October, 15 2008, 01:00pm EDT
Pre-Debate Facts on Coal, Nuclear, and Clean Energy
WASHINGTON
In advance of tonight's presidential debate on
energy and the economy, Greenpeace released a new backgrounder
comparing different energy sources. The release comes after Vice
Presidential candidate Sarah Palin unveiled a new slogan at a rally in
Ohio: "Drill, baby, drill and mine, baby, mine!" to promote more oil
drilling and more coal mining.
"Conservation,
wind, and solar are where jobs are sprouting in America," said John
Passacantando, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA. "If Sarah Palin
really wants to help get America's economy going, she should be
screaming 'Blow, baby, blow' and 'shine, baby, shine.'"
Further information comparing coal, oil and nuclear power with the
green economy is below. The full backgrounder is available at https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/debate-backgrounder
.
THE FACTS ON COAL
Coal Kills Jobs
- The coal industry is one of the least job-intensive
industries in America. According to the University of Massachusetts's
Political Economy Research Institute, investing in wind and solar power
would create 2.8 times as many jobs as the same investment in coal;
mass transit and conservation would create 3.8 times as many jobs as
coal. (https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/green-job-creation-table)"Every dollar we invest in dirty
energy like coal and oil is a dollar we can't spend investing in
creating jobs in the clean energy economy," Passacantando said. "Just
about the only way you could generate fewer jobs than the coal industry
is by investing in more oil drilling."- Green investment would create
approximately triple the number of high-paying jobs (at least $16
dollars an hour) as spending the same amount of money within the oil
industry. (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/green_jobs.html)- Coal is one of the biggest
contributors to global warming, which is conservatively projected to
cause a $3.8 trillion annual drag on the U.S. economy by 2100 through
increased extreme weather, drought, disease, insect infestation and
other impacts (https://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080522.asp)
- Green investment is projected to
reduce the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent from 5.7 percent (based on
U.S. labor market conditions in July 2008).
Source data and further information:
Pollin, Robert (University of Massachusetts) et. al. ""Green Recovery:
A Program to Create Good Jobs & Start Building a Low-Carbon
Economy." September, 2008 (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/green_recovery.html)Coal Kills People
- Pollution from coal-fired power
plants causes 23,600 premature deaths, 21,850 hospital admissions,
554,000 asthma attacks, and 38,200 heart attacks every year. That
translates into 3,186,000 lost work days nationwide every single year
and $167.3 billion a year in additional health care costs, much of it
borne by taxpayers. Source: https://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pdf
- Coal is one of the biggest
- Green investment would create
- In Ohio, where Governor Palin called for more dependence on
coal, power plants are responsible for 1,743 deaths, 1,638 hospital
admissions, and 2,873 heart attacks every year. Source: https://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pdf
- Citizens of a growing number of other states are wise to
coal's dangers and are taking action. California, Kansas, Florida, and
Idaho have effectively outlawed the construction of new coal-fired
power plants; nationally, at least 59 proposed coal projects have been
cancelled due to public opposition, failure to meet permitting
requirements, or lack of funding.. Source: https://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2014
The Myth of "Clean Coal"
- "Clean coal" technology has, until recently, referred to the
scrubbers used to sweep nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and other
regulated pollutants from coal-fired power plants. But today the coal
industry, and now the presidential campaigns, use the term as shorthand
for carbon capture and sequestration (or CCS), a largely-theoretical
technology that would separate carbon dioxide from smokestacks and bury
it in the ground to limit its global warming impact.
- The first attempt to demonstrate the feasibility of CCS was a
project in Illinois called FutureGen. But the government was forced to
abandon the trial in January after years of technical failures and
budget overruns. Nationwide, approximately $5.2 billion in taxpayer and
ratepayer money has been invested in the technology, however a recent
government report found that of 13 projects examined, eight had serious
delays or financial problems, six were years behind schedule, and two
were bankrupt. (https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081080.pdf)
- Even if engineers are able
to overcome the chemical and geological challenges of separating and
safely storing massive quantities of CO2, a study published this month
shows that CCS requires so much energy that it would increase emissions
by 40 percent of smog, soot, and other dangerous pollution. https://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35181/title/Carbon_sequestration_frustratio
More information: "False Hope," May, 2008 Greenpeace Report on Problems with CCS: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/coal/carbon-capture-and-storage
Coal Destroys Mountains and Forests and Pollutes America's Water Supply
- Most coal mining in the Eastern U.S. today uses an intensive
practice known as mountain top removal to extract coal from the ground.
Mountain-top removal has leveled more than 450 mountains across
Appalachia. (Map of destroyed mountains at https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalmemorialforthemountains/255150433/)- Mountain top removal destroys
ecosystems, stripping away topsoil, trees, and understory habitats,
filling streams and valleys with rubble, poisoning water supplies, and
generating massive impoundments that can cause catastrophic floods.
(pics and info at
https://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/majority_of_american_public.php)
More information at: https://www.mountainjusticesummer.org/facts/steps.php
- Mountain top removal destroys
OIL FACTS
Greenpeace has released a new video about America's addiction to oil, available at https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/break-the-addiction.
Oil drilling causes oil spilling
- Hurricane Ike resulted in at least three missing oil rigs.
One missing rig was owned by Rowan Cos., resulting in a $60 million
claim. The rig has never been recovered.
(https://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080916/rowan_hurricane_update.html?.v=1)
- Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
caused 124 offshore spills for a total of 743,700 gallons. 554,400
gallons were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and
pipelines, and 189,000 gallons were refined products from platforms and
rigs. (https://www.mms.gov/tarprojectcategories/hurricaneKatrinaRita.htm)
- As global warming worsens,
supercharged storms like Katrina and Rita will continue to pummel
coastal areas and oil infrastructure, meaning more oil spills are
inevitable.
Oil drilling won't lower gas prices
- The United States burns 24 percent of the world's oil, yet it
only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Even if the country
drilled every drop of oil the U.S. has on shore or off its coasts, it
will never be able to drill its way to lower oil prices or energy
security. The country simply burns more than it could ever drill.
- Offshore oil drilling is
not a short-term fix. It will take at least a decade to bring new
leases into production. It will be years before exploration will begin
and years after that before production will start. If any effect were
to be felt on gas prices (most likely only a few pennies per gallon),
that effect is decades away.
- Offering up more of the
coastline for drilling won't lower gas prices. There is no correlation
between increased drilling and lower gas prices. The number of drilling
permits increased by 361 percent from 1999 to 2007, yet prices continue
to spike.
- Oil prices are set on the
global oil market, which means that all oil produced around the world
is all sold at the same price. There is no guarantee that the country
would even be using the oil that was drilled in the U.S.--it would pay
the same rate as the rest of the world.
NUCLEAR FACTS
Nuclear plants remain highly vulnerable to terrorist attack.
- Although seven years have passed since the attacks of 9/11,
America's nuclear power plants remain highly vulnerable to terrorist
attack even thought U.S. officials acknowledge that the architect of
the attacks - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - originally planned to fly the
planes into nuclear facilities in the U.S. Moreover, according to the
Congressional Research Service, nuclear power plants are not designed
to withstand airliner attack. (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rs21131.pdf)Nuclear power can't compete with clean energy as a solution to global warming.
- In
2003, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) under the directorship of
McCain's own economic advisor, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, indicated that loan
guarantees for nuclear plants had a 50 percent chance of defaulting.
CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very
high-well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is
that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of
its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation
sources. https://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf - In
Nuclear power requires massive taxpayer subsidies.
- Last July, six major U.S. banking institutions including
Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch
& Morgan Stanley sent a letter to the Department of Energy (DOE).
In it, the bankers told DOE that unless the U.S. taxpayer backed 100
percent of the debt incurred by nuclear corporations that they would
have difficulty "accessing capital markets. "We believe these risks,
combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction
schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities,
will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to
such projects in a form that would be commercially viable," their
letter said. https://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment29.pdf
The French Model? France's Nuclear Industry Has Been Plagued by Delays, Cost Overruns, and Leaks
- While politicians point to France as an model for new nuclear
plants in the United States, France's new Evolutionary Power Reactor
(EPR) has had tremendous cost overruns and is now estimated to cost
$6.5 billion dollars per plant. - One French-designed plant in
Finland has experienced "flawed welds for the reactor's steel liner,
unusable water-coolant pipes and suspect concrete in the foundation
already have pushed back the delivery date of the Olkiluoto 3 unit by
at least two years." (https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFh1ySJ.lYQc&refer=home)
CLEAN ENERGY FACTS
The clean energy economy is creating jobs and prosperity
- Colorado's recent investment in wind power technology
demonstrates the viability of large-scale clean energy solutions. Two
years ago, when Colorado voters were considering a measure to require
10 percent of their electricity to come from clean sources, Xcel
Energy, the state's biggest electric utility fought the initiative
tooth and nail. However, after the ballot initiative passed, Xcel
installed thousands of megawatts of clean energy, met the requirement
eight years ahead of schedule, and quickly agreed to double its goal to
20 percent. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702193.html)
- The same program could
easily be duplicated across the country. Enough wind power blows
through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US
electricity demand. Similarly, geothermal energy is capable of
providing tremendous electricity supplies for America.
- Scientists have shown that
enough solar energy hits the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent
of the entire world's energy needs for a year. A report released by the
energy consulting firm Clean Edge in June showed that solar energy
could meet 10 percent of the of the country's electricity needs by 2025.
Clean Energy Can Provide the Equivalent of $1 / gallon gas
- Plug-in hybrids running on clean energy provide transportation for the equivalent of approximately $1 / gallon (https://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/8/25/132857/180 and https://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1&oref=...).
SOURCES:
State-by-state analysis of green investment:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/green_jobs.html
"Renewable Power's Growth in Colorado Presages National Debate":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702193.html
New data on how investing in green economy solutions like wind and
solar would create about twice the jobs as the Wall Street bailout: https://www.thenation.com/doc/20081013/hurowitz
More details on taxpayer giveaways to energy companies in the bailout bill: https://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/enviro-tax-letter.pdf
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular