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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular