May, 18 2010, 03:18pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Elliott Negin,Media Director,enegin@ucsusa.org
Billions of Dollars Leaving State Economies Annually to Import Coal, Report Finds
Residents Would Be Better Served by Energy Efficiency, Clean Local Renewable Energy Options
CAMBRIDGE, MA
Economies in three dozen states are collectively hemorrhaging tens
of billions of dollars annually on imported coal to generate
electricity, according to a report released today by the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS). Residents in those states would be better
served, the report concludes, if more money were spent in-state on
local renewable energy technology and energy efficiency programs.
The first-of-its-kind report, which ranks the 38 states that are net
importers of domestic and foreign coal based on the most recent
available data, found that 11 of them each spent more than $1 billion
annually on imported coal in 2008. Sixty-three percent of domestic coal
comes from just three states: Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky.
Foreign coal burned in U.S. coal plants mainly comes from Colombia.
"Importing coal to produce electricity is a drain on state
economies," said Jeff Deyette, the assistant director of energy
research and analysis in UCS's Climate & Energy Program and a
report co-author. "Ratepayer dollars are diverted out of state instead
of spent locally on renewable energy projects and energy efficiency
measures that would benefit residents directly."
Using 2008 Department of Energy figures, "Burning Coal, Burning Cash: Ranking the States that Import the Most Coal"
ranks state dependence on coal imports in six categories: (1) total
spending on net imported coal, (2) spending on net imported coal per
state resident, (3) spending on international coal imports, (4) the
amount of net coal imports by weight, (5) spending relative to the size
of the state economy, and (6) reliance on net imports relative to total
power use. Twenty-five states appear in at least one of the top 10
rankings, but states in the Southeast and Midwest dominate. Several
Northeastern states made the rankings because their power producers
rely heavily on foreign coal imports.
TOTAL SPENDING ON NET COAL IMPORTS
- Ten most dependent states (in descending order): Georgia, North
Carolina, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Alabama, Michigan, Tennessee, Indiana
and Missouri. - Georgia ratepayers paid $2.6 billion on net coal imports in 2008.
Ratepayers in each of the other states spent more than $1 billion that
year. - Spending on coal imports for many of the states on this list rose
steeply between 2002 and 2008, due to the rising cost of coal and
shipping, but also because many of the states imported more coal.
SPENDING PER STATE RESIDENT
- Ten most dependent states: Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Kansas, Delaware, Indiana and Iowa. - These states spent between $166 and $297 per resident on imported coal in 2008.
- By contrast, only 22 to 75 cents was spent per resident in six
states (Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Missouri, Delaware and
Indiana) on ratepayer-funded electric efficiency programs in 2007, the
most recent year for which data is available. Among the remaining four,
only in Iowa was more spent on efficiency than the national average of
$7.36 per resident.
SPENDING ON FOREIGN COAL IMPORTS
- Ten most dependent states: Alabama, Florida, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut
and New York. - More than 80 percent of the foreign coal imports in 2008 came from Colombia. The balance came from Venezuela and Indonesia.
- Foreign imports more than tripled between 1999 and 2008, but they
still accounted for a relatively small share of U.S. coal use. The
United States still exports more coal than it imports.
Reducing coal imports by developing local renewable energy sources
and instituting energy efficiency programs at the local, state and
federal level would benefit ratepayers and boost state economies. A
number of studies by UCS and others
have shown that ramping up renewable energy development and
implementing efficiency measures creates local jobs, lowers utility
bills, boosts local tax revenues, and generates additional income for
farmers and rural landowners. Some states, including Illinois, Iowa and
Massachusetts, already are reaping the benefits of forward-looking
state clean energy policies, but other states, including many featured
in the UCS coal dependence report, are lagging far behind.
"When it comes to spurring local efficiency and renewable energy
development, many of the biggest coal importers have the most room for
improvement," said Barbara Freese, a senior policy analyst in UCS's
Climate & Energy Program and a report co-author. "The regions most
dependent on imports -- the Midwest and Southeast -- have some of the
best wind and bioenergy resources in the country. And Southern states
in particular have great untapped potential to cut electricity use with
efficiency programs. That would mean lower electric bills and more
dollars circulating in the local economy."
Besides the economic benefits of curbing U.S. coal dependence, there
are obvious public health and environmental benefits, Freese said. A
recent National Academy of Sciences report,
for example, found that in 2005 alone, U.S. coal plants caused $62
billion in health costs and other damages, mainly from premature deaths
due to exposure to air pollutants. That calculation did not include
damage from mining, mercury pollution or global warming pollution. Coal
power plants are the leading source of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions,
the primary global warming pollutant.
"Federal action is critical to reducing the threat of global
warming, and it would have the added benefit of helping states cut
their coal imports," said Deyette. "Congress needs to enact
comprehensive climate and energy legislation that caps carbon
pollution, requires new renewable energy development, and increases
energy efficiency."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Former US Lawmaker Finally Enjoys Social Policies He Fought for—In Europe
"I saw and felt what it's like to live in a community where everyone can go to the doctor. Where children aren't massacred by gun violence. It changes everything."
Mar 28, 2024
A former U.S. lawmaker who spent nearly half a century fighting for a nation that would have universal healthcare coverage and less gun violence is finally living in such a place—but he had to retire and move to Europe to find it.
In recent interviews with Roll Call and The Washington Post, former Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott, who also served in the Washington state Legislature, discussed life in France and the threat of former GOP President Donald Trump, who is set to face Democratic President Joe Biden in November.
"It was like I walked through an invisible door," McDermott told the Post's Elizabeth Becker about going to France. "Now I saw and felt what it's like to live in a community where everyone can go to the doctor. Where children aren't massacred by gun violence. It changes everything."
McDermott visited Civrac-en-Médoc in 2017, the same year he retired from Congress, and quickly bought a stone cottage. The 87-year-old keeps a residence in Seattle and remains an American—he is a member of Democrats Abroad and plans to vote for Biden. However, he largely lives in the rural French village, where he "doesn't need to lock his doors at night" and "loves that kids in the neighborhood don't worry about gun violence," as Roll Call's Ariel Cohen reported Wednesday.
"I spent 16 years in the Washington state Legislature trying to get single-payer healthcare. Then I spent nearly 30 years in Congress trying to get single-payer. Then I came to France and in three months I had single-payer. Was that mind-blowing? You bet."
France—which requires a psychological test for a gun license—has a population of about 68 million and each year sees 3.23 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people, according to World Population Review. The United States, home to over 333 million, has 10.84 gun deaths per 100,000 people and mass shootings are on the rise.
During his decades on Capitol Hill, McDermott, a psychiatrist, supported stricter U.S. gun laws and nationwide universal healthcare. While progressives including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) continue the battle for Medicare for All in Congress, McDermott is experiencing France's full coverage system, which was built over seven decades.
"The system covers most costs for hospital, physician, and long-term care, as well as prescription drugs; patients are responsible for coinsurance, copayments, and balance bills for physician charges that exceed covered fees," according to the Commonwealth Fund. "The insurance system is funded primarily by payroll taxes (paid by employers and employees), a national income tax, and tax levies on certain industries and products."
McDermott told Cohen "I spent 16 years in the Washington state Legislature trying to get single-payer healthcare. Then I spent nearly 30 years in Congress trying to get single-payer. Then I came to France and in three months I had single-payer. Was that mind-blowing? You bet."
As Cohen detailed:
When he arrived in France, he needed to fill a few prescriptions but didn't have a French primary care doctor. The pharmacist looked at his empty pill bottles and refilled them, no questions asked. When McDermott finally got a French physician, he received a brand-new CPAP machine at no cost. A month later, someone came to make sure it was working properly.
"Coming to France is like a drink of cold water," he says. "Once you've had this experience, it's easy to see all the ways in the U.S. you're getting screwed—well, not screwed per se, but definitely overcharged."
McDermott's first electoral win was tied to healthcare—specifically, his support for abortion rights. He was elected to the Washington House of Representatives in November 1970, the same election in which the state's voters legalized abortion, three years before the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court's right-wing majority—including three Trump appointees—overturned Roe, sparking a fresh wave of forced pregnancy bills across the nation. Meanwhile, the French Parliament earlier this month enshired abortion rights in France's constitution.
"The whole country stood up and said, 'Up your ass, we're not going your way, America,'" McDermott said of the French vote. "People have realized America is not the place you want to be on everything."
While U.S. legislators in over 20 states have imposed new restrictions on reproductive healthcare since the fall of Roe, Trump—who's now signaling his support for Christian nationalism by hawking $60 patriotic-themed Bibles—and many congressional Republicans are pushing for a 15-week federal abortion ban and various other far-right policies.
From France, Becker noted, McDermott keeps tabs on U.S. politics, conversing with friends and politicians, sending money to campaigns, and warning people against a Trump win in November.
According to the former war correspondent:
In private conversations with McDermott, they wonder how to gauge the seriousness of Trump's increasingly dire threats to the country's democratic underpinnings and, potentially, to them and their families. "I get calls from my friends now who say they are scared to do what I did but are scared to stay."
He tells them: "If you can afford it, buy a second home in France, or Spain, or Portugal, wherever… a second home that could become a safe house."
Still, McDermott has some hope for his home country's future, telling Cohen: "I still vote, I still got my house in Seattle. Just because I don't live there doesn't mean I've given up on the United States."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down 4 'Unconstitutional' Voting Laws Passed by GOP
The laws disproportionately impacted the ability of Native people to participate in voting, the court noted.
Mar 28, 2024
Native rights groups were among those applauding a decision by the Montana Supreme Court late Wednesday as four voting restrictions, passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature in the wake of former President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, were struck down as "unconstitutional."
The sweeping 2021 laws had ended same-day voter registration, eliminated the use of student ID cards as a form of identification for voters, banned the distribution of absentee ballots to teenagers who would turn 18 by Election Day, and prohibited third parties from collecting ballots and returning them on behalf of voters.
Indigenous rights groups and tribes including Native Voice, Montana Native Vote, the Blackfeet Nation, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, the Fort Belknap Indian Community, and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe filed a lawsuit in 2021 to challenge H.B. 176 and H.B. 530, the two laws pertaining to same-day registration and ballot collection.
Chief Justice Mike McGrath noted that Native people were disproportionately affected by the two laws, writing that it is "much more difficult on average for people living on reservations to either get to a polling place on or before Election Day, or to mail an absentee ballot prior to election day."
The summary of the majority opinion said the laws "violate the fundamental right to vote provided to all citizens by the Montana Constitution."
The court upheld a district court ruling from 2022.
"Today's Montana Supreme Court decision is a great victory for our clients and all Native Americans in Montana, who have asked for nothing more than the ability to exercise their fundamental right to vote," said Jonathan Topaz, staff attorney at the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Once again, courts have struck down the Montana Legislature's attempts to unconstitutionally burden the constitutional rights of Native Americans across the state. We will continue to fight for Native American voters in Montana and across the country to preserve their fundamental, constitutional right to vote."
Jacqueline De León, staff attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, called the 4-3 ruling "a resounding win for tribes in Montana."
"Despite repeated attacks on their voting rights, tribes and Native voters in Montana stood strong, and today the Montana Supreme Court affirmed that the state's legislative actions were unconstitutional," said De León. "Native voices deserve to be heard and this decision helps ensure that happens."
Josh Douglas, a law professor at University of Kentucky, wrote at Election Law Blog that the state Supreme Court "put real teeth into [the] state constitutional protection for voters," recognizing that the Montana Constitution goes further than federal law in protecting voting rights.
As the state constitution reads, "All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage."
"The court refused to follow federal precedent, noting that '[t]his court can diverge from the minimal protections offered by the United States Constitution when the Montana Constitution clearly affords greater protection—or even where the provision is nearly identical,'" wrote Douglas. "State courts have various tools within state constitutions to robustly protect voters. The Montana Supreme Court's decision offers a solid roadmap for how to use state constitutional language on the right to vote. Other state supreme courts should follow the Montana Supreme Court's lead."
The ruling comes as Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) faces a competitive race for reelection.
Ronnie Jo Horse, executive director of Western Native Voice, said the ruling "reinforces the principle of equitable access to voting services and the protection of the rights for all voters."
"We are very pleased with today's landmark ruling," said Horse. "It stands as a testament to justice prevailing in defense of the rights of Montanans, especially those of Native American communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Bible Exposes Grifters': Trump Rebuked as Christian Nationalist 'Con Man'
"All those legal fees are apparently really making Donald Trump's pockets hurt because his latest commercial venture, after selling sneakers and cologne, is as a Bible salesman," said one critic.
Mar 28, 2024
Critics of former U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday derided the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee for hawking $60 patriotic-themed Bibles, with one prominent progressive cleric warning that the so-called Good Book "exposes grifters who try to exploit it."
The
God Bless the USA Bible—which is actually a rebranded 9/11 commemorative Bible first offered for sale in 2021 by country musician Lee Greenwood of "God Bless the USA" fame—has been slammed by devout Christians for having an American flag emblazoned on its cover and for containing nationalist documents including the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Pledge of Allegiance.
"You all should get a copy of God Bless the USA Bible," Trump said in a 3-minute video promoting the book—which is not connected with his campaign. "You have to have it for your heart, for your soul."
"Replacing the real Bible with Trump Bibles is a too-perfect symbol of what has happened to evangelical Christianity."
Critics from across the political spectrum slammed what Slate senior writer Amanda Marcotte called Trump's "newest grift to squeeze money out of his cult followers."
"The not-at-all subtle message of the video is that Trump doesn't believe any of this faith-in-God crap, but he definitely believes in using Christian identity as a weapon to make money and dominate his foe," Marcotte wrote.
Bishop William Barber, the founding director of the Center for Public Theology & Public Policy at Yale Divinity School and a co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign,
said on social media that "the prophet Ezekiel named it in his day: Greedy politicians make an unholy alliance with false religion that says God is on their side when God has said no such thing!"
Conservative political commentator Charlie Sykes on Wednesday
blasted Trump for "commodifying the Bible during Holy Week," while former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming said that "instead of selling Bibles, you should probably buy one. And read it, including Exodus 20:14."
The volume's release comes during Christian Holy Week, and as Trump struggles to pay a $175 million bond after a New York judge found that he and his company committed massive fraud.
"Religion and Christianity are the biggest things missing from this country," Trump said in the promotional video. "It's one of the biggest problems we have, and it's why our country is going haywire. We've lost religion in our country."
"All Americans need a Bible in their home, and I have many. It's my favorite book," he added. "We must make America pray again."
Some observers noted how Trump used Christianity and the Bible as a prop during his White House tenure, including the time in 2020 when he ordered the violent dispersal of racial justice protesters in the wake of George Floyd's murder by Minneapolis police so he could pose for a photo-op outside a Washington, D.C. church.
Despite facing 91 federal and state criminal charges, Trump is all but certain to secure the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Christian nationalists have been busily preparing for a second Trump term, in part by drafting Project 2025, which one watchdog described as a "far-right playbook for American authoritarianism."
While his words and deeds may be antithetical to Christian doctrine, Trump is wildly popular among Evangelical Christians.
"Replacing the real Bible with Trump Bibles is a too-perfect symbol of what has happened to evangelical Christianity," Marcotte wrote. "The mistake is in believing Trump's followers are confused or ashamed about their devotion to a godless creep who laughs at true believers. In Trump's hands, the Bible is not a text for prayer and reflection, it's just a weapon. It's much easier to beat people down with a book if it's closed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular