MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1014 discussions

The Future of Coal Mining
by Duane 17 Jan '16

17 Jan '16

CHARLESTON GAZETTE OP-ED, Thursday, January 14, 2016 WV must nurture something besides extraction, By S. Thomas Bond, Lewis County, WV While West Virginia politicians fight “the war on coal,” China is not going to approve any new mines for the next three years. Obviously this coincides with a slower Chinese economy, but it is a decision a long time in coming. Some mines have been closed in the past and more will be closed in the coming year. It is also very much the result of a new awareness of the problems of using coal to produce energy. The plan is to shift to nuclear and other sources of energy that do not cause air pollution, namely, hydro, wind and solar. The next five years will see millions of kilowatts generating capacity added. China is now the largest coal producer in the world; 64 percent of its energy comes from coal.This move has been in the works for some time. Coal use declined in 2014, and appears to have peaked in 2013. The most obvious driver is the terrible air pollution in Beijing, China’s capital, but it is known that about 1.6 million Chinese die each year because of air pollution, so 17 percent of the deaths each year. Sometimes it is so severe that the government tells people to stay inside at home, rather than to go outside. Many residents have expensive air purifiers in their homes. China will not be the only beneficiary. It is a major contributor to global warming, too. So when will politicians in West Virginia catch on?The West Virginia coal industry provides about 30,000 direct jobs, out of 750,000 workers in West Virginia as of November, or about 4 percent. Our hearts go out to these people. They do a hard, dangerous job. Last year was the first time since 2009 that West Virginia did not have the most fatalities in the industry in the United States. West Virginia is a resource colony for the Northeast. The state is losing population. We are at or near the bottom of any measure of education. For example, we have the lowest percent of people with bachelor’s degrees of any state. It is an unattractive place for most up and coming industry as a result. The people are loyal, famous for being hard workers and love the outdoors, but for most there is only unattractive, low-paid, work. The current emphasis on unconventional gas extraction continues this tradition. The state government leans over backward to please extraction interests, which are capital intensive, offer only a few tough jobs, mostly for men, and people to provide services for them.We need development of something better. We are no longer isolated. We have great recreational opportunities, a system of colleges and universities that should help, and (still) abundant, clean headwaters, which no one seems to be trying to protect. Hey, legislators and officials, catch on! The world is moving on and we are not moving with it. Thomas Bond, of Jane Lew, is a retired teacher, chemist and is a member of the Guardians of the West Fork and the Monongahela Area Watersheds Compact. Source: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/gazette-opinion/20160114/s-thomas-bond-wv-must…

1 0

<GASP> Old News You May Have Missed; Getting Ready for 2016
by Duane 01 Jan '16

01 Jan '16

Saying Goodbye to Wellington Development’s Greene Energy Resource Recovery Project GASP Hotline Newsletter, Spring 2014. By Joe Osborne, GASP Legal Director, www.gasp-pgh.org Nearly a decade after it was first conceived, we can finally say goodbye to Wellington Development’s Greene Energy Resource Recovery Project-—a proposed 525 MW waste-coal-fired power plant that would have been located in Cumberland Township, Greene County. In February 2014, PADEP terminated the air permit for the Greene Energy Resource Recovery Project at Wellington Development’s request. The permit termination appears to mark the end of a coal power project that would have posed a serious and unjustifiable threat to human health and the environment in southwestern Pennsylvania. For many years, the proposed plant clung to life in spite of: • its significant environmental impacts (the facility’s air permit would have allowed it to emit thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide; hundreds of tons of particulate matter, over 100 tons of ammonia, and over 100 tons of volatile organic compounds in any 12-month period); • lack of any compelling economic justification for building the plant in light of weak demand for generating capacity; • several legal challenges in state and federal court brought by a coalition of local citizens and environmen- tal organizations including GASP; and • a protracted, snail-like pace of plant construction that is difficult to reconcile with source operators’ Clean Air Act obligation to complete facility construction “within a reasonable time.” PADEP authorized construction of the Greene Energy Resource Recovery Project in June 2005. A DEP site inspection in December 2012 noted, “the only sign of any construction are four (4) poured concrete slabs.” REFERENCES: 1. For past reports on the excruciating saga of the Greene Energy Resource Recovery Project, see Hotline Fall 2005, Summer 2006, Winter 2006, Summer 2007, Winter 2007, Winter 2010. 2. 40 CFR §52.21. 3. PADEP Inspection Report – Greene Energy Resource Recovery Project (Dec. 19, 2012).

1 0

Shenango Coke Works to Close in January
by Duane330＠aol.com 17 Dec '15

17 Dec '15

Shenango Coke Works has long been one of the worst polluters in the Pittsburgh area. Today, they announced they will be shutting down in mid-January. Officially, DTE Energy (the owner of the Coke facility) cited "global overcapacity in the steel industry" as the cause of the closure. Importantly, DTE has also committed to helping their employees in the transition with 60 days of pay after the facility closes, severance packages, and, crucially, outplacement assistance. The workers must be adequately helped through this process. The Council had taken legal action against the facility before, finding that _over a 432 day period it violated air pollution laws on 330 of those days_ (http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=D5pTDAk6cN+Y0rHPiMDTft/UDu5…) . Despite repeated warnings from Allegheny County officials, the facility continued to pollute at illegal levels. This pollution, of course, has a major impact on the surrounding community. One resident, Ted Popovich, said Shenango was "out of control" and "a danger to the health and well being of its workers and nearby residents." Another resident, a mother who lives just across the river from the facility, called for "regulatory agencies and environmental groups to do everything within their power to stop the coke works from continuing to pollute the air my family and I breathe." This is big news for Pittsburgh, the 6th-most polluted city in America. This is an important step forward, but there is still much more work to do. I look forward to continuing these fights and keeping you updated on all future progress. Sincerely, Joseph Otis Minott, Esq., Executive Director Clean Air Council, Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Wilmington

1 0

Fwd: Action Alert: Core Arboretum threatened by plans for bridge
by Duane Nichols 14 Dec '15

14 Dec '15

> From: Sierra Club - West Virginia Chapter <jimscon(a)gmail.com> > Date: December 14, 2015 at 2:42:02 PM EST > To: Sierra Club - West Virginia Chapter <alert(a)sierraclub.org> > Subject: Action Alert: Core Arboretum threatened by plans for bridge > Reply-To: Sierra Club - West Virginia Chapter <jimscon(a)gmail.com> > > Anyone who values the green space, incredible wildflower displays and mature forest, hiking trails and wildlife watching opportunities at this loveliest of ecological refuges on the edge of a busy city should definitely send a letter of protest. See below: > Zach Fowler, Director of the Arboretum, sent the following information. > > Overview: > > The WVU Core Arboretum is potentially threatened by plans to build a bridge over the Monongahela River. The Morgantown Monongalia Metropolitan Planning Organization (MMMPO) is asking for feedback, we need to give them feedback. This is happening very fast, and acting urgently is necessary. The deadline for comments is December 24. > > The MMMPO held a meeting for the I-79 Access Study on Thursday, Dec. 3, 2015. This was the first of three public meetings that will be held for the project. There was no formal presentation at the meeting, but there was a handout (attached) containing the relevant information. Officials from MMMPO were also on hand to answer questions. There is now a website for the project (i79accessstudywv.com), and all of the documents referred to here are available on this site. > > The first meeting was to present the Existing and Future Conditions (E&FC) Report. The takeaway message of the E&FC Report was that the MMMPO did find the need to improve traffic conditions between Morgantown's urban core and WVU and I-79, and that they are considering building a bridge across the Monongahela River as part of the solution to the traffic problem. The next step in the project is reviewing public comments, identifying alternatives, and evaluating the operations and impacts of the alternatives. There is reason to believe (outlined below) that the MMMPO is considering building a bridge connecting the new I-79 interchange to the Monongahela Blvd. and Patteson Dr. intersection, directly through/over the WVU Core Arboretum as one of the options. > > This is a critical time to respond to the MMMPO with concerns about the impact of the project on the Arboretum. They are entering into the "alternatives development process." Once they have received the public comments, they will begin evaluating "preliminary alternatives" and developing a list of alternatives to present at the next public meeting. Keep in mind that one of these preliminary alternatives is likely a bridge over the Arboretum. The official presentation of a bridge over the Arboretum as an option could come in March. They have officially, albeit quietly, solicited input from citizens and stakeholders. They have officially, albeit quietly, asked us to come forward with our concerns. > > It is deeply concerning that the MMMPO would even consider a project that would impact the Arboretum as an option. It is also deeply concerning how quickly and quietly this is happening. The MMMPO plans to announce a recommended project in June! > > It is likely that it will be said that a bridge over the Arboretum will not ruin the Arboretum. In reality, it is not possible to build the "Direct Roadway Connection from New I-79 Interchange to Monongahela Boulevard" without having an irreversible negative impact on the Arboretum. A bridge over the Arboretum would certainly ruin the Arboretum as we know and love it. > Necessary Action: > > It is important that all who are concerned about the future of the WVU Core Arboretum write a letter to Bill Austin, Executive Director of MMMPO (address below), before December 24 and express the opinion that "Direct Roadway Connection from New I-79 Interchange to Monongahela Boulevard" (Project 6, Option B in the LRTP) is not an option that should even be considered as a preliminary alternative, much less a preferred alternative, due to its necessary and unavoidable impact on the WVU Core Arboretum. Even a bridge OVER the Arboretum will cause irreversible and unacceptable damage to the Arboretum. It is also important to stress the importance of the Arboretum to the community and the University, and to emphasize the value that it holds. > > Mr. Bill Austin, AICP > Executive Director > Morgantown Monongalia MPO > 82 Hart Field Road Suite 105 > Morgantown, WV 26505 > > > Comments are due by December 24, 2015 > > The next public meeting for the I-79 Access Study will be in April, and the MMMPO will present a slate of "alternatives" at this time. Let's hope that the direct roadway connection option is already off the table at that point, but let's also be prepared for it to be presented as an alternative, possibly even the preferred alternative. > > The official comment period for evaluation of alternatives is now. > > Letters of concern would be good at any time, but now is a very critical time. It would also be helpful to send letters to the editor of local papers. >

1 0

Climate Action March, Pittsburgh, December 12th
by Duane 11 Dec '15

11 Dec '15

Climate Action March, Oakland. December 12th December 12, 2015 10:00 am to 11:00 am On the final day of the UN COP21 Climate Change Conference, December 12, the climate action movement will hold hundreds of events around the world. Here in Pittsburgh there will be a rally and march: “The Building Blocks for Climate Change Action” Assemble at 9:45 am, finish at 11:00 am, Saturday, December 12 -- The March starts at 10 am at steps to the Cathedral of Learning near the Stephen Foster Memorial on Forbes Avenue, at the University of Pittsburgh in the Oakland section of Pittsburgh. A diversity of groups and individuals are invited to each create their part of an interlinking network of protests — by building boxes with the name of their movement or struggle (i.e. black lives matter, immigration, youth, LGBQT) or just the name of their group (i.e. high school club, church, union, community association, student organization, gardening club, environmental organization) to symbolize their vested interest in helping to halt climate change and hold our leaders accountable! After a brief address at the start we will follow the May Day Marching Band in a procession through Oakland and return to the strat where we will erect a powerful pyramid with our building blocks. There will be a “block-creating” party at 7 pm on Friday, December 11 at the Thomas Merton Center, 519 Penn Ave, Pittsburgh PA 15224. BANKERS’ BOXES MAKE GREAT BUILDING BLOCKS Sponsors of this event include Clean Air Council, PennEnvironment, Pittsburgh350, and the Sierra Club. NOTE: After the march join us at 11:30 am at the First Unitarian Church, Ellsworth and Morewood, for a panel discussion on how climate change is impacting Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania. Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535, www.FrackCheckWV.net

1 0

Reminder: TOMORROW in Pittsburgh, "Climate Change Beyond Paris"
by Duane Nichols 11 Dec '15

11 Dec '15

> From: Clean Air Council <members(a)cleanair.org> > Date: December 11, 2015 at 9:53:28 AM EST > Subject: Reminder: TOMORROW in Pittsburgh, "Climate Change Beyond Paris" > Reply-To: eroben(a)cleanair.org > > > > Dear MonValley Clean Air Coalition, > > This week, world leaders are convening in Paris to decide how the international community will address climate change - a meeting some are calling our last best chance to avoid catastrophic warming. But here in Pennsylvania, where our economy rivals that of major nations and where our methane pollution problem grows more urgent with each new natural gas well, we know we can't leave it to international negotiators to address climate change alone. > > Join us on December 12th in Pittsburgh for two events to show support for climate action in Pennsylvania and to learn more about climate change and the climate justice movement in our state. > > Building Blocks for Climate Action Rally and March > When: Saturday, December 12th, 10am > Where: Cathedral of Learning Steps, Forbes Ave. > What: On the final day of the Paris Climate Talks, join with community groups and residents from across Pittsburgh for a rally and march as part of a global day of climate action. > Click here for more information and to RSVP. > > Climate Change Beyond Paris > When: December 12th, 11:30am following the rally and march > Where: First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh, Schweitzer Room, 605 Moorewood Avenue > What: After the march join us for a panel discussion about how climate change is impacting Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania, and what we can do to build the climate movement. > Click here for more information and to RSVP. > > Questions? Contact Eva at eroben(a)cleanair.org > > Hope you can make it! > > > Sincerely, > Matt Walker > Community Outreach Director > > > PHILADELPHIA > > 135 S. 19th Street > Suite 300 > Philadelphia, PA 19103 > P: (215) 567-4004 > F: (215) 567-5791 > HARRISBURG > > 107 N. Front Street > Suite 113 > Harrisburg, PA 17101 > P: (717) 230-8806 > F: (717) 230-8808 > WILMINGTON > > 100 W. 10th Street > Suite 607 > Wilmington, DE 19801 > P: (302) 691-0112 > Unsubscribe > >

1 0

Carbon Tax, or Carbon Fee, or Price on Carbon (What's in a name?)
by Duane330＠aol.com 09 Dec '15

09 Dec '15

Believe It Or Not: Exxon Mobil Now Favors a Tax on Carbon http://www.bloomberg.com/ Tax Me, Says Exxon Mobil, in Declaring Support for Climate Talks >From an Article by Alex Nussbaum, Bloomberg Business News, December 2, 2015 Exxon Mobil Corp., a _favorite target _ (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-02/turning-exxon-s-tiger-int… an) of global warming activists, said (last week) that it’s hopeful for a deal out of the climate-change talks in Paris and still thinks the best solution is a tax on carbon pollution. As the United Nations negotiations moved into a third day, the world’s biggest oil explorer said in an _blog post_ (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/?p=15102?utm_source=subscription&utm_… cle:+ExxonMobil+on+the+U.N.+climate+talks) that it supports “meaningful action to address the risks of climate change” as long as it preserved access to the reliable and affordable energy. “The long-term objective of climate-change policy should be to reduce the risks of serious harm to humanity and ecosystems at minimum societal cost, while recognizing shared humanitarian necessities,” Exxon Mobil General Counsel Ken Cohen wrote in the post. In the run-up to the Paris talks that began November 30th, Exxon has been under heavy assault by environmentalists and politicians who say it misled the public by promoting uncertainties about climate science. New York State’s attorney general has _subpoenaed_ (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-10/everything-you-need-to-kn… te-change-probe) company records about its research going back decades, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in a Rolling Stone _interview_ (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/john-kerry-on-climate-change-the-… f-our-time-20151201) published Tuesday, said Exxon’s actions would amount to “a betrayal” of humanity if it’s found to have suppressed knowledge about climate risks. Revenue-Neutral Tax Exxon has said it made its research public and did nothing wrong. The Irving, Texas-based explorer takes climate change seriously and has taken steps to reduce its own emissions, Cohen said in today’s post. The most effective solution would be a revenue-neutral tax on greenhouse gas emissions, Cohen wrote, reiterating a position Exxon has held for years. “Instead of subsidies and mandates that distort markets, stifle innovation, and needlessly raise energy costs, a carbon tax could help create the conditions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that spurs new efficiencies and technologies,” he said. “The revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a workable policy framework for countries around the world.” Long a hard-line opponent to climate-friendly carbon limits, Exxon began to soften its outlook and embrace the need to curb greenhouse gases in 2006 when Rex Tillerson succeeded Lee Raymond as chairman and CEO. The company’s $35 billion takeover of XTO Energy in 2010 was inspired in part by expectations that stricter climate rules would spur natural gas demand as a replacement for dirtier coal. # # # # # # # # # # NOTE: Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) is an international _grassroots_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots) environmental group that trains and supports volunteers to build relationships with their elected representatives in order to influence _climate policy_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_policy) . Operating since 2007, the goal of CCL is to build bipartisan support to put a _price on carbon_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price) , specifically a revenue neutral _carbon fee and dividend_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend) at the national level. CCL is supported by notable climate scientists _James Hansen_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen) , _Katharine Hayhoe_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Hayhoe) , and _Daniel Kammen_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kammen) . CCL's advisory board also include _George Shultz_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Shultz) , former Secretary of State, former US Representative _Bob Inglis_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Inglis) of South Carolina and many others. Membership is now over 20,000. The WV State chapter of CCL is headed by Jim Probst (_probstfurnituremakers(a)gmail.com_ (mailto:probstfurnituremakers@gmail.com) ) . The recently formed chapter in Morgantown is being coordinated by Kayde Cappellari (_k.cappellari(a)gmail.com_ (mailto:k.cappellari@gmail.com) ) and her son Torrence. Every Wednesday at 8 pm Eastern time, an introductory CCL conference call-in is held. You can join in here: _http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org_ (http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/) https://citizensclimatelobby.org/join-weekly-intro-call/

1 0

REPLY REQUESTED: Questioning the authority of the WV attorney general
by Duane 03 Dec '15

03 Dec '15

To Participants and Friends of Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition (MVCAC): The MVCAC has joined in with a number of other conservation and non-profit groups to challenge the authority of the WV attorney general to oppose the US EPA "clean power plan" in the federal courts. The WV attorney general instituted this action without any explicit rationale or request from a state agency or official. The WV attorney general has gone farther and implied to the courts and to various federal agencies that he represents the people of WV in this matter. Yet, there are thousands of WV citizens that are not represented or believe otherwise. Three documents below include the Washington Post article this week on human health effects of coal fired power plants, then an article on the actions of US attorneys general, and then the press release on our action in the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. ACTION ITEM # 1. It is essential that you reply and send $20 to maintain participation in the MVCAC, otherwise we will have inadequate numbers to maintain our non-profit status with the IRS. Please send a check to: MVCAC Treasurer, 659 Hoard Road, Morgantown, WV, 26508 ACTION ITEM # 2. Our current bank balance is $991.95. If you are in favor of a contribution of $500 from MVCAC to this legal action, please indicate this in an email reply to this message. >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/coal-is-king-among-p… >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some 44 states take sides in Clean Power Plan legal melee Summary: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is leading a coalition of 18 states and some cities and counties in defense of the Clean Power Plan. The group has filed a motion to intervene to defend the federal greenhouse gas plan, Greenwire reports. They are squared off against 26 states who have filed a variety of legal challenges. Only six states have so far remained neutral: Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. It's not often a regulatory package divides the nation so starkly, but the EPA's carbon regulations have done just that. Nearly every state has jumped into the legal battle over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, an unprecedented level of interest in federal climate rules. "I can't recall a Clean Air Act rule, or other EPA rule, that had 44 states in the mix," Joe Stanko, an attorney at Hunton & Williams, told Greenwire, with the news outlet describing the expanding legal fight a "brawl." The more than two dozen states challenging the rule "are the most ever to challenge an EPA rule and, as far as I know, any federal action," said Bracewell & Giuliani attorney Jeff Holmstead. Through a variety of legal challenges – the largest includes 24 states led by West Virginia – some 26 states have filed lawsuits to block the Clean Power Plan. In total, states opposed to the rule include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The 18 states filing to defend the plan include: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. The District of Columbia, Chicago, New York City and Philadelphia have also signed on. “Climate change represents an unprecedented threat to the environment, public health, and our economy. We no longer can afford to respond to this threat with denials or obstruction,” New York AG Schneiderman said in a statement. "We are committed to aggressively defending the Clean Power Plan to ensure progress is made in confronting climate change.” And on the other side: "The Clean Power Plan is one of the most far-reaching energy regulations in this nation’s history," said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. "West Virginia is proud to be leading the charge against this Administration’s blatant and unprecedented attack on coal.” Beyond rhetoric, Greenwire points out the reason for the divide: The 18 states supporting the rule make up only about 12% of the emissions reductions required by the CPP, and include a couple of states not covered by the rule (Vermont and Hawaii; Alaska has remained neutral). States challenging the plan make up about 80% of the required reductions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> West Virginia Groups Oppose Morrisey’s Attack on the Clean Power Plan Citing numerous health studies plaintiffs insist the need for CPP is now. CHARLESTON, W.Va. – The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Coal River Mountain Watch, Kanawha Forest Coalition, the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition and Keepers of the Mountains Foundation have moved to intervene in an action previously filed by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and Attorney Generals from 23 other states which seeks to delay and ultimately invalidate the Clean Power Plan adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Power Plan is designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Under the Plan, each state is required to develop a plan on how it is intends to achieve the emission reductions. Under West Virginia law, the Governor, with the help of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, will develop this “State Implementation Plan” and it will be reviewed by the West Virginia Legislature before it is submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In the long run, Mr. Morrisey seeks to invalidate the regulations that carry out the Clean Power Plan. In the short run, he seeks to prevent the regulations from going into effect while the case is pending in court. Mr. Morrisey claims to speak for all West Virginians. “We feel compelled to intervene so that the Court will have the benefit of viewpoints other than that of Mr. Morrisey, a viewpoint not shared by all West Virginians,” said Cynthia D. Ellis, president of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. “This case is about whether we want to live in the present and prepare for the future or cling to the past. Coal has been our main source of electricity for a century. Mr. Morrisey wants to go back to that past, a past that has made West Virginians sick and contributed to climate change. We want to move forward to a future where there is more balance in meeting our energy needs.” The Motion to Intervene points out that in “literally dozens of recent peer-reviewed studies, diligent medical researchers have documented the fact that particulate matter — whether emitted from electric utility plants directly, or indirectly from the mountaintop removal mining projects from which those utilities obtain their fuel supply — results in statistically significant increases of birth defects, decreased birth weights, diminished educational attainment, increased cancer, pulmonary and cardiac disease, and very substantially decreased life expectancy.” “This is about who speaks for West Virginia and for West Virginians,” said Janet Keating, executive director of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. “Mr. Morrisey presumes to speak for the State and for all of us. His opinion may be that there is a war on coal and that all West Virginians should resist. This is not true. Climate change is a serious problem and we all have to do our part in addressing it.” “The Clean Power Plan is far from perfect, and we may disagree with what West Virginia ultimately proposes as a plan to reduce emissions,” said Vernon Haltom, executive director of Coal River Mountain Watch. “But scrapping the Clean Power Plan entirely and betting West Virginia’s health and economic future on the miraculous resurgence of a polluting finite resource is not a solution.” The case is filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. West Virginia groups are being represented by William DePaulo, an attorney based in Lewisburg, W.Va. >. >. >. >. >. Best wishes, Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535.

2 1

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net
by Duane 03 Dec '15

03 Dec '15

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.fig5.png Please comment on the US EPA plan to control methane emissions, as referenced today on www.FrackCheckWV.net. Comment period expires at midnight on 12/4/15.

1 0

Coal is king among pollution that causes heart disease, study says - The Washington Post
by Duane 02 Dec '15

02 Dec '15

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/coal-is-king-among-p… Coal is king among pollution that causes heart disease, study says - The Washington Post By Darryl Fears, Washington Post, December 2, 2015 Exposure to emissions from coal-fired power plants over a long period of time is significantly more harmful to the heart than other forms of carbon pollution, a new study says. The risk of death from heart disease, including heart attacks, was five times higher for people who breathed pollution from coal emissions over 20 years than for those who were exposed to other types of air pollution, according to the study’s findings. The burning of coal releases fine particles with a potent mix of toxins, including arsenic and selenium. “Our results indicate that, pound for pound, coal-burning particles contribute roughly five times as much to heart disease mortality risk as the average air pollution particle in the United States,” said George D. Thurston, a professor of population health and environmental medicine at New York University and lead author of the study. [EPA rule on greenhouse gases latest blow to King Coal] Thurston and the study’s 10 other authors said that their findings should end assumptions in previous studies that carbon “particles have the same toxicity, irrespective of their source.” And they said the findings show the Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to strengthen regulation of power plant emissions standards — as part of the White House’s Clean Power Plan — does not go far enough. The EPA’s calculations for lowering air pollution with stricter coal emission standards nationwide are wrong, the research shows, because the estimates are based on the assumption that particles from all sources of carbon pollutions are equally toxic and carry the same risks. Windblown particles from dust in Phoenix is far less toxic than emissions from coal-burning power plants in Pittsburgh. And urban motor traffic in Los Angeles produces emissions that are about half as toxic as coal, Thurston said. “You have to look at the various sources,” he said. “If we want to clean particles, where should we start? We should start with the particles that are most toxic.” Thurston said governments across the world have taken clean air models from the United States and applied them without considering that the level of danger is higher or lower depending on the pollution source. “In the Arab world, there are high levels of particle pollution, but they’re from windblown soil,” Thurston said. “You think those are the same as coal? They’re not.” The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, released early Wednesday to coincide with the world climate talks in Paris. The EPA said in August that its plan would lower power plant carbon pollution that causes “the soot and smog that harm health, while advancing clean energy innovation,” according to its Web site. The agency estimated that it would help Americans avoid 1,700 heart attacks and 3,600 premature deaths. Nearly half of the nation’s state attorneys general filed lawsuits seeking to block the new regulations when they were finalized in September. Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia’s attorney general, called the plan “one of the most far-reaching energy regulations in this nation’s history.” Air pollution has been identified by the World Health Organization as a major health threat linked to heart disease across the globe. In the United States, it causes 1 in every 5 heart disease-related deaths, according to the American Heart Association. The study relied on a trove of data collected between 1982 and 2004 by the American Cancer Society, which sent hundreds of volunteers to question about 1 million people about their health. The coal study examined information collected from about 450,000 people who lived in areas where pollution exposure data was available. To reduce the number of people dying from air pollution worldwide, Thurston and his colleagues said, there must be a stronger emphasis on reducing coal emissions. [States sue to block EPA emissions rule — even as some try to comply] Aruni Bhatnagar, a University of Louisville professor of cardiovascular medicine and a volunteer with American Heart Association, called the study’s finding’s surprising because of the long-held assumption in previous studies: All sources of pollution “have the same lethality,” he said. Before now, there had only been talk, based on expert guesses, that coal emissions could be “more toxic than other particles,” Bhatnagar said. See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC