October, 16 2008, 04:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Stephanie Kodish, NPCA Clean Air Counsel, 865.964.1774
Josh Mogerman, NRDC, 312.780.7424 or 773.853.5384
Ulla Reeves, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Regional Programs Director, 828.713.7486
Michael Regan, Environmental Defense Fund, 919.862.6593
Court to Decide if Cliffside Coal Fired Power Plant Violates Clean Air Act
Environmental Groups Ask For Maximum Protection From Toxic Pollutants
ASHEVILLE, N.C.
Conservation groups today asked a federal court in Western
North Carolina to require Duke Energy to control hazardous air
pollution from its Cliffside coal-fired power plant to the maximum
extent possible. The groups told the court that construction on the
800-megawatt addition should be stopped because their air permit does
not adequately control dangerous air emissions, including mercury and
dozens of carcinogens such as arsenic, chromium, and dioxin.
The Southern Environmental Law Center and the Natural Resource
Defense Council (NRDC) are representing Environmental Defense Fund,
National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), Sierra Club and
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. The groups represent thousands of
North Carolina residents, the Blue Ridge Parkway, Great Smoky Mountains
and other nearby natural areas already affected by pollution from
Cliffside.
"All we are asking is for Duke Energy to ensure that the people in
North Carolina have the same health protection as folks in the rest of
the country," says Patrice Simms, a Senior Attorney with the Natural
Resources Defense Council. "Duke is continuing to build its
conventional pulverized coal plant in violation of the clear
requirements of the Clean Air Act. It is not only illegal, but it puts
the people of North Carolina at risk of exposure to dangerous air
toxics. Construction must be stopped until Duke conforms to the rule of
law."
The groups asked the federal court to instruct Duke Energy of its
obligation to adequately control air pollution and stop construction
until such controls are embedded in its air permit. A recent federal
court decision made clear that coal-fired power plants are subject to
the federal Clean Air Act's most stringent air pollution controls,
however, Duke began construction on the Cliffside expansion only10 days
before the decision was issued.
"Construction of the new Cliffside facility under its current air
permit commits North Carolinians to pollution from outdated, dirty coal
technology for the next 50 years," stated Ulla Reeves, regional program
director of Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. "Building a coal plant
with today's knowledge of global warming and the threats of mercury is
simply irresponsible."
Intended to protect public health, air quality, and national parks,
the Clean Air Act requires new coal-fired power plants use the most
stringent pollution controls for reducing 66 of the most highly toxic
emissions, including mercury and lead, which can cause serious and
irreversible adverse effects to people's health, including cancer,
heart disease, stroke, and neurological impairment. Until Duke Energy
determines how it will limit emissions of these pollutants using the
"Maximum Available Control Technology," which the company has yet to
do, construction of the massive new coal-burner at Cliffside is in
violation the law.
"Forcing Duke to conduct a proper analysis would be a touchdown for
public health and air quality," said Michael Regan, Southeast climate
and air policy director for Environmental Defense Fund. "Duke Energy
deserves the penalty flag for constructing a plant that fails to
guarantee maximum protection from dangerous toxic emissions."
"Ultimately, it is the neighbors of Cliffside, their children and
grandchildren, and economic resources like Great Smoky Mountains
National Park that will suffer the effects of this coal plant's air
pollution," said Stephanie Kodish, clean air counsel with the nonprofit
National Parks Conservation Association. "North Carolinians and
national park visitors want to breathe clean air; the laws in place to
ensure our air is clean shouldn't be ignored."
Already one of the nation's most polluted national parks, Great
Smoky Mountains National Park is expected to be greatly affected by
pollution from Cliffside, which will harm the park's air and water
quality and affect wildlife, including several endangered species.
Additionally, surveys have shown that visitors will avoid national
parks with poor air quality, which affects the local economy.
On October 15, the eve of the federal court hearing, Duke submitted
a letter to the North Carolina Division of Air Quality falsely claiming
that it is not required to limit its hazardous air pollution, because
its emissions will not surpass the threshold. A review of emissions
from similar-sized coal-fired power plants undermines this assertion.
"This midnight hour dodge is just the most recent example of Duke
Energy's long history of avoiding compliance with the Clean Air Act,"
said Molly Diggins, state director of the North Carolina Sierra Club.
The National Parks Conservation Association's recent report, Dark
Horizons, called attention to the threat posed by coal-fired power
plants to Great Smoky Mountains and other parks nationwide. The report
is available online at www.npca.org/darkhorizons
LATEST NEWS
US Under Fire for Downplaying Security Council Resolution as 'Nonbinding'
One expert accused the U.S. of working to "undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
Mar 26, 2024
Biden administration officials attempted Monday to downplay the significance of a newly passed United Nations Security Council resolution, drawing ire from human rights advocates who said the U.S. is undercutting international law and stonewalling attempts to bring Israel's devastating military assault on Gaza to an end.
The resolution "demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable cease-fire." The U.S., which previously vetoed several cease-fire resolutions, opted to abstain on Monday, allowing the measure to pass.
Shortly after the resolution's approval, several administration officials—including State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield—falsely characterized the measure as "nonbinding."
"It's a nonbinding resolution," Kirby told reporters. "So, there's no impact at all on Israel and Israel's ability to continue to go after Hamas."
Watch Matt Lee ask StateSpox about the passing of the UN ceasefire resolution. Basically the US position is it makes no difference and Miller calls 🇷🇺/🇨🇳 veto cynical.
Lee: Do you expect Israel is going to announce a ceasefire?
Miller: I do not
Lee: What’s the point of the UN? pic.twitter.com/FibaSKWjuh
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) March 25, 2024
Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University and former policy director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, wrote in response that "there is no such thing as a 'nonbinding' Security Council resolution."
"Israel's failure to abide by this resolution must open the door to the immediate imposition of Chapter VII sanctions," Ruebner wrote.
Beatrice Fihn, the director of Lex International and former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, condemned what she called the Biden administration's "appalling behavior" in the wake of the resolution's passage. Fihn said the administration's downplaying of the resolution shows how the U.S. works to "openly undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
In a Monday op-ed for Common Dreams, Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that administration officials' claim that the resolution was "nonbinding" should be seen as "setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the U.N. Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution's terms."
While all U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, they're difficult to enforce and regularly ignored by the Israeli government, which responded with outrage to the latest resolution and canceled an Israeli delegation's planned visit to the U.S.
Israel Katz, Israel's foreign minister,
wrote on social media Monday that "Israel will not cease fire."
The resolution passed amid growing global alarm over the humanitarian crisis that Israel has inflicted on the Gaza Strip, where most of the population of around 2.2 million is displaced and at increasingly dire risk of starvation.
Amnesty International secretary-general Agnes Callamard said Monday that it was "just plain irresponsible" of U.S. officials to "suggest that a resolution meant to save lives and address massive devastation and suffering can be disregarded."
In addition to demanding an immediate cease-fire, the Security Council resolution calls for the unconditional release of all remaining hostages and "emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance."
Israel has systematically obstructed aid deliveries to Gaza, including
U.S.-funded flour shipments.
Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, stressed during a briefing Monday that "all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law."
"They are as binding as international laws," Haq said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
​State of Emergency Declared After Cargo Ship Destroys Baltimore Bridge
Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin said he was "deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore."
Mar 26, 2024
A state of emergency was declared in Maryland early Tuesday morning after a large cargo ship slammed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, leading to its total collapse and sending a number of vehicles and people into the Patapsco River.
As the Baltimore Sunreports:
In a Tuesday morning news conference, just a few hours after the incident, Baltimore Fire Department Chief James Wallace said authorities are "still very much in an active search and rescue posture" noting they are searching for "upwards of seven individuals" and that sonar has detected the presence of vehicles in the water. There is no indication that the event was intentional, Wallace said.
"This is a tragedy that you could never imagine … It looked like something out of an action movie," Mayor Brandon Scott said.
In a later press conference, officials said that two members of a construction crew that was on the bridge at the time of the collision had been rescued while six others remained unaccounted for.
The terrifying footage of the bridge's collapse—which CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez commented was "almost unbelievable" to watch—is circulating widely on news channels and social media:
This video is almost unbelievable. The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore literally collapsed this morning after it was struck by this large ship. pic.twitter.com/rYuy4U2r7H
— Omar Jimenez (@OmarJimenez) March 26, 2024
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Tuesday that he had spoken with Mayor Scott and well as Maryland Governor Wes Moore and was helping to coordinate federal assistance.
"Rescue efforts remain underway and drivers in the Baltimore area should follow local responder guidance on detours and response," said Buttigieg.
Moore said in a statement he had declared a state of emergency and that work was underway to "quickly deploy federal resources" to the area.
"We are thankful for the brave men and women who are carrying out efforts to rescue those involved and pray for everyone's safety," said Moore. "We will remain in close contact with federal, state, and local entities that are carrying out rescue efforts as we continue to assess and respond to this tragedy."
Early reporting indicated that no crew members aboard the container ship, which sails under a Singapore flag, were injured or missing. A local harbor pilot was also said to be on board at the time of the crash.
"Deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) following the accident. "I'm profoundly thankful to first responders on the scene and will track rescue efforts by local, state, and federal authorities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grave 'Threat to Journalists' Remains as UK Court Delays Assange Extradition Ruling
"The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all," said the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Mar 26, 2024
The United Kingdom's High Court ruled Tuesday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot immediately be extradited to the United States and gave the Biden administration three weeks to provide "assurances" that the publisher's First Amendment rights will be protected and that he won't face the death penalty.
If the U.S. does not provide the requested assurances, Assange will be allowed to pursue a limited appeal of his extradition. Should the U.S. submit assurances by the April 16 deadline, a hearing will be held on May 20 to determine whether they are "satisfactory."
Assange, whose health has deteriorated badly during his five years in a high-security London jail, faces 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and a possible 175-year prison sentence in the U.S. for publishing classified information—a common journalistic practice. WikiLeaks disclosures exposed grave U.S. and U.K. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Press freedom and human rights groups say the extradition of Assange to the U.S. would set a dangerous precedent and pose a dire threat to journalism everywhere.
Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement Tuesday that "we are glad Julian Assange is not getting extradited today."
"But this legal battle is far from over, and the threat to journalists and the news media from the Espionage Act charges against Assange remains," said Timm. "Assange's conviction in American courts would create a dangerous precedent that the U.S. government can and will use against reporters of all stripes who expose its wrongdoing or embarrass it. The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case."
The U.S., which has been aggressively pursuing Assange's extradition for years, previously provided the U.K. government with assurances that Assange would not be held at a supermax prison that's notorious for its inhumane treatment of inmates.
Human rights groups have said such assurances from the U.S. government are "inherently unreliable" and should not be taken seriously by British authorities.
"While the U.S. has allegedly assured the U.K. that it will not violate Assange's rights, we know from past cases that such 'guarantees' are deeply flawed—and the diplomatic assurances so far in the Assange case are riddled with loopholes," noted Simon Crowther, legal adviser at Amnesty International.
"The U.S. must stop its politically motivated prosecution of Assange, which puts Assange and media freedom at risk worldwide," Crowther said Tuesday. "In trying to imprison him, the U.S. is sending an unambiguous warning to publishers and journalists everywhere that they too could be targeted and that it is not safe for them to receive and publish classified material—even if doing so is in the public interest."
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, echoed that message, saying in a statement that "prosecuting Assange for the publication of classified information would have profound implications for press freedom, because publishing classified information is what journalists and news organizations often need to do in order to expose wrongdoing by government."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case," said Jaffer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular