December, 29 2010, 03:12pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice, (212) 791-1881, ext. 221
Patrick Mitchell, Environmental Integrity Project, (703) 276-3266
EPA Coal Ash Analysis Flawed: Overstates Value of Coal Ash Recycling by More than 20 Times
WASHINGTON
Two years after the Kingston, TN coal ash spill, federal action to regulate coal ash dumps is being held up by concerns that stricter standards would depress markets for coal-ash recycling. "Cost-benefit" analysis estimates prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claim that coal ash recycling is worth more than $23 billion a year, based on the annual life-cycle benefits of avoiding pollution and reducing energy costs.
But there's just one problem: that estimate is more than 20 times higher than the $1.15 billion that the U.S. government's own data shows is the correct bottom-line number, according to a review conducted by the independent and nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), Earthjustice, and the Stockholm Environment Institute's U.S. Center (based at Tufts University).
The deep flaws in the EPA cost-benefit analysis appear to have escaped scrutiny at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which required EPA to include a weaker coal-ash proposal favored by utilities and some coal ash recyclers. Common sense and past experience indicate that stricter standards for disposal will work to increase, rather than decrease, recycling. But either way, the EPA ought not be intimidated into adopting weak rules based on grossly inflated values for coal ash recycling, the three groups said.
Presented today by the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the new analysis shows that the huge discrepancy is due to several factors, including double counting of pollution reductions that the EPA has already claimed would occur separately under Clean Air Act rules adopted in August 2010, overstating emission levels from cement kilns, and unrealistic assumptions about potential energy savings from reducing energy consumption at cement kilns and gypsum plants. For example:
About half of the coal-ash recycling benefits claimed by the EPA are based on assumptions that substituting fly ash for 15 percent of U.S. cement production would cut fine particle emissions by more than 26,000 metric tons per year. But the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has estimated that the entire cement kiln industry releases just over 15,000 metric tons per year, and projected emissions already would decline to about 3,500 metric tons by 2013 when separate Clean Air Act standards for that industry take effect.
EPA estimated that recycling fly ash in cement kilns saves $4.9 billion in energy costs in the analysis prepared for the coal ash rule. But the Agency's Office of Air and Radiation, in analysis developed to support the separate and more far-reaching Clean Air Act standards, estimated total energy costs for the entire industry at no more than $1.7 billion.
EPA's cost-benefit analysis also neglects to account for many of the quantifiable benefits that would result from stricter standards, and puts an enormous dollar value on the so-called "stigma" that would supposedly attach to coal ash recycling by virtue of regulating disposal sites. These economic assumptions are haphazard, unsupported by the record, and designed to slant the playing field against regulations that are based on protecting the public's health.
"It should come as no surprise that requiring safe landfills for coal ash is less costly than allowing ash dumps to contaminate water in hundreds of communities around the country," said Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice attorney. "What is surprising, in the face of this major public health threat, is that the books are being cooked to accommodate the coal industry."
"Unfortunately, the EPA and the OMB just got this wrong," said Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project. "The 'regulatory impact analysis' prepared by the EPA to support its proposal exaggerates the economic life cycle value of coal ash recycling, which could end up stacking the deck in favor of the weaker regulatory option favored by industry."
"We found numerous errors, large and small, in EPA's cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rules," said Frank Ackerman, senior economist at the Stockholm Environment Institute. "Once we corrected those errors, the strict regulatory option is the clear winner The only argument for the weaker option is industry's unsubstantiated claim that strict regulation of ash disposal would cause immense, long-lasting harm to the market for ash recycling. In reality, strict regulation of disposal would make recycling more attractive, not less."
Why is strong federal action needed? The groups emphasized the following facts:
About $400 million has been spent so far to clean up the TVA Kingston spill with more than three million tons of spilled ash removed from the site. However, the cleanup is far from complete. Meanwhile, at least 50 similar, unregulated high-hazard dams around the country continue to pose a similar risk of catastrophic failure, and many more ash dumps are currently contaminating groundwater. The EPA, EIP, and Earthjustice have documented more than 100 dump sites where coal ash has poisoned water supplies.
The EPA's own risk assessments reveal that arsenic levels in drinking water around unlined ash ponds can be high enough to cause cancer in one out of 50 people - which is 2,000 times greater than the EPA's acceptable risk level. Yet there is evidence that even this high cancer risk is substantially underestimated. The leading arsenic experts in the country observe that this risk is actually 17.5 times greater.
A review of state regulations shows that the majority of states fail to require essential safeguards for coal ash landfills and ponds, including liners, groundwater monitoring, leachate collection, dust controls and financial assurance. In the two years since the disaster in Kingston, little has been done to improve state controls. Only four states in the U.S. require all landfills to be monitored and only six states require all ponds to be monitored for leaks.
LATEST NEWS
Actions Across US Urge Biden to End 'Cruel' Immigration Detention and Deportations
"Our tax dollars need to be used to strengthen our families and communities and uphold our human rights, not for the militarization of our beloved borderlands," said one activist.
Sep 15, 2023
A coalition of over 80 advocacy groups on Friday co-sponsored demonstrations in eight U.S. states and Washington, D.C. as part of a national day of action demanding the Biden administration close all federal immigration detention centers, release all migrants in custody, and end deportations.
Throughout his campaign, President Joe Biden "pledged to create an immigration system that is just and humane, including ending for-profit immigration detention," the coalition—which is organizing under the Defund Hate and Communities Not Cages banners—said in a statement.
"Our community is enraged and ready to push the Biden administration to fulfill his broken promises."
"However, after taking office, enforcement, detention, and surveillance have only increased and in July 2023, over 90% of detained immigrants are incarcerated in facilities owned and operated by private prison corporations that rake in billions of dollars in revenue," the groups continued.
Noting that at least 11 people have died during U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detention during Biden's tenure, the coalition said that "the negligent death of 8-year-old Anadith Tanay Reyes Álvarez in CBP custody further highlights an immigration enforcement system beyond compassion and beyond repair."
"Our community is enraged and ready to push the Biden administration to fulfill his broken promises," the campaign added.
The activists are urging the Biden administration to:
- Shut down federal immigration detention centers;
- Defund ICE and CBP by cutting their funding in Biden's fiscal year 2025 budget request; and
- Freeing everyone detained in federal immigration custody.
"We join our colleagues here in D.C. and around the country to demand the Biden administration to move away from the cruel imprisonment of immigrants, release those in ICE custody, end immigration detention, and halt all deportations immediately," Guerline Jozef, co-founder and executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, said in a statement.
Protecting the civil liberties of those seeking a better life in the United States is a core tenant of our nation's democracy," Jozef added. "Throwing vulnerable people into prisons is deplorable—and often deadly."
Jovanny Hernandez, co-chair of the Southern Border Communities Coalition and an organizer for the New Mexico Dream Team,asserted that "it is our constitutional and human right for everyone to live free of inhumane treatment. Yet while the United States presents itself as a beacon of these human rights on the global stage, we continue to witness the violation of our rights at the southern border."
"Our tax dollars need to be used to strengthen our families and communities and uphold our human rights, not for the militarization of our beloved borderlands and the targeting, detention, and deportation of our families, neighbors, and newcomers seeking protection," Hernandez added.
Luba Cortes, immigrant defense coordinator at Make the Road New York, said: "ICE has a horrifying track record of mistreating immigrants—denying them access to legal counsel, denying them freedom, and severing them from their families. Despite this, our government continues to funnel billions of dollars into these detention centers."
"People should be able to navigate their immigration cases with dignity and respect and in the comfort of their homes, not from behind bars in a jail cell," Cortes argued. "It is time to hold this administration accountable. President Biden and Congress must stop wasting public money by unnecessarily punishing immigrants in these horrid facilities and instead focus on reinvesting resources into our communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Exposes Forest Carbon Credit Schemes to Offset Fossil Fuels as 'Pipe Dream'
"Biodiversity, the climate, and Indigenous people or local communities are losing out on what should have been a system to drive meaningful financial flows to the forest conservation projects that so desperately need it," said one expert.
Sep 15, 2023
Echoing previous warnings from climate advocates and studies, an environmental watchdog on Friday released research from experts at the University of California which shows that trying to offset fossil fuel emissions with popular forest carbon credit projects "is a pipe dream."
As the new Berkeley Carbon Trading Project assessment—funded by Carbon Market Watch (CMW)—explains, "The voluntary carbon market generates credits, each nominally equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide reduced or removed from the atmosphere, from a wide range of projects around the globe."
Critics have long argued that carbon credit schemes are "false solutions" that harm poor communities where such projects are based and enable companies worldwide to greenwash their polluting activity rather than implementing reforms or investing in action to actually combat deforestation and the climate emergency.
"Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is the project type that has the most credits on the voluntary carbon market—about a quarter of all credits to date," the assessment details. "These projects pay governments, organizations, communities, and individuals in forest landscapes (primarily tropical ones in the Global South) for activities that preserve forests and avoid forest-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions."
Over the past two decades, more than $3 billion has been poured into REDD+ and nearly half a billion carbon credits have been awarded, yet "deforestation is still continuing at an alarming rate," the report notes. Berkeley researchers' analysis of four methodologies that have generated almost all REDD+ credits—under Verra, the largest voluntary carbon market registry—revealed that estimated GHG emissions reductions were dramatically exaggerated.
"We found significant over-crediting from all of the factors we reviewed, the core causes of which are a combination of incentives and uncertainty," said Barbara Haya, who led the research. "Everyone involved in the voluntary carbon market, from the buyers and sellers of credits, to the registries who write the rules and the auditors who enforce them, all benefit from more credits."
"Large uncertainty in climate benefit calculations creates many opportunities for market participants to choose assumptions that inflate credits issued," Haya added. "Drawing on all evidence, we conclude that REDD+ is ill-suited for carbon offsetting."
As a CMW briefing published with the assessment summarizes:
- Project baselines are significantly overestimated, the research found, leading to the creation of carbon credits that represent imaginary emission reductions.
- Similarly, leakage is systematically underestimated by projects, which make use of flexibilities provided to them by the methodologies to downplay the risk of deforestation moving to areas outside of their project.
- The creation of low-quality carbon credits is further fueled by exaggerated estimates of the quantity of carbon stored within the trees that are protected by projects.
- The risk that the trees protected by REDD+ projects will die in the future is also drastically underestimated by projects, which again use methodological flexibility to misrepresent the real deforestation threat that forests will face in the future.
- Finally, the safeguards implemented by Verra are weak, do not protect communities from harm, and are not properly upheld by the validation and verification bodies.
Inigo Wyburd, a CMW policy expert on global carbon markets, said that "we welcome Verra's willingness to engage with our research and hope that it will take on board our findings and implement all of our recommendations."
"Businesses are offsetting their emissions on the cheap by buying low-quality carbon credits connected to forest protection projects in the Global South," the expert added. "When only 1 in every 13 carbon credits represents a real emissions reduction, their action is lost in the forest."
Meanwhile, as Gilles Dufrasne, CMW's policy lead on global carbon markets, highlighted, "biodiversity, the climate, and Indigenous people or local communities are losing out on what should have been a system to drive meaningful financial flows to the forest conservation projects that so desperately need it."
"Offsetting should be axed," he argued. "It cannot work in its current form, and carbon markets must evolve into something different. The focus should be on getting money to the right place, rather than getting as many credits as possible."
As Patrick Galey, senior fossil fuels investigator at Global Witness, pointed out on social media Friday, the new research was released as the African nation Liberia is preparing to sign an offsetting agreement conceding 10% of its territory to Blue Carbon, a private company in the United Arab Emirates led by a member of an Emirati royal family.
Middle East Eyereported late that month that the deal for "control of one of the most densely forested territories" on the continent "would violate a number of Liberian laws, including the 2019 land rights law." Additionally, as CMW policy expert Jonathan Crook told the outlet, "there's no clarity as to what will be done to calculate what emission reductions have taken place."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'War Is Good for Business,' Declares Executive at London's Global Arms Fair
"Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastate people's lives," one peace activist lamented.
Sep 15, 2023
Military-industrial complex players big and small gathered in London this week, hawking everything from long-range missiles to gold-plated pistols to arms fair attendees—including representatives of horrific human rights violators—as weapon-makers and other merchants of the machinery of death reap record profits.
"War is good for business," one defense executive attending the biennial Defense and Security Equipment International (DSEI) conference at ExCel London flat-out toldReuters. "We are extremely busy," Michael Elmore, head of sales at the U.K.-based armored steelmaker MTL Advanced, told the media agency.
Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the West's scramble to arm Ukrainian homeland defenders have been a bonanza for arms-makers.
"Ukraine is a very interesting combination of First and Second World War technologies and very modern technology," Kuldar Vaarsi, CEO of the Estonian unmanned ground vehicle firm MILREM, told Reuters.
Saber-rattling and fearmongering by government, media, and business figures amid rising tensions between the U.S. and its allies on one side, and a fast-rising China on the other, have also spurred military spending, including Japan's $320 billion buildup announced last December.
"We think this is a longer-term essentially 'sea change' in national defense strategy for the U.S. and for our Western allies," Jim Taiclet, CEO of U.S. arms giant Lockheed Martin, told investors during a call earlier this summer announcing higher-than-expected sales and profit outlooks.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States, Russia, France, China, and Germany were the world's top arms exporters from 2018-22, with the five nations accounting for 76% of all weapons exports during that period. The U.S. accounted for nearly 40% of such exports during those five years, while increasing its dominance in the arms trade. The U.S. also remains by far the world's biggest military spender.
In addition to major corporations, middlemen like Marc Morales have also been profiting handsomely from wars in countries including Ukraine. Morales happened to have a warehouse full of ammunition in Bulgaria that the Pentagon originally intended for Afghanistan when Russia invaded its neighbor, and he has been richly rewarded as the U.S. spends tens of billions of dollars arming Ukrainian forces. He named his new $10 million yacht Trigger Happy.
Outside the sprawling ExCel convention center in London's Docklands, anti-war protesters rallied against the global arms trade and the death and destruction it fuels. The Guardianreported that at least a dozen demonstrators were arrested during the course of the conference, including nine on Thursday for blocking a road outside the venue.
Sam Perlo-Freeman, a researcher at the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), told The Guardian that "a lot of countries that are being talked about as new arms export markets are ones we would be concerned about."
"Egypt is a repressive regime and Vietnam an absolute dictatorship," Perlo-Freeman added. "Indonesia is involved in brutality in West Papua."
Emily Apple, also of CAAT, toldPeople's World that "the companies exhibiting read as a who's-who of the world's worst arms dealers."
"Israel is an apartheid state, and it is disgusting that the U.K. is not only selling weapons to Israel but encouraging Israeli arms companies to sell their weapons in London," she continued. "Representatives from regimes such as Saudi Arabia, who have used U.K.-made weapons to commit war crimes in Yemen, will be wined and dined and encouraged to buy yet more arms."
"Deals done at DSEI will cause misery across the world, causing global instability, and devastate people's lives," Apple added.
Inside ExCel, it was business as usual. Pressed by Declassified U.K. chief reporter Phil Miller on why Britain's right-wing government supports "selling arms to the Saudi dictatorship that sentences someone to death for tweeting," Minister of State for the Armed Forces James Heappey deflected.
Private sector leaders, however, have been more forthcoming. As Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes opined during a 2021 investor call touting the company's "solid" growth: "Peace is not going to break out in the Middle East anytime soon."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!