping and wire glint in the sun; smokestacks wheeze skyward; trucks and railcars shuffle back and forth. There are so many factories, packed so densely together, that it's hard to see the River Rouge coal plant, which sits on the bank of the Detroit River facing the Canadian shoreline. An acrid odor invades the car. "Actually, the smell isn't so bad today," Rhonda Anderson says dryly. Anderson, who grew up in the neighborhood, is the Sierra Club's environmental justice organizer in Detroit. At 61, she's nearly the same age as the plant, which at the time of its construction in 1956 was the largest in the world. "My father used to bring me here to play when I was a little girl," she says as we pull into a parking lot at Belanger Park, adjacent to the plant. "It was the only open space we had." The park consists of a lawn, a handful of trees, a fishing pier, and a play structure. Towering over it, barely a football field's length away, are River Rouge's three smokestacks, flanked by a mountain of coal 80 feet high. Between the park and the plant is a narrow creek whose bank, incongruously, bears a sign announcing it as a wildlife preserve. It turns out that in 2007 DTE Energy, the plant's owner, ripped out a sliver of concrete<http://www.dteenergy.com/dteEnergyCompany/environment/conservation/improvin…> [27] separating the creek from the loading area and replaced it with native plants. In return, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality gave DTE a community service award<http://www.dteenergy.com/dteEnergyCompany/environment/awards/awards.html> [28] for making the neighborhood a "cleaner and more attractive place to live and work." Each year the River Rouge plant releases enough mercury, soot, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other toxic chemicals to cause at least 44 deaths, 72 heart attacks, and 700 asthma attacks. Never mind that each year the River Rouge plant releases enough mercury, soot, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and other toxic chemicals to cause at least 44 deaths, 72 heart attacks, and 700 asthma attacks, according to studies<http://www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing/map.php?state=Michig…> [29] conducted for the advocacy group Clean Air Task Force. The plant also emits 3.7 million metric tons <http://carma.org/plant/detail/37557> [30] of carbon dioxide annually. The NAACP has called River Rouge the ninth-worst plant <http://www.naacp.org/pages/coal-blooded1> [31] in the nation when it comes to health effects on communities of color. Vincent Martin, whose family fled Cuba and settled in River Rouge, graduated from Southwestern High School in 1980. Of his 150-plus classmates, he says, around one-third have died, "mostly from respiratory illnesses and cancers." Many of the kids in his neighborhood carry inhalers, he says, and his father, brother, and sister all have asthma. Of course, it's difficult to prove that the River Rouge coal plant caused those illnesses, just as it's difficult to prove that any specific smoker's lung cancer was caused by cigarettes. And such connections are even harder to draw in a neighborhood crammed with so many polluters that it qualifies as Michigan's dirtiest zip code<http://www.freep.com/article/20100620/NEWS05/6200555/48217-Life-Michigan-s-…> [32]. River Rouge might seem a natural target for the Sierra Club—but so far the club has avoided calling for its closure. It comes down to economics, says Anne Woiwode, the director of the club's Michigan chapter. Instead, the club is working with unions and community groups to figure out how to replace the jobs and tax revenue River Rouge provides. "Our common interest," says Woiwode, "is ensuring that when the company walks away from the plant, they don't just leave the workers and the community behind." Meanwhile, DTE seems in no hurry to close River Rouge. John Austerberry, a spokesman for the company, says the plant's future will be determined by the economic implications of thestricter pollution rules<http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/12/epa-delivers-holiday-gift-new-me…> [33] the EPA issued last December. Can the company bring the plant into compliance with those rules and still operate it profitably? "I don't anticipate we would make that deliberation soon," says Austerberry. "The rules allow three years" to decide. At 44 deaths a year, that's 132 more lives. Kevin Parker, a top executive at Deutsche Bank, has called the coal industry<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/01/AR201101010…> [34] "a dead man walking"—in part because of the increased cost imposed by the Obama EPA's new regulations. Tom Sanzillo, the former New York deputy comptroller, saw the same vulnerability when he started taking a hard look at the industry. "I knew that if the law was enforced, coal would have a very hard time," says Sanzillo. But that was in 2007, when George W. Bush was president and environmental law enforcement was comparatively lax. Back then, Sanzillo—a cheerful, Brooklyn-bred numbers whiz—headed one of the biggest institutional investors in the world, managing $650 billion in assets and serving as the sole trustee of a $156 billion pension fund. In that role, he accepted the conventional Wall Street wisdom that coal was a stable source of predictable profits. Sanzillo left the job in 2007 and, a few months later, agreed to look into the economics of coal for the Sierra Club. He found that "there were changes going on that I hadn't understood." A construction boom in China was increasing demand<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/business/worldbusiness/10energy.html> [35] for steel, cement, copper, and other raw materials. Companies like Bechtel and GE were sending more of their engineers and other specialists to China, raising the cost of such talent back in the States. "It looked like price structures were going to change long term, whereas the price of coal had always been stable," he says. Adding to the uncertainty was what Sanzillo terms "regulatory havoc"—the new political pressures that stood to increase the cost of burning coal. "What does it mean that we celebrate the construction of a $100 million wind farm when at the same time a 900-megawatt coal plant was being built?" one environmentalist asks. "That's called losing." The regulatory havoc had grown out of a 2004 meeting of the Midwest's leading clean energy activists and philanthropic donors—a network calling itself Re-Amp <http://www.reamp.org/> [36]. Its members confronted a harsh truth, says Fresh Energy's Noble. They had been working the wrong problem, focusing on renewable energy instead of the broader climate picture. "What does it mean that we celebrate the construction of a $100 million wind farm in Minnesota when at the same time a 900-megawatt coal plant was being built?" asks Noble. "That's called losing. If you looked at the problem through the lens of carbon, all the work we had done was undone by a single plant—a plant that wasn't challenged by a single environmentalist." The Midwest is the most coal-dependent region in the country; its states get an average of 70 percent<https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:q991VR8vw5EJ:www.civilsocietyins…> [37] of their electricity from coal. (Nationally, it's 45 percent<http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/chapter_executive_summary.cfm> [38].) At Re-Amp meetings, Noble joined Bruce Nilles—then a Sierra Club activist in Wisconsin—in arguing that henceforth every proposed coal plant in the Midwest should be challenged. "We didn't know *how* we'd oppose them, we just knew we had to," says Nilles. At 42, Nilles has leading-man looks that belie his history of tough-nosed activism. Raised in England, he was agitating against nuclear weapons and cruelty to animals before even reaching puberty. After moving to the States during college, he helped organize the first recycling operation at the University of Wisconsin (over administrators' objections) and went on to serve as an environmental lawyer in the Clinton administration. At one Re-Amp strategy meeting, he tangled with a program officer at one of the Midwest's largest philanthropies, the Joyce Foundation, who dismissed the idea of opposing every coal plant—it made more sense, the funder argued, to mount tightly focused legal challenges to a few marquee plants. [image: Rhonda Anderson, with her niece N'Deye, grew up near the River Rouge coal plant, which the NAACP calls one of the worst polluters in communities of color.: See more photos of the River Rouge plant.]*Rhonda Anderson, with her niece N'Deye, grew up near the River Rouge coal plant, which the NAACP calls one of the worst polluters in communities of color. * See more photos <http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/coal-photos> [10] of the River Rouge plant.In a universe where activists' organizations—and paychecks—often depend on the goodwill of foundations, "I was very impressed that Bruce was prepared to go toe-to-toe with a very powerful person and tell him he was wrong," says Rick Reed, a senior adviser to the Garfield Foundation who helped launch Re-Amp. The test of the dueling approaches came in 2005. In opposing a plant in Wisconsin, the Joyce Foundation "put all their chips on a big-bucks legal strategy, with no politics, and lost at the state Supreme Court," Reed recalls. "That taught us a lesson: You'll never be able to beat these things without an integrated strategy that includes real people who are affected by these plants, who'll reject the economic argument publicly." (The Joyce Foundation, which declined comment for this story, later embraced this idea as well.) Sanzillo says he saw the value of such an integrated approach in one of the first fights he handled for Beyond Coal. Utilities had proposed two large coal plants in eastern Iowa. Carrie La Seur, an attorney who founded the group Plains Justice, recalls getting phone calls from local people who "didn't like the idea that there would be this big belching coal plant in the midst of prime farmland, and big transmission lines as well." La Seur began submitting legal challenges to the plants. Meanwhile, Sanzillo, testifying about one of the plants<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWiMDQ3HT7c> [39] before the Iowa Utility Board, made a straight economic argument<http://www.alliantenergy.com/wcm/groups/wcm_internet/@int/documents/documen…> [40] (PDF): The project would cost far more than the $1.8 billion the company had estimated, and those costs would be passed on to ratepayers for decades. Local activists echoed that message as they met with legislators, Gov. John Culver, and the editorial board of the *Des Moines Register*<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080420/OPINIO…> [41]. In the end, they persuaded regulators to put a cap on the plant's cost—any costs above the cap would be absorbed by the company's shareholders, not ratepayers. Presented with this option, the utility chose to cancel the project<http://bostonherald.com/news/national/midwest/view/2009_03_05_Utility_cance…> [42]. Arming local people with economic arguments was critical, Sanzillo argues: "If the activists hadn't been there talking to the regulators and editorial boards and making the case that coal was a bad bet, the [utility board] would have gone forward, because the utilities would say, 'We can handle the costs,' and the boards are often good-old-boy boards." The campaign's argument has been straight-up economics: It's getting more and more expensive to build a coal plant, and ratepayers will get suck with the bill. This approach—hard numbers plus grassroots pressure—became the model Beyond Coal followed in state after state: Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, even Kentucky, the heart of coal country. In South Carolina, Sanzillo says, activists "put me in touch with small-business associations, and I was able to explain how big industrial interests historically got treated better on these things than small businesses. That was smart, because it got the small businesses fighting with the big industrials, which was just the fight we wanted: a business fight rather than an environmental fight." Even the cap-and-trade battle, no matter how unsuccessful, provided economic ammunition. A utility company just might be able to manage coal's rising construction and fuel costs, Sanzillo explains. Add the prospect of new clean-air regulations from the EPA, and "you might still be able to manage it, but it's getting dark." Factor in the possibility that cap and trade might be enacted someday and, "Now, if I'm an investor, Coca-Cola is not looking too bad," Sanzillo says, starting to laugh. "They give me 10 percent, and I don't have to worry about climate legislation, the cost of steel in China, and God knows what else." None of that makes Beyond Coal's next task any easier, though: There is a big difference between fighting a proposed plant and seeking to close one that is already providing electricity, jobs, and tax revenues. "The key is, you don't do things precipitously," Sanzillo says. After a wave of deregulation transformed New York's electricity markets 10 years ago, he notes, many power companies paid less in property taxes. State officials worked with the affected communities "to phase out the loss of the tax base," sometimes using state money. Nationally, he adds, the same basic principles were applied in the 1990s to help communities cope with post-Cold War military base closures. "The federal government just funded them until the local economies could come back." Beyond Coal has helped broker a similar transition in Washington state. When environmentalists first targeted the Centralia coal plant for closure, they ran into opposition not just from its owner, the TransAlta company, but also from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents 150 employees at the plant. "There is no way I or the IBEW would have agreed to shut down that plant," says Bob Guenther, who worked as a mechanic at Centralia for 34 years before becoming the union's chief lobbyist, "if we didn't have an agreement to keep this community whole." As a cofounder of the national BlueGreen Alliance<http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/about> [43] of workers and environmentalists, the Sierra Club had experience working through disagreements with labor, so Beyond Coal made some compromises. "We wanted a 5-year timeline for closing [the TransAlta plant] and we settled for 10," Nilles says. "Not because of the company but because of IBEW." The agreement was hammered out behind closed doors during negotiations requested by Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire. "The governor wanted a deal that would satisfy all sides and avoid litigation," says Keith Phillips, a senior aide. Phillips spent two days shuttling between rooms containing representatives from TransAlta and environmental groups, but not the IBEW. That left the environmentalists to argue labor's case—which they did. They insisted that the plant's workforce be retained throughout its closure and cleanup; that workers be trained in the technologies that would replace coal, especially energy efficiency; and that the company, not the taxpayers, subsidize the transition. TransAlta agreed, pledging $55 million<http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=1699&newsType=1> [44] that will be controlled by the affected communities, to fund economic development and clean tech. "A lot of it will pay for insulating schools and other public buildings," says Guenther. In return, environmentalists accepted a later closure date for the plant<http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201201/kick-coal-save-jobs.aspx> [45]: One of its two boilers will shut down in 2020; the other, in 2025. One big question facing Beyond Coal is what happens if electricity demand begins increasing again. With coal plants so difficult to get approved, utilities might look to natural gas instead, accelerating the environmental devastation caused by gas drilling and fracking. (TransAlta, for one, has announced plans to build a gas plant<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014412221_coalplant06m.html> [46] as it prepares to shut down the Centralia facility.) That dynamic was surely on the mind of Chesapeake Energy, one of America's largest natural gas companies, when it helped pay for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. Between 2007 and 2010, under executive director Carl Pope, the club secretly accepted $26.1 million<http://sierraclub.typepad.com/michaelbrune/2012/02/the-sierra-club-and-natu…> [47] from the company; Brune, the current executive director, discovered and halted the practice shortly after replacing Pope in 2010. "We can't take cash from companies or industries that…we want to change," Brune told me. Nilles says he knew about the Chesapeake money "from the beginning," noting that the environmental downsides of fracking were not as evident in 2007: "My views on gas have evolved significantly in the intervening years." Between 2007 and 2010, the Sierra Club accepted more than $26 million from Chesapeake Energy, a major natural gas company that stood to benefit if coal lost momentum. But gas is not the only option for replacing coal. Howard Learner of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago says technological gains in energy efficiency and renewables are accelerating so rapidly, they may well outpace increase in demand. "Just as it's hard to imagine a world in which we're going back to landlines, we're not going to turn back the clock on energy efficiency," says Learner. "It's the best, fastest, cheapest, and most environmentally sound way of meeting our energy needs." The global consulting firm McKinsey has estimated<http://www.mckinsey.com/Client_Service/Electric_Power_and_Natural_Gas/Lates…> [48]that efficiency can reduce non-transportation energy use in the US a full 23 percent by 2020, and that such investments would cost $520 billion while creating $1.2 trillion in savings. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a sustainability expert who consults with corporations and government agencies around the world, goes even further. In his book *Reinventing Fire*, he lays out a blueprint<http://rmi.org/rfexecutivesummary> [49] for how the United States could stop burning coal for electricity by 2050 while also phasing out oil and nuclear power and still growing the economy by 158 percent. Already, Lovins points out, costs for renewables are falling<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/20/solar-panel-price-drop> [50] to the point where wind, especially<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-15/wind-innovations-drive-down-costs-…> [51], is competitive with coal<http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016levelized_costs_aeo2011.pdf> [52] (PDF) for many purposes. Not everyone projects quite so rosy a scenario. The US Department of Energy estimates that coal's share of the country's energy mix will remain relatively steady for decades. And it's easy to see why: Energy markets (and energy policy) are dominated by corporations that have sunk a lot of investment into fossil fuels. But the energy sector is also heavily regulated<http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/428> [53]—which means that political shifts can have a fairly immediate effect. And on the political front, Mary Anne Hitt believes the Beyond Coal campaign offers "a fundamental message about how to make change in this country." The effort to pass climate legislation, for example, was centered on Capitol Hill, a battlefield where the power of money rigs the system. Then, to satisfy inside-the-Beltway definitions of what was politically realistic, mainstream environmental organizations embraced a policy—cap and trade—that was incremental in its remedy and incomprehensible in its mechanism. "We can't go out in the streets about *that*," one grassroots activist complained at the time. "Most people can't even understand it." These strategic choices made it impossible to build the kind of public pressure that could overcome the industry's political power and deep pockets. The Beyond Coal campaign, by contrast, organized people around tangible targets: their air, their water, the climate their children would live with. This enabled it to appeal to a constellation of allies (public health advocates, unions) beyond the usual environmental suspects. Finally, Beyond Coal focused on local and state governments, where popular sentiment can have a more immediate effect. With baby Hazel celebrating her second birthday, Hitt finds comfort in these results. "When you see a coal plant being stopped, that means a mountaintop removal will not go forward and a large amount of carbon will not be released into the atmosphere—you can *see* you're making a difference," she explains. "As a parent, that makes it easier for me to sleep at night." -- Orli Cotel Deputy Communications Director Sierra Club (415) 977-5627 office (646) 522-7751 cellphone - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: Join us for "New EPA Carbon Pollution Standards Webinar"
by Paul Wilson 02 Apr '12

02 Apr '12

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Becki Clayborn <becki.clayborn(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:31 PM Subject: Join us for "New EPA Carbon Pollution Standards Webinar" To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org New EPA Carbon Pollution Standards Webinar Join us for a Webinar on April 4 <https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/261414990> *Space is limited.* Reserve your Webinar seat now at: https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/261414990 Join us Wednesday night for this exciting webinar that will explain how the Environmental Protection Agency’s new carbon pollution standards, NSPS, mark the end of an era for coal plants and will continue the momentum behind clean energy advancements! In this webinar, you will learn the basics about the new standard, why it’s so important to our work on transitioning the US from coal to a cleaner energy future, effective messaging around this standard, and how you and your friends can get involved. We will also introduce tools available to you. We expect the coal industry to fight these standards with everything they've got. So please join this webinar to learn what you can do to support and defend these new standards. *Title:* New EPA Carbon Pollution Standards Webinar *Date:* Wednesday, April 4, 2012 *Time:* 8:00 PM - 9:00 PM EDT After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar. Looking forward to a great webinar! Verena Owen and Becki Clayborn *System Requirements* PC-based attendees Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 Server Macintosh®-based attendees Required: Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer -- Becki Clayborn Beyond Coal Campaign Internal Capacities and Communications Coordinator Chicago, IL 312-251-1680 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: Life and death in a coal mining town, this week on Link TV
by Paul Wilson 30 Mar '12

30 Mar '12

fyi, set your dvr's or tvo or whatever if you are occupied on the 5th. best, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Dow <ddow420(a)comcast.net> Date: Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM Subject: Fwd: Life and death in a coal mining town, this week on Link TV To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com>, Pam Polloni <Pam394(a)aol.com> fyi Begin forwarded message: *From: *Link TV <linktvcc(a)linktv.org> *Date: *March 29, 2012 1:54:53 PM EDT * * Having trouble viewing this email? Click here <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=najsn4bab&v=001AOTdCtwnZ…> [image: LinkLetter]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnL_VIWNaTB…> March 29, 2012 [image: explore: West Virginia – Hillbillies, Coal Miners, Treehuggers & God]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJ2Pupl-R0…> *explore travels to West Virginia, where coal is both a way of life and a destructive force*<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJ2Pupl-R0…> On April 5, 2010, a massive explosion ripped through *Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia*, killing 29 coal miners and changing the local community forever. Now, two years later, the people of the once-thriving town of Whitesville, all have different beliefs about the value of coal mining and what it will take to resurrect the region. But most agree that *Marsh Fork Elementary School*, sitting below a dam holding back billions of gallons of toxic slurry, is another disaster waiting to happen. Hosted by documentarian *Charles Annenberg Weingarten*, this moving half-hour special -- *explore: West Virginia - Hillbillies, Coal Miners, Treehuggers & God<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJ2Pupl-R0…> * -- journeys through the heart of Appalachia to meet a community torn apart by disaster fighting to protect the environment and rebuild its way of life. ------------------------------ *Premiering Thursday April 5, 2012, at 9pm ET/6pm PT & Online* *Click to Watch the Trailer and for More Airtimes and Info*<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJ2Pupl-R0…> *Watch More explore Programming on Link TV*<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnL4TlvQTmA…> *Learn About explore.org*<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnLQugtLIwr…> More This Week on Link [image: Special: Winner-Take-All Politics - How Washington Made the Rich Richer]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnK9hPiZcii…> *Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer*<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnK9hPiZcii…> Why, in a country as wealthy as America, do the "have-it-alls" have so much, while the middle and working class continue to have less and less? Is it meritocracy -- or an engineered inequality? *Watch Thursday (tonight!) 11pm ET/8pm PT* <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJoV-b7TYv…> *Invite Bill Moyers, Richard Wolff & Michael Moore Into Your Home!*<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJoV-b7TYv…> You can watch all the great thinkers you see on Link anytime you want when you buy the *"Link TV Speaks!" DVD collection*. This 12-disc set includes new, exclusive speeches from Michael Moore and Richard Wolff, plus classic Link TV blockbusters such as Chris Hedges and Vandana Shiva. Plus, we'll throw in the *brand new Link hoodie*. *Help us reach our $300,000 fundraising goal today!<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJoV-b7TYv…> * [image: Special: Michael Moore - Unrigging the System]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJVknj9ki1…> *Don't Miss Michael Moore - Unrigging the System*<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJVknj9ki1…> Headlining the Left Forum 2012 at Pace University, Michael Moore speaks about the importance of Occupy Wall Street and the direction of the progressive left in general, encouraging the audience to mobilize around this rare moment. *Watch Saturday 7pm ET/4pm PT* [image: Special: Howard Zinn - You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnIsUvHaItR…> ***Howard Zinn on Why** You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train*<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnIsUvHaItR…> This rousing Link TV fan favorite documentary pays tribute to the late activist and teacher *Howard Zinn*, using his life to tell the pressing story of political activism in the 20th century and beyond. *Watch Tuesday 10pm PT (Click for more times)<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnIsUvHaItR…> * Link TV and www.linktv.org<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnL_VIWNaTB…>are wholly owned and operated by LINK MEDIA, INC., a tax-exempt charitable organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Link Media's mission is to engage, inform and motivate individuals to take part in constructive dialogue and civic action through the presentation of global perspectives, diverse cultures and in-depth, challenging content not available elsewhere. Now celebrating its 12th year on the air, Link Media has provided thousands of hours of groundbreaking television to audiences in North America and innovative multimedia content worldwide through its website, www.linktv.org<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnL_VIWNaTB…>. [image: Facebook]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnJrrMy9sNS…> [image: Give Now]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnKicPLkaoR…> [image: Twitter]<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109644681987&s=40225&e=001PNWXxkp3lnIk2S-vQmW…> *Forward email<http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=najsn4bab&m=1101639787533&ea=…> * **<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001ZaS58ajNOw0un1GK2J58igG3H…> ****** ** This email was sent to ddow420(a)comcast.net by linktvcc(a)linktv.org | Update Profile/Email Address<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&mse=001ZaS58ajNOw0un1GK2J58igG3H…> | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001ZaS58ajNOw0un1GK2J58igG3H…>™ | Privacy Policy <http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>. ** Link Media, Inc. | P.O. Box 2008 | San Francisco | CA | 94126 -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

FW: Draft Oil and Gas Stormwater Permit
by James Kotcon 30 Mar '12

30 Mar '12

Attached is a draft "general" permit for stormwater discharges from oil and gas operations, as well as my first draft of comments on it. there is a hearing April 9, and final comments are due April 19. let me know your thoughts. JBK >>> "Chuck Wyrostok" <wyro(a)appalight.com> 3/8/2012 9:31 PM >>> FYI Chuck Wyrostok Sierra Club Outreach Organizer Toll free 877 252 0257 E: outreach(a)marcellus-wv.com www.marcellus-wv.com From: DSGJr(a)aol.com [mailto:DSGJr@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 2:17 PM To: mjanes(a)hardynet.com; wyro(a)appalight.com; blittle(a)citynet.net; wvdavid(a)wvdavid.net; clrank2(a)gmail.com; julie(a)wvcag.org; sminney(a)wvrivers.org Subject: Fwd: Draft Oil and Gas Stormwater Permit This is out for public comment. From: Scott.G.Mandirola(a)wv.gov To: DSGJr(a)aol.com Sent: 3/8/2012 1:25:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Subj: RE: Draft Oil and Gas Stormwater Permit Here you are Don. Scott From: DSGJr(a)aol.com [mailto:DSGJr@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 9:21 AM To: Mandirola, Scott G Subject: Draft Oil and Gas Stormwater Permit Hi, Scott -- please email me a copy of the draft permit. Thanks, Don Garvin WVEC

1 0

Fwd: Coal drops to 38 % of electric generation in January (was: 3/28 Marcellus news digest
by James Kotcon 29 Mar '12

29 Mar '12

Wow. This must be scaring Manchin, Tomblin, et al. They keep claiming that coal generates the majority of electricity in the US. That has not been true for at least 7 years, as the percentage had slowly declined to about 42-44 % last year. This sudden drop is a harbinger of the future as the cost of solar and wind keeps coming down. Switching from coal to gas and back again can happen quickly with price swings in the cost of fuel, but once the infrastructure for renewables is built, there is no fuel cost. and the loss of market share for coal is permanent. JBK >>> "Chuck Wyrostok" wyro(a)appalight.com> 3/28/2012 7:04 PM >> ( mailto:wyro@appalight.com ) Cheap gas replaces coal at power plants By Bloomberg News Wednesday, March 28, 2012 Power plants boosted natural gas use by 19 percent in January from a year earlier as tumbling prices prompted a switch from coal, a government report showed. Gas used in electricity generation rose to 676 billion cubic feet in January from 563.8 billion a year earlier, the Energy Department said today in its Electric Power Monthly. The increase represents 3.6 billion cubic feet a day of additional gas demand during the month. Coal use fell 22 percent to 70.6 million tons in January from a year earlier. Gas gained share in every U.S. region while coal demand declined in a month when the amount of electricity generated fell because of unseasonably warm weather, the department said in a monthly update, also released today. The department said the drop in the average spot price for natural gas below the average spot price for Appalachian coal was "the biggest reason" why gas displaced coal. Gas at the Henry Hub in Louisiana, the delivery point for New York futures, averaged $2.75 per million British thermal units in January compared with $3.17 per million Btu for Central Appalachian coal, according to department data. Electricity generation across the U.S. fell 6.4 percent in January to 340.7 million megawatt-hours from a year earlier. Gas-fired plants accounted for 27 percent of the generation while coal represented 38 percent. Natural gas futures dropped 16 percent in January to $2.503 per million British thermal on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gas today slipped 1.8 cents, or 0.8 percent, to settle at $2.208, after sliding to $2.176, the lowest intraday price since February 2002. Coal futures tumbled 15 percent in January.

1 0

Fwd: WVEC Action Alert: DEP Announcements
by James Kotcon 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

Anyone want to take a look at these and prepare comments? Jim Kotcon >>> WVEC - Don Alexander <paradox(a)spectrumz.com> 3/26/2012 8:28 PM >>> West Virginia Environmental Council Action Alert March 26, 2012 WVEC Alerts Archive ( http://www.wvecouncil.org/take_action/index.html ) DEP Announcements DEP Accepting Comments on Centralized Pit Construction Standards ( #dep ) DEP Accepting Comments on Oil and Gas Stormwater General Permit ( #dep2 ) DEP Office of Oil & Gas Launches Horizontal Drilling Page on Website ( #dep3 ) DEP Accepting Comments on Centralized Pit Construction Standards The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Oil and Gas is taking comments on its design and construction standards for centralized pits used to store wastewater associated with horizontal drilling. The standards provide guidelines for construction, liner requirements, water quality monitoring, and engineer certifications. The document can be found at: http://www.dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas/Pages/default.aspx Comments may be submitted in writing by email to dep.oogcomments(a)wv.gov or through the U.S. Postal Service to: John Kearney Office of Oil and Gas 601 57th Street SE, Charleston, WV 25304. Comments will be accepted until April 12, 2012 at 5 p.m. DEP Accepting Comments on Oil and Gas Stormwater General Permit The State of West Virginia, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water and Waste Management is proposing to issue a State General Water Pollution Control Permit to regulate the discharge of stormwater runoff associated with oil and gas related construction activities. The General Permit will authorize discharges composed entirely of stormwater associated with oil and gas field activities or operations associated with exploration, production, processing or treatment operations or transmission facilities, disturbing one acre or greater of land area, to the waters of the State. It is proposed that this General Permit be issued for a four (4) year term. The Director of the Division of Water and Waste Management retains authority to require any owner/operator to apply for and obtain an alternative Permit. This authority will be exercised when the Director determines that an alternative permit will better protect the receiving water. The Draft Permit may be inspected by appointment between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday at the Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water and Waste Management, Public Information Office, 57th Street SE, Charleston, WV 25304. Copies of the documents may be obtained from the Division at a nominal cost. A public hearing has been scheduled to take additional comments on the Draft Permit. The hearing has been scheduled for 6 p.m. on April 9, 2012, at the Coopers Rock Training Room, WV DEP Headquarters, 601 57th Street SE, Charleston, WV 25304. Any person may submit oral or written statements concerning the draft permit; however, reasonable limits may be set upon the time allowed for oral statements. Any interested persons may submit written comments on the Draft Permit. The public comment period begins March 8, 2012 and ends April 19, 2012. Comments should be addressed to: Director, Division of Water and Waste Management Department of Environmental Protection 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 Attention: Tonya Ombler E mail: Tonya.K.Ombler(a)wv.gov All comments received within this period will be considered prior to acting on the Draft Permit. Correspondence should include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer; and a concise statement of the nature of the issues being raised. Requests for additional information should be directed to Tonya Ombler at (304) 926-0499, extension 1132. DEP Office of Oil & Gas Launches Horizontal Drilling Page on Website The Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Oil and Gas has launched a webpage that contains information specifically related to horizontal drilling as defined by the Horizontal Drilling Act that was passed by the state Legislature in December. As part of the Act, the Legislature required the DEP to create the page so citizens could obtain information about the location of proposed horizontal wells and give them the opportunity to comment on those permit applications. Currently, the page offers links to items that will be further developed as permit applications are received by the agency. Links to pages that allow citizens to submit or review comments about specific permit applications, as well as a link to a tool that helps them find the location of a proposed well, are included. “The page will continue to grow and change as more permit applications are submitted to the agency,” said James Martin, Chief of the Office of Oil and Gas. “Soon, after we populate the site with applications that have been received, people will be able to see a list with information such as the applicant, where the well is located, the formation it targets, whether the well has been completed and the date the permit was issued.” Under the new legislation, one of the first steps operators have to take is placing a Class II Legal notice in local newspapers at least 10 days prior to submitting an application. “As an added public notice option, people can go to this page and sign up for an email notification whenever a permit is received or issued by the Office of Oil and Gas,” Martin said. The site can be found at: http://www.dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas/Horizontal-Permits/Pages/default.aspx Don Alexander ( mailto:paradox@spectrumz.com ) WVEC E-mail List Coordinator Subscribe or Unsubscribe Online ( http://www.wvecouncil.org/take_action/index.html )

1 0

DEP Announcements
by Frank Young 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

WVEC Action AlertDEP Office of Oil & Gas Launches Horizontal Drilling Page on Website The Department of Environmental Protection's Office of Oil and Gas has launched a webpage that contains information specifically related to horizontal drilling as defined by the Horizontal Drilling Act that was passed by the state Legislature in December. As part of the Act, the Legislature required the DEP to create the page so citizens could obtain information about the location of proposed horizontal wells and give them the opportunity to comment on those permit applications. Currently, the page offers links to items that will be further developed as permit applications are received by the agency. Links to pages that allow citizens to submit or review comments about specific permit applications, as well as a link to a tool that helps them find the location of a proposed well, are included. "The page will continue to grow and change as more permit applications are submitted to the agency," said James Martin, Chief of the Office of Oil and Gas. "Soon, after we populate the site with applications that have been received, people will be able to see a list with information such as the applicant, where the well is located, the formation it targets, whether the well has been completed and the date the permit was issued." Under the new legislation, one of the first steps operators have to take is placing a Class II Legal notice in local newspapers at least 10 days prior to submitting an application. "As an added public notice option, people can go to this page and sign up for an email notification whenever a permit is received or issued by the Office of Oil and Gas," Martin said. The site can be found at: http://www.dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas/Horizontal-Permits/Pages/default.aspx

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC