Greenpeace

There are many contradictions in America’s Energy Policy.  One that’s come down the pipe recently is just how little we as a society rely upon aggregated costs when determining how expensive coal is.

You’ve heard the talking points: “Coal is cheap and we’ve sure got a lot of it;” “Coal is energy security;” “Coal work provides good quality jobs for lots of folks.”

Well, not exactly.

There is a tremendous human, environmental and governmental cost to coal that is not reflected in its market price. Instead, these costs are borne by society.


Coal is only cheap if you externalize costs. For example, some externalized costs include: air quality costs (like increased rates of asthma, air opacity, poor air quality, coal fires, etc.), the costs of unsafe mining conditions (deforestation, soil erosion, black lung, and the human cost of tragedies like what we recently saw in West Virginia, and the environmental costs of disposal (leaching coal ash ponds, leaking waste destroying fish stocks and agriculture, acid mine drainage).

This is a short list in what is a very large problem. The true cost of coal is in fact very, very high.

Importantly, the debate has heated up recently on one very important aspect of the coal chain of custody: coal ash disposal.

On June 21st, the EPA gave us, the people, 90 days to comment on a federal rule for coal ash disposal. For those that don’t know, coal ash is the residue captured from the chimneys of coal-fired power plants. It contains dangerous pollutants like arsenic, mercury, lead, and a host of other heavy substances and heavy metals. In short, it’s filthy and its never been regulated.

Coal ash impoundments are routinely placed close to schools, residences, and some of the most pristine and beautiful spots in this nation. We have to tell the EPA to act responsibly for both human and environmental health and safety.

To that end, the EPA has given us two choices for its federal rule. One proposal is good and the other is very bad. The first proposal would classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, which it is. The other would classify coal ash as non-hazardous. To classify coal ash as non-hazardous would run contrary to the EPA’s own findings, playing right into the hands of polluting industry.

We need to tell the EPA that we support regulating coal ash as a "special waste" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Coal Ash is hazardous waste; it destroys communities, destroys our ecosystem, and, unless regulated, will continue to do so in increasing amounts.

The time to act on coal ash is now. Help us get to our target of 10,000 signatures by signing our petition telling the EPA to regulate coal ash as a hazardous substance.

Friday is a day that just might live in climate infamy. On Thursday, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski will introduce her "resolution of disapproval" (S.J.Res. 26), aka the “Dirty Air Act.” Take action now and urge your Senator to vote against the Dirty Air Act. The goal of this Amendment is to take away the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate dangerous greenhouse gases.

Seems strange. Where have I heard this issue before?

Well, the Supreme Court for one. In 2007, the Supreme Court offered its decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA (549 U.S. 497), which interpreted Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act’s seemingly non-discretional language. The Court found that Section 202 required the EPA Administrator to regulate carbon dioxide and other harmful gases that “in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

The EPA responded to the Court’s remand with an endangerment finding, which enabled them to draft new standards to curb greenhouse gases while simultaneously raising mileage standards.

Higher mileage standards mean less pain at the pump for the consumer, less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and a greater role for industry to innovate. Seems too good to be true.

However, Murkowski’s resolution would overturn the EPA’s endangerment finding, thereby gutting the Clean Air Act. Also, this would have the effect of rolling back the agreement struck by the Obama administration, NHTSA and EPA to increase light duty vehicles efficiency standards, reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

Despite this, Murkowski and her co-sponsors are pushing an industry-lobbyist written amendment to reverse this decision legislatively by stripping the EPA’s ability to regulate harmful greenhouse gases.

Something just doesn’t seem right about Murkowski’s actions. Sure, Greenpeace has shown exactly how wedded to polluting industries Murkowski is during our Polluter Harmony campaign. Yeah, Murkowski has been continually criticized for the cozy links between her and energy lobbyists at Bracewell & Guliani (this legislation came from one of those links). And so what if she takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from the polluting energy industry.

Despite these egregious ethical failings, I think that something else is going on here.

This vote is about whether the Senate supports the President.

If the Senate votes to stop EPA action on climate change, they will be removing Presidential powers – a move obviously designed to show disapproval of the Executive's judgment and prerogative to develop rules and enforce the law. This is a vote of distrust.

Second, because the vote is about removing Presidential authority, it is also going to be an indication about whether the Democrats can organize themselves or not. So, it might be useful to remind leadership that if Murkowski wins, Obama looks weak.

Especially at this late stage, the leaders with the most clout and interest in rallying the necessary votes to defeat Murkowski's Dirty Air Act should be President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Despite the uncapped, massive volume of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, if Murkowski’s Dirty Air Act goes forward, the US will use 450 million more barrels of oil by blocking new clean car standards. (See: Lisa Jackson’s Testimony before Energy and Commerce Committee, April 28, 2010). Also, by having less efficient vehicles, the American people are losing billions at the gas pump. We need Obama and Reid to lead us toward an end to our addiction to fossil fuels.

Now is not the time to make us more dependent upon polluting fossil fuels, while simultaneously eliminating the ability of the EPA to regulate the very emissions that they make.

Today at high noon, Greenpeace, along with Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, Energy Action Coalition, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, 350.org, Center for Biological Diversity and Hip Hop Caucus, articulated the outrage Americans everywhere are feeling by making a citizen’s arrest of BP CEO Tony Haward.

Today we mark the 46^th day of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, at this point the worst in American history. Millions of gallons of oil and toxic dispersants have entered the delicate ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, BP CEO Tony Hayward recently complained that he wants his "life back." He has since recognized the selfishness behind his statement, but what have we, the concerned citizens, realized since this incident?

Rob Weissman, president of Public Citizen, center, speaks flanked by Rev. Lennox Yearwood, of Hip Hop Caucus, left, and Phil Radford of Greenpeace. View more images from the citizens arrest protest on our Flickr page.

What have we done to make sure that this doesn’t happen again?

Have we learned any lessons from this and other environmental catastrophes?

It appears as though our nation is becoming ‘used’ to oil spills. Ixtoc I in the 70’s, Exxon Valdez in the 80’s, Mega Borg in the 90’s, and now the Deepwater Horizon. All told, hundreds of millions of gallons of oil have terrorized our waterways and countless lives have been affected by these spills.

Why do we still permit this industry to thrive (Note: BP has legally escaped paying $172,508,633 in royalties to US taxpayers on leases it operates in the Gulf of Mexico, but has made $6 billion in profits over the first quarter of this year) despite the fact that the consequences of their actions remain clear? Isn’t one environmental disaster enough to stop the drills?

We stood in front of BP's DC offices and listed charges against the corporation, including worker safety and environmental violations, price-gouging, negligence, and the inability to adequately respond to the mounting catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding communities. The charges culminated in a finding of criminal negligence and the presentation of a prison jumpsuit fitted for CEO Tony Hayward.

Hayward oversees a company that is responsible for causing the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. BP has one of the worst records of environmental and worker safety violations of any oil company operating in the U.S. It has paid $730 million in fines and settlements for environmental and worker safety violations, was currently on probation for felony environmental violations, and has been found guilty of manipulating energy markets.

BP’s record is clear. Our response must be as well.

Eleven people are no longer alive because of BP’s negligent behavior. At least 491 birds, 227 turtles, and 27 mammals, including dolphins, have been found dead. The true extent of the environmental damage won’t be known for years. BP must be held accountable for its actions immediately.

Even as BP's wellhead continues to spew its toxic brew, defacing miles of pristine coastline, Congress is apparently powerless to conjure a legislative fix for the threats to America's coasts. We need to learn a deep and profound lesson about what exactly our national priorities are.

Greenpeace has been bearing witness to the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill for the past month. Click here to read more blogs, view videos and more images.

The most recent “comprehensive climate legislation,” the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act, is not the robust legislative protection for America’s coastlines that we so clearly need. Giveaways to the fossil fuels industries, nuclear subsidies, and junk emissions reduction targets are not the way to move forward.

While we still have no clear estimate of the total impact from the BP Oil Spill on the Gulf’s fragile ecology, fisheries, or tourism, we continue to wait for guidance from our elected officials. And though the picture may be bleak, at least one Senator has seen an opportunity to pivot from this disaster and help to end our disastrous dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

While the legislation does not call for a complete ban on drilling all of America’s coasts, we stand behind S.3433, the Clean Coasts and Efficient Cars Act of 2010, introduced by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Congress should act to protect all of America’s coasts, including Alaska and the entire Gulf of Mexico. This legislation begins moving us toward that goal by protecting the coasts of the Atlantic, Pacific, Central Gulf, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico from a catastrophe like the BP Deepwater Disaster, which has already spilled millions of barrels of oil in the Gulf. Significantly, the bill recognizes an important step we can take to reduce demand for oil — raising fuel economy standards for gasoline powered vehicles.

Although we use 25% of all oil produced, the United States’ oil reserves represent only 3% of the global total. The result is that we already import about two-thirds of the oil we use. Because we simply do not have enough oil, offshore drilling cannot increase energy security - but more drilling can and will destroy ecosystems and coastal economies. A strategy to increase energy security for this generation and the future will only succeed if the focus is on developing renewable energy, increasing efficiency and reducing oil demand in our transportation sector. By increasing fuel economy, this legislation will reduce our demand for dirty oil, whether it is obtained from foreign countries or risky offshore drilling.

Sanders’ bill would set a fuel economy standard of 55 miles per gallon, up from an average of 35 mpg that American carmakers must achieve by 2030 under current law.

In Europe, by contrast, cars already get the equivalent of 42 mpg and by 2020 cars in Europe will be required to get at least 65 mpg. Why, in a rich and industrious country like America, can’t we also have the benefits (both environmental and price-wise) of such comprehensive legislation?

The time to act on climate change is now. We will let you know how you can support Sen. Sanders’ bill in the weeks to come. In the meantime, write to Congress and tell them to put a stop to dangerous and expensive offshore drilling off all our coasts.

The news today out of Washington has been somewhat promising, but these are small steps in a very long march towards a clean energy economy — an economy with none of the potential for massive ecological destruction such as we've seen in the Gulf.

Greenpeace has been bearing witness to the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill for the past month. Click here to read more blogs, view videos and more images.

Minerals Management Service (MMS) Director Elizabeth Birnbaum submitted her resignation letter this morning. Also today the Obama Administration renewed a moratorium in the pristine Beaufort and Chukchi seas in Alaska for the next 6 months, canceled the pending lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Virginia, and suspended action on 33 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Greenpeace welcomes any and all investigations of the root causes of the BP Deepwater Disaster. Furthermore, Greenpeace welcomes the President’s call to develop clean, renewable sources of energy. These are all positive steps.

But preventing another massive ecological disaster can only be guaranteed by a complete and permanent legislative ban on all new drilling off of America’s coasts.

To put today's news into perspective: The Washington Post is reporting that BP's oil spill in the Gulf is officially the largest in American history, and the company’s latest round of bungling attempts at stopping this massive flow have not been successful. Enough is enough.

In order to move forward from this tragedy in a meaningful way, Congress must:

• Ban all new offshore drilling so that no more of America's coastlines are threatened with ecological catastrophes such as the BP Deepwater Disaster and oil spill;
• Place stricter regulations on extractive industries (coal and oil) to make them safer and more accountable for the damage they cause;
• And pass legislation that jumpstarts the clean energy revolution.

Also, Arctic Alaska must be taken off the table permanently. Harsh weather and ice-infested waters are the norm in the region, and the risk of blowouts is even higher than in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil spill “clean-up” in the remote environment, where the nearest Coast Guard station is a thousand miles away, is even more impossible than it is in the relatively more hospitable and accessible Gulf. As a result of today’s announcements, Arctic Alaska is out of harm's way for a mere 6 months. Shell’s Arctic drilling threatens distinctive species such as polar bears, walrus, seals and whales, as well as the Alaskan Native communities who have relied on them for culture and subsistence for millennia. Alaska’s Arctic and its inhabitants deserve better.

We can not afford another catastrophe on the scale of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy — especially in Alaska where oil spill response infrastructure is virtually non-existent. We're learning in the Gulf that there is no such thing as cleaning up an oil spill.

Half measures, loopholes, and giveaways to polluters won't cut it this time. Now is the moment for action.

Because of today’s announcements concerning the suspension of pending leases in Alaska, we have happily closed our online petition calling on Interior Secretary Salazar to ban Arctic drilling. But your members of Congress still need to hear from you. Sign our petition to Congress telling them that now is the time for a permanent ban on ALL new offshore drilling.