coal2 bak

COAL2  see main coal PAGE  this started 3/13capt 1/14 links lost to fix formatsee also tagsee Divest
capt/bak 717 ICN <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15032022/coal-mining-methane/"> </a><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15032022/coal-mining-methane/">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15032022/coal-mining-methane/</a>coal Mining Emits More Super-Polluting Methane Than Venting and Flaring From Gas and Oil Wells, a New Study Finds<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15032022/coal-mining-methane/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); color: rgb(6, 169, 80); text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s; font-family: Garnett, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" /><h3 class="post-author" style="box-sizing: inherit; overflow-wrap: break-word; clear: both; margin: 0px; font-weight: 400; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 1.33; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15032022/coal-mining-methane/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247); color: rgb(6, 169, 80); text-decoration-line: none; outline: 0px; display: block; transition: color 0.15s ease 0s; font-family: Garnett, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">By Phil McKenna</a></h3>=new 619
<div class="content" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-item " style="box-sizing: inherit;"><figure id="file-272649" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg with-caption" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><figcaption class="field field-name-field-image-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit; padding: 2em; line-height: 1.6; border-right: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-left: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-image: initial; border-top: none;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"> theme of the Southern States Energy Board conference was a new era for coal, but while Trump administration officials talked up coal's future, utility and power grid officials described a shift to cleaner power. Credit: Orjan F. Ellingvag/Corbis via Getty Images</div></figcaption></figure></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded" style="box-sizing: inherit;">KINGSPORT, Tenn. — They came from states like Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee to rally around coal as U.S. coal use continues to tumble.But Joe Giove III, with the U.S. Department of Energy, was having nothing of the doom and gloom talk about an industry on the slide.This was the 40th year that the <a href="https://www.sseb.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Southern States Energy Board</a> met jointly with the Virginia coal industry, and a two-day conference of hand-wringing and searching for a new or renewed path for coal in a carbon-constrained world was under way. Giove was there to sell the use and necessity of coal, and that's what he did, relaying stories of how coal had become a misunderstood underdog and how losing too much coal threatens people's lives."One of the biggest things we face now, it's censorship," Giove, the Trump administration's director of coal business operations, told members of the energy board this week. Too many people think "we're beyond coal," or "we're not doing coal anymore," so that means  "we don't want to hear what you have to say" about coal.Children are being taught that "coal is evil," he said, that "green is good, fossil is bad—that's all they've heard."<div class="media media-element-container media-image_centered_medium" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 648px; margin: 0.25em auto;"><figure id="file-272650" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg with-caption" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><figcaption class="field field-name-field-image-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit; padding: 2em; line-height: 1.6; border-right: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-left: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-image: initial; border-top: none;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Joe Giove III, director of coal business operations for the U.S. Energy Department, told the audience coal would have been better off if the Midwest power grid had failed during a bitter cold snap this past winter. “The good news is nothing did happen,” he said. “But the bad news is, the grid didn’t go down.” Credit: James Bruggers</div></figcaption></figure></div>Giove described coal as "just a resource"—not mentioning its health-harming pollution and contributions to climate change—and provocatively suggested the nation would have been better off had the Midwest been plunged into a widespread power failure amid sub zero temperatures during a severe cold snap last winter. The polar vortex event <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01022019/polar-vortex-utilities-gas-coal-renewable-energy-midwest-demand-response" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">was seen</a> as a test for managing a grid that relies increasingly on renewable energy, and less on coal."The good news is nothing did happen," Giove said. "The grid didn't go down. But the bad news is, the grid didn't go down."That has allowed environmental advocates "to go on working on getting rid of coal," he said.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333;">The Mood Inside: Not Nearly So Bright</h3>Burning coal is a powerful source of greenhouse gas emissions that warm the planet. Last fall, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">reported</a> that carbon dioxide emissions need to reach net zero by around 2050 to keep global warming in check, and that getting there will mean stopping the burning of fossil fuels.Yet as domestic coal continues to decline, outcompeted economically by natural gas and increasingly by wind and solar, state and mining officials from the South gathered around a surprisingly optimistic theme: embarking on a new era for coal. Giove was among several Trump administration officials there to let them know the president was on their side.But the mood in the convention center wasn't nearly as bright.Part grievance session, part blame-fest, part pep talk and part strategy session on how to tilt federal or state policies to favor coal, with all the recent <a href="https://grist.org/article/washington-and-nevada-join-the-swelling-list-of-states-aiming-for-100-clean-power/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">announcements</a> of governments and utilities planning to shed coal in favor of greener alternatives, and a big new coal <a href="https://www.apnews.com/658fdb8f95244992bae1ab179b4ba4f3" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">bankruptcy</a> filing just last week, this was not a happy gathering.In fact, that energy board session included an on-the-spot anonymous poll of how its participating members view the condition of the coal industry.In a word, they were downbeat.<div class="media media-element-container media-image_centered_medium" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 648px; margin: 0.25em auto;"><figure id="file-272652" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="file file-image file-image-png" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><img alt="Chart: Results of a poll at the conference on coal's future" title="Chart: Results of a poll at the conference on coal's future" height="369" width="529" class="media-element file-image-centered-medium" typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn_centered_medium/public/Coal-Conf-Poll.png?itok=-XL0-eeK" style="box-sizing: inherit; border: 0px; height: auto; max-width: 100%; display: block; float: none; margin: 0px auto;" /></figure></div>Three-fourths expected less coal to be mined in the United States in the next five years, and none thought it very likely or even likely that coal jobs would return to even what they were in the 2000s.Setting the tone, the conference opened with a prayer, offered by John Ragan, a Republican and member of the Tennessee General Assembly: "We ask you especially Lord, your blessings on this gathering. We know there are challenges in this industry and this country that only you can solve. We humbly ask for divine guidance."<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333;">Coal Has Been Losing Ground</h3>The conference was focused on how to keep coal in the nation's energy mix despite its contributions to global warming and the controversies coal has engendered around mountaintop mining practices and black lung disease.The Southern States Energy Board is comprised of governors and lawmakers from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The board takes policy positions and makes recommendations to local, state and federal governments, and has been involved helping to develop carbon capture and storage technology.Of the 16 states, coal was the most prevalent source of utility-scale electricity generation in 10 of them just a dozen years ago, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency.By 2017, that number <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37034" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">had dropped</a> to just four: Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia.Nationally, coal lost more ground last year and is expected to decline even more in 2019, according to the EIA, despite President Trump's promise to revive coal mining. EIA forecasts that the national share of electricity generation from coal will average 24 percent in  2019 and 22 percent in 2020, down from 27 percent in 2018.As recently as 2006, coal was nearly 50 percent of the nation's energy mix.<div class="media media-element-container media-image_centered_medium" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 648px; margin: 0.25em auto;"><figure id="file-272651" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="file file-image file-image-png" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/colorbox_full/public/image_large/US-Coal-Production529px.png?itok=JhYTxOp" class="colorbox init-colorbox-processed cboxElement" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;"><img alt="Chart: U.S. Coal Production's Slide" title="Chart: U.S. Coal Production's Slide" height="490" width="529" class="media-element file-image-centered-medium" typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn_centered_medium/public/image_large/US-Coal-Production529px.png?itok=H1wZEKh-" style="box-sizing: inherit; border: 0px; height: auto; max-width: 100%; display: block; float: none; margin: 0px auto;" /></a></figure></div>Coal and Kentucky have been synonymous for generations, yet there was little optimism from Charles Snavely, Kentucky's top energy and environmental regulator and former coal mining executive. He represents Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican, on the energy board, and, citing EIA projections, he said he expects coal's downward spiral to continue as even Southern states—historically among larger coal burners—increasingly turn to natural gas and renewable energy."I am probably painting a more negative picture that most of the speakers at this conference," Snavely conceded.If there's hope, he said, that could be with global demand for what's called metallurgical coal, a type of coal used in the production of steel, potential coal exports to Asia, or new technological breakthroughs on coal burning. He also cited a <a href="https://www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/studies/2019/NCC-COAL-IN-A-NEW-CARBON-AGE.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">new draft</a> report, Coal in a New Carbon Age,  from the National Coal Council, an advisory committee to the U.S. Secretary of Energy, that reviews potential new coal uses for chemicals and various products that need carbon.<div class="media media-element-container media-image_centered_medium" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 648px; margin: 0.25em auto;"><figure id="file-271897" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="file file-image file-image-png" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><img alt="Chart: How Renewable Energy Costs Are Falling" title="Chart: How Renewable Energy Costs Are Falling" height="425" width="529" class="media-element file-image-centered-medium" typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn_centered_medium/public/image_large/Energy-Levelized-Cost-Lazard-2018.png?itok=ub0mGgcg" style="box-sizing: inherit; border: 0px; height: auto; max-width: 100%; display: block; float: none; margin: 0px auto;" /></figure></div>"We are embarking on coal's new era, but we have to face reality," said J.P. Richardson, chairman of the Virginia Coal and Energy Alliance, a mining industry group.Part of that reality is that four of the energy board's states and territories—Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Puerto Rico—are led by governors who are members of the <a href="https://www.usclimatealliance.org/" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">U.S. Climate Alliance</a>, a bipartisan coalition of 24 governors who have committed to work toward achieving the goals of the Paris climate agreement, despite Trump's moves to pull the U.S. out of that international accord."We are seeing more and more cities, states and utilities, in particular, that are moving toward clean energy," said Julie Cerqueira, the executive director of the alliance, who was not at the meeting. "Economically, it just makes sense. Coal is increasingly expensive" and "the clean energy sector produces a lot of jobs."<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333;">Dominion's View of the Future Is Low-Carbon</h3>One of those utilities is Virginia-based Dominion Energy, which operates in 18 states and was one of the conference sponsors.Instead of dwelling on coal, one of Dominion's top lobbyists, James Beamer, said the utility plans to cut its carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050.He highlighted plans for new offshore wind power, for converting factory-scale farm hog waste to methane, and for new solar power. He also said the company is developing a new hydroelectric pump storage facility that will <a href="https://www.dominionenergy.com/company/making-energy/renewable-generation/water/powering-southwest-virginia" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">work like a large battery</a> and be powered in part by renewable energy.<div class="media media-element-container media-image_centered_medium" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 648px; margin: 0.25em auto;"><figure id="file-272653" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg with-caption" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><figcaption class="field field-name-field-image-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit; padding: 2em; line-height: 1.6; border-right: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-left: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-image: initial; border-top: none;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;">James Beamer, one of Dominion Energy’s top lobbyists, told the conference about the utility's goal to cut its carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050 with plans including more offshore wind power, solar power and pumped hydropower storage. Credit: James Bruggers</div></figcaption></figure></div>Other speakers touted what they considered time-tested attributes of coal as an energy source—its reliability and price, though <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25032019/coal-energy-costs-analysis-wind-solar-power-cheaper-ohio-valley-southeast-colorado" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">analysts have found</a>new wind and solar power, bolstered by battery storage,  is cheaper than coal in much of the U.S. now.Wind and solar? It's too intermittent, the coal supporters say, omitting any mention of the growing use of energy storage. Sometimes the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, they said. Natural gas? It's a national security threat because natural gas plants rely on just-in-time delivery of fuel that could be disrupted by terrorists and doesn't perform as well in the extreme cold, they argued.A speaker from the grid operator PJM, which serves 13 eastern and Midwestern states, acknowledged fuel security is important but said a stress test had found no threats to its grid reliability through at least 2023 as it shifts to more renewable energy and gas and less coal.Kenneth Nemeth, executive director of the energy board, argued that <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-16/solar-beats-coal-on-u-s-jobs" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">coal-related jobs</a>, security and reliability aren't being factored into decision electric utilities and regulators are making when they allow coal plants to close or approve new power sources. That needs to change, he said.The Trump administration <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23082017/perry-grid-study-protect-coal-nuclear-renewable-energy-dominance-clean-air-act" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">has tried</a> to use those same arguments to bail out coal by suggesting that grid operators be required to buy power from uneconomical coal power plants in the name of national security. So far, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12062018/ferc-no-power-grid-national-security-emergency-trump-perry-coal-subsidy-energy-regulators-congress" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">has rejected</a> that idea.<h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.333;">Mini Coal Plants and Carbon Capture?</h3>West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, was there, raising the alarm about the "<a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07022019/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-ed-markey-climate-change" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Green New Deal</a>," an idea supported by some Democrats to launch a 10-year mobilization of investments intended to reach the science-based climate goal of cutting net emissions of greenhouse gases to zero as rapidly as possible. It "gets rid of coal, natural gas and nuclear," she said, even though its supporters have said they have not yet settled on any single strategy.With Donald Trump's agenda, some coal jobs have come back in West Virginia, she said, but she warned of "tough headwinds" in Washington, D.C.Coal advocates at the convention decried federal tax breaks for solar and wind power systems, but Capito said she expects they will keep getting extended because Democrats won't give them up.<div class="media media-element-container media-image_centered_medium" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 648px; margin: 0.25em auto;"><figure id="file-272654" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject" class="file file-image file-image-jpeg with-caption" style="box-sizing: inherit; max-width: 100%; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;"><figcaption class="field field-name-field-image-caption field-type-text-long field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit; padding: 2em; line-height: 1.6; border-right: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-left: 1px solid rgb(231, 231, 231); border-image: initial; border-top: none;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;">U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, warned the conference of “tough headwinds” in Washington, D.C. Credit: James Bruggers</div></figcaption></figure></div>Department of Energy officials came to talk about research.They touted a plan to spend as much as $100 million on research and development of a new generation of what they call "near-zero" emission coal-fired power plants, designed to be "flexible, innovative, resilient, small and transformative."They've dubbed that program "<a href="https://www.netl.doe.gov/node/6928" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Coal FIRST</a>.""Carbon-free fossil energy is closer than you think," said Lou Hrkman, an assistant secretary for the department.These small coal-burning plants could be assembled from modular parts that fit on a flatbed trailer and could be turned on and off quickly, meeting intermittent energy demand, and be equipped with carbon capture, he said.Traci Rodosta, carbon storage technology manager at the Energy Department's National Energy Technology Laboratory, talked about the government's ongoing research path toward safe, underground storage of utility scale carbon dioxide. A slide in her presentation suggested it would not be ready for broad, commercial-scale adoption for 16 more years."Smaller, flexible coal plants? We have those. They're called natural gas plants. That's the problem," said Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview before the conference.Herzog ran an industrial consortium on carbon capture and storage at MIT from 2000 to 2016 and is an expert on the technology.Carbon capture and storage has so far proven to be too expensive for utilities to be willing to invest in it, at least in the United States, without a federal climate policy that would put a price on carbon, he said.That all leaves the coal industry in a precarious position."Coal depends more on research and development technologies now than any time in the past," said Snavely, the Kentucky regulator.</div></div></div></div><div class="tagged-with" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1em;"><label style="box-sizing: inherit; display: block; line-height: 1.2;">PUBLISHED UNDER:</label><div class="field field-name-field-topics field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/coal" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">COAL</a></div> <div class="field-item odd" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/regulation" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">REGULATION</a></div> <div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/natural-gas-and-fracking" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">NATURAL GAS AND FRACKING</a></div> <div class="field-item odd" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/clean-energy" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">CLEAN ENERGY</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topics/business-and-accountability-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/topic/climate-change" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">CLIMATE CHANGE</a></div> <div class="field-item odd" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; padding-right: 0.5em;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/national-environment-reporting-network-southeast" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">NERN - SOUTHEAST</a></div></div></div></div>---<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/here-are-worlds-top-10-dirtiest-companies">http://www.alternet.org/environment/here-are-worlds-top-10-dirtiest-companies</a>
Ten corporations and state-owned entities are responsible for over 36 percent of global fossil fuels emissions since 1988, according to a new study published by the <a href="https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Carbon Disclosure Project</a>.Among the top ten polluters is British-Dutch owned-Shell, as well as the Exxon Mobil Corporation, whose former CEO, Rex Tillerson, currently serves as the U.S. Secretary of State. The governments of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, India, and Mexico also own entities, which make the top ten list. The study, which also shows that 100 companies are responsible for over 70 percent of global emissions, highlights the critical role of corporations and powerful state actors not only perpetuating environmental damage, but also in combatting climate change.If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the same rate over the next 20 years, the world could see a 4°C rise in global temperatures by the end of the century, leading to mass extinctions and widespread starvation.Here are the top ten corporate and state-entity polluters: 1. China (Coal): 14.3 percentChina's state-led coal production has tripled to almost 4 billion tons since 2000, contributing to around half of all global emissions. 2. Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco): 4.5 percentSaudi Arabia's state-owned Aramco has the world's largest crude oil reserves and the highest daily production output of any company in the world. 3. Gazprom OAO (Russian): 3.9 percentRussian-owned <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/qa-gazprom-and-the-arctic/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Gazprom OAO</a> has been the target of environmental protests for its Arctic drilling. 4. National Iranian Oil Co: 2.3 percentIran's state-owned natural gas company has had unilateral control over the country's oil reserves since 1948. 5. ExxonMobil Corp: 2.0 percentExxonMobil is the world's seventh largest corporation, an offspring of John D. Rockerfeller's Standard Oil Company. ExxonMobil has <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article120614433.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">lobbied</a> against climate change action in the U.S. Congress.6. Coal India: 1.9 percentState-owned Coal India is the largest producer of coal in the world. 7. Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex): 1.9 percentIn 2009, Mexican state-owned Pemex was Latin America's <a href="http://rankings.americaeconomia.com/2010/500/ranking-500-america-latina.php" style="text-decoration-line: none;">second largest corporation</a>. 8. Russia (Coal): 1.9 percentRussia saw a 70-percent increase in coal production since the late 1990s. 9. Royal Dutch Shell PLC (Shell): 1.7 percentShell is the seventh largest corporation in the world, and involved in every area of the coal and gas production chain. The British-Dutch owned company has been implicated <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/shell-oil-spills-led-to-astonishingly-high-pollution-in-nigeria-1490295449" style="text-decoration-line: none;">major oil spills</a> in Nigeria. 10. China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC): 1.6 percentThe state-owned oil and gas corporation is the largest integrated energy company in China.<div></div><div><div>GOP threatens to sue Calif. over climate rule for insurers</div><div>
</div><div>Benjamin Hulac, E&E News reporter</div><div>Published: Wednesday, June 21, 2017</div><div>
</div><div>Twelve Republican attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) demanded Monday that the California insurance commissioner halt a program requiring companies to disclose their investments in fossil fuels.</div><div>
</div><div>They called the program misguided and inflammatory, and they threatened to file a lawsuit if it continues to be used. The Republican officials made their demands related to the Climate Risk Carbon Initiative in a letter yesterday to California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.</div><div>
</div><div>Jones announced the climate disclosure effort in January 2016. He said falling coal prices present financial hazards, and he asked insurance companies to "voluntarily" sell their stakes in thermal coal. He also required insurers to turn over data about their fossil fuel investments.</div><div>
</div><div>That has chafed Republicans, who claim that California's requirements are heavy-handed and ideological. They say the program is not about the financial stability of insurers — the traditional jurisdiction of insurance regulators.</div><div>
</div><div>"Rather, your call for divestment and attempt to publicly shame those who invest in American energy appears to be driven by politics unrelated to insurance regulation, animus towards the fossil fuel industry and those who depend on it, and a desire to discriminate against those who transact in commerce that mostly takes place outside your state (e.g. coal mining and coal power generation)," the letter reads.</div><div>
</div><div>If Jones does not end the program, Bevin and the attorneys general said, "we will be forced to consider the legal avenues of relief available to protect our insurance carriers, energy producers, and consumers."</div><div>
</div><div>Jones said threats of lawsuits would not get him to shut down the program.</div><div>
</div><div>"For those climate-denying politicians of red states who threaten to sue me, I will happily defend my obligation as California's insurance commissioner to make sure insurers are addressing climate change related risks and to protect California consumers," he said in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>The interstate spat highlights the massive financial clout California wields in American insurance markets. To do business nationwide, insurers often need to comply with regulations set down by the California Department of Insurance.</div><div>
</div><div>The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming signed the letter.</div><div>
</div><div>Representatives for Bevin and Jones did not respond to requests for comment.</div><div>
</div><div>About 650 insurance firms have responded to the disclosure program. More than 300 said they have analyzed their "carbon risk," while 272 declined to do so, according to figures from the California insurance commission.</div><div>
</div><div>The data show that insurers surveyed have invested about $240 billion in the oil and gas industry and roughly $10.5 billion in thermal coal.</div><div>
</div><div>"This misguided policy is negligent, politically driven, unrelated to insurance regulation and is risking a certain lawsuit," Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter (R), the letter's author, said in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>Alex Gerszewski, a spokesman for Hunter, said the attorney general has not spoken to Jones about the issue but was motivated by his experience in the energy industry and by his conversations with the Oklahoma insurance commissioner.</div><div>
</div><div>Hunter succeeded Scott Pruitt, who now serves as U.S. EPA administrator, as Oklahoma's attorney general earlier this year.</div></div><div></div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/heres-what-you-need-know-about-americas-biggest-greenhouse-gas-polluter">http://www.alternet.org/environment/heres-what-you-need-know-about-americas-biggest-greenhouse-gas-polluter</a>Up  close, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the U.S. isn't as big as you'd expect it to be. From most angles, you can't even see it until you're right on top of it.But hit the right gap in the rolling hills of north-central Alabama, and the James H. Miller Jr. Electric Generating Plant looms large even from miles away. Nestled on about 800 acres on the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River, the plant is one of Alabama Power's <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" style="text-decoration-line: none;">coal</a>-burning workhorses, putting out enough electricity to power about a million homes. It virtually never stops running—and never stops producing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.As the view shifts, so does public opinion.From certain angles, the plant is a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" style="text-decoration-line: none;">pollution</a>-belching monster harming both the environment and the health of communities. Change your perspective a bit, and Miller is a source of good-paying jobs, a means to raise a family in an area where economic opportunities are thin.Paul Dollar, 75, who has lived just a few hundred yards from the plant property for more than 30 years, sees Miller both ways. On one hand, there's dust and noise: "This thing I believe is getting my health and it's bothering me." On the other, Dollar and his daughter Tammy can name a dozen friends, relatives and neighbors who work for the plant, its contractors, or in one of the related service industries."To their credit, Alabama Power is a good corporate citizen. They provide good jobs. They do a lot in the community for charity and such," said Scotty Colson, a lawyer in Birmingham, 16 miles southeast of the plant. But "you don't get the impression that [pollution] is a high priority. They're pretty much OK with shifting the cost onto people who have a problem with what their byproduct is."Alabama Power is a subsidiary of the <a href="https://www.southerncompany.com/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Southern Company</a>, which owns 11 utilities in nine states. Southern has spent nearly $12 billion on pollution controls at its plants since 1990 and "is committed to comply with all environmental laws and regulations," spokesman Terrell McCollum wrote in a statement for this article.But Colson, a clean-air advocate, said those costs have been passed on to customers—both directly on their utility bills and indirectly through impacts on health and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate</a>."They start putting the onus on everybody else," he said, "when in fact they have spent quite a lot with lobbying to fight regulations and delay regulations." Southern spent more than all but a dozen other U.S. companies on federal lobbying during the 2016 election cycle, according to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000168" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Responsive Politics</a>—nearly $14 million.Colson has lived in the Birmingham area for all of his 58 years and fought asthma for most of them. Miller's discharges of greenhouse gases and noxious substances have taken a toll, he said, not only on the environment but also on his lungs."You rationalize it by saying, 'I'm taking care of my family first,'" he said. "You rationalize it by saying, 'Oh, it really doesn't do any harm.' That's your basic <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate denial</a> and science denial, which is epidemic in some areas here."But the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">science</a> doesn't lie. Researchers around the world have repeatedly offered proof that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it....<a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/black-lung-disease-deadlier-than-ever-before-180963303/">http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/black-lung-disease-deadlier-than-ever-before-180963303/</a>...Michael “Flip” Wilson had a very different journey into coal than McCool. The first coal miner in his family, Wilson entered the mines when he was 18 years old. It was 1974, and he was seeking his fortune in what was then a booming industry in Kentucky.Wilson spent 41 years toiling down dark, winding tunnels in search of coal seams—layers of valuable fuel sandwiched between rock. For most of that time he operated what’s known as the “continuous miner,” a machine that carves away the mine’s walls and breaks apart massive seams into bite-sized hunks. Unlike McCool, however, he rarely used a facemask.The masks were burdensome, he says. Dust would collect over the filters, clogging them up and requiring frequent changes. “You just couldn’t breathe through them,” he says. So Wilson foraged ahead with the continuous miner, clouds of inky black dust billowing in its wake.Three years ago, Wilson was diagnosed with black lung. Not using a facemask may certainly be one way that coal dust found its way into his lungs. But Wilson is also among a new generation of miners working without the safety net of mine unionization, which <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001979391306600104" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">research suggests</a> helps protect workers from unsafe conditions and company dishonesty.Miners at non-union mines often don't report safety violations for fear of losing their jobs, Addington explains. Dust, in particular, has faded to the background. “Miners are more likely to put up with excessive dust because it doesn’t threaten them and the bigger stir that they cause the more likely they are to lose their job,” says Addington, who also files lawsuits against companies for unjust treatment of workers who speak up. “It’s much more difficult for miners to complain about excessive dust than other safety and heath issues at a coal mine.”“I always did what the coal company wanted me to do, if it was right or if it was wrong,” Wilson recalls. “I should have known better, but at the time I needed the job.”Armstrong Coal did not respond to repeated requests for comment.Unions became popular among miners during the late 1800s, with today’s largest organization, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), founded in 1890. The UMWA has been instrumental in improving conditions for miners, from shorter work hours to safer working conditions. It was also a driving force in drawing attention to the issue of respiratory disease during the early 1900s, a time when “strenuous denial of the existence or extent” of black lung was still rampant, according to a 1991 article in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1827571" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">American Journal of Public Health</a>.Measuring the effects these unions have had on overall mine safety has been difficult, in part due to confounding factors like mine size and the fact that unionized mines tend to report more injuries than non-unionized ones. But a <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001979391306600104" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">Stanford Law School study</a> published in the journal Industrial and Labor Relations Review in 2013 found that unionization had resulted in a “substantial and significant decline” in both fatalities and traumatic injuries.Today, however, mine unions have declined along with mining jobs. Union representation has fallen by over 50 percent in the last decades—from <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cps/aa1998/CPSAAT42.PDF" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">14 percent</a> in 1997 to just <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat42.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">6 percent</a> in 2016. In Kentucky, where some of the highest rates of black lung are being reported, the last unionized mine shuttered its doors <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miner-black-lung-disease_us_5751bf08e4b0ed593f143fd9" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">in 2015.</a>Experts reason that longer work days may also contribute to the current surge in black lung. Fewer breaks give workers less time to flush their lungs with clean air, says Cohen, which can rid their lungs of particulate that has not yet taken root. Wilson estimates that he worked an average of 70 to 80 hours per week while at Armstrong Coal. “A lot of the time I would come in on day shift,” he says. “I worked 10 [or] 11 hours that day, then I would go home and sleep three or four hours. And then I'll go back on third shift.”There’s yet another reason for the rise. Many researchers believe the disease’s new intensity stems in part from the size of the coal seams being mined. These days, coal companies have plundered most of the thick seams of pure coal and now seek thinner and thinner veins. That means miners are taking out more rock along with the coal using heavy machinery. As a result, the clouds of black dust have grown increasingly muddled with silica, <a href="http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2010/08/26/oem.2009.047126" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">a much more potent lung irritant</a>.Coal mine dust <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12071347" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">isn’t just coal</a>; it’s a mix of coal, silica and other elements like iron. Silica’s toxicity comes from a variety of chemical properties, including electrostatic charge—the same force that makes your hair stand on end when rubbed with a balloon—and what is known as “reactive oxygen species” (ROS). When these highly reactive particles make their way deep into the respiratory system, they can <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637684/pdf/envhper00313-0074.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration-line: none;">lance the lung cells</a>, resulting in a flood of damaging enzymes that harm the tissue....
5/17 overview update<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/getting-out-our-coal-hole">http://www.alternet.org/environment/getting-out-our-coal-hole</a>250 coal plants in US cancelled; mark H says 1:6 in chinamining mechanized<div class="widgetbrief" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Despite <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">President Trump's</a> <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-coal-jobs-2323139278.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">promise last week</a> at a Kentucky rally that "a lot of coal miners are going back to work" as a result of his executive order, most experts, analysts and even coal industry executives caution that the administration's moves to roll back the Clean Power Plan may do little to help bring back jobs.</div><div class="js-appear-on-expand" style="transition: all 350ms ease 0s; height: auto; overflow: hidden; opacity: 1; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, the largest coal company in the country, told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/27/us-coal-industry-clean-power-plan-donald-trump" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">The Guardian</a> Monday that Trump should "temper his expectations" with the executive order and that the president "can't bring [coal jobs] back." <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-27/trump-may-be-offering-coal-leases-that-no-one-wants-right-now" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Bloomberg</a> also pointed out that the executive order's order to lift the moratorium on federal coal leasing may see little demand from coal companies focused on using the reserves they have."It's not like companies will suddenly say, 'Oh great, we can lease on more federal land, let's do it and boost production,'" Rob Barnett, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, said. Obama's "policy was all with an eye toward 2040 as opposed to 2018."In the latest in coal plant retirements, a Kentucky plant announced plans for closure Monday, while a San Antonio utility confirmed that federal moves to roll back the Clean Power Plan did not change its plans to shutter one of its coal plants.For a deeper dive:Coal: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/climate/planned-rollback-of-climate-rules-unlikely-to-achieve-all-trumps-goals.html?ref=energy-environment&r=1" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">New York Times</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-27/trump-s-order-won-t-resurrect-jobs-of-miners-key-to-his-campaign" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Bloomberg</a> Murray CEO: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/27/us-coal-industry-clean-power-plan-donald-trump" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">The Guardian</a>, <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/325891-coal-executive-trump-cant-bring-mining-jobs-back" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">The Hill</a>Coal leasing: <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-27/trump-may-be-offering-coal-leases-that-no-one-wants-right-now" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Bloomberg</a> Plant closures: <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-03-27/kentucky-power-plant-to-stop-burning-coal-by-2023" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">AP</a>, <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2017/03/27/cps-energy-to-close-coal-plant-regardless-of-trump.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">San Antonio Business Journal</a></div><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20032017/paris-climate-agreement-donald-trump-global-warming-clean-power-plan">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20032017/paris-climate-agreement-donald-trump-global-warming-clean-power-plan</a>Let's be clear. American business is at risk of plunging into a race to the bottom—not only must Americans resist Trump directly, they must resist the culture of law-breaking and recklessness he is trying to trigger.One of the most spectacular examples is only a few hundred miles from the White House, in Charleston, West Virginia. The <a href="https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/charts/coalbystates.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">state led the nation in mining deaths in 2016</a> and has already seen two deaths in 2017; but in spite of this grim history the coal industry has <a href="http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news-politics/20170314/wv-senate-bill-eliminates-mine-safety-enforcement" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">proposed the complete elimination</a> of state health and safety regulations and inspections in the West Virginia coal mines. This in a state where, only a few months ago, a federal appellate court upheld a prison sentence for Massey Energy CEO <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/anderson-cooper-takes-in-depth-look-at-the-king-of-coal-1882187852.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Don Blankenship</a> for his role in a mining catastrophe that killed 29 miners in Massey's Upper Big Branch Mine, the direct result of poor enforcement of safety standards.The West Virginia Gazette summed up the bill: "The heart of the legislation is a section that simply eliminates the ability of state mine safety office inspectors to issue notices of violation or levy fines for mine operators or coal companies for any safety hazards unless they can prove there is an 'imminent danger' of death or serious physical harm." If the coal industry has its way the much overblown Obama "War on Coal" will be replaced by a stealthy, Trump inspired "War on Coal Miners."The coal industry has long enjoyed a reputation for callousness. But the new mood exemplified by President Trump has spread to companies that invest a lot of resources in portraying themselves as responsible, sustainable corporate citizens. Take <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none; overflow-wrap: break-word;">Monsanto</a>.<div></div><div>https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/02/murray-energy-record-giving-2016/</div><div>
</div><div>President Donald Trump wasted little time attending to one of his constituencies: Less than a month after taking office, and surrounded by applauding coal miners and a few friendly members of Congress, he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/02/16/president-trump-putting-coal-country-back-work" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">put the knife in</a> an Obama-era regulation barring coal mine waste from being dumped in waterways.And Trump is said to have more coal-friendly<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/20/trump-to-roll-back-obamas-climate-water-rules-through-executive-action/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_ee-eo-705pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.dfa71f891641" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;"> executive orders</a> lined up, including one to relax limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and reverse a temporary ban on federal coal leases.Indeed, Trump is proving to be a worthwhile investment for an industry that contributed far more to getting him elected than to any other presidential hopeful. Trump’s campaign took in $240,000 from employees or PACs of coal companies. That’s more than double the $104,000 that the second-highest recipient, Texas <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cid=N00033085&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Sen. Ted Cruz</a> (R), raked in.If that doesn’t sound like much, here’s some real money: $1.1 million given to the pro-Trump outside spending groups <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00574533&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Future45</a> and <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00618876&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Rebuilding America Now</a>.Some of that coal cash has been controversial, especially as major players in coal production recently have faced large layoffs or <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/peabody-energy-files-for-chapter-11-protection-from-creditors-1460533760" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">declared bankruptcy</a>: Last year <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00410985" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Murray Energy’s PAC</a> gave $100,000 to Trump’s <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00618389" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">joint fundraising committee</a> on June 28, the day before sending <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/coal-company-donated-100000-to-trump-pac-announced-4400-layoffs-the-next-day/article/2597444" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">4,400 layoff notices</a> to workers. Most of those particular layoffs didn’t happen in the end, but there have been others: In May 2015, Murray’s workforce stood at 8,400; as of December 2016, it was down to 6,000. More than 400 employees of an Ohio subsidiary, the Ohio Valley Coal Co., <a href="http://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2016/05/murray-energy-powhatan-no-6-mine-to-close-in-belmont-county/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">lost their jobs or were transferred</a> last November when the Powhatan No. 6 Mine shut down due to lack of reserves.Nevertheless, using its corporate coffers and its PAC, Murray Energy donated a total of $1.5 million to political candidates, party committees and outside groups in the 2016 cycle, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000022123&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">a record high for the company</a>. It gave $250,000 to the Cleveland Host Committee, which helped fund the Republican National Convention this year, and $200,000 to pro-Trump super PAC Rebuilding America Now.And Trump’s campaign received almost $103,000 from Murray Energy employees.Trump was the largest beneficiary by far of the mining company’s gifts, but there were others: New Day for America, a 527 committee backing Ohio Gov. John Kasich, received $300,000; the pro-Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) super PAC <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00572743&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Independent Voice for Illinois</a> got $129,000; and the conservative <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00569517&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Citizen SuperPAC</a> received $110,000, which went toward backing congressional candidates such as Sen. <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009920&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Richard Shelby</a> (R-Ala.) and Sen. <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00033085" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Ted Cruz</a> (R-Texas).The company minced no words explaining its efforts.“Given that virtually all Democrats support the elimination of coal mining in the United States, and the thousands of jobs the industry provides, and that Hillary Clinton publicly stated that she was ‘gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies outta business,’ Murray Energy Corporation had no choice but to support those politicians who have vowed to protect and defend the United States coal industry,” said Gary Broadbent, Murray’s senior corporate counsel, in an email to OpenSecrets Blog.(Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, did make that statement, but in the same speech spoke about revitalizing coal communities and later <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/11/12/clinton-plan-to-revitalize-coal-communities/" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">released a plan to retrain workers</a>.)Murray set the high mark, but one other coal company — which has its own difficulties — stood out for its efforts.<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000023865&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Alliance Resource Partners</a>, the third-largest producer of coal in the East, announced <a href="http://www.kfvs12.com/story/31151242/275-to-be-laid-off-at-coal-mines-in-southern-il" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">275 layoffs in February 2016</a>, partly due to what it said were “overreaching regulations.” The organization’s PAC spent $126,000 this cycle, its most modest showing since 2008.But Alliance employees contributed $3.4 million in the 2016 cycle, up from 2014. Alliance CEO Joe Craft gave $750,000 to pro-Trump <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cmte=C00574533&type=A&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Future45</a>, and, through his personal trust, gave $1 million to anti-Clinton super PAC <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib.php?cmte=C00487363&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">American Crossroads</a> and $100,000 to the pro-Mitch McConnell group <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cmte=C00543256&type=A&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Kentuckians for Strong Leadership</a>, which spent its funds against Clinton this year. (The company <a href="https://www.arlp.com/about/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">has operations in Kentucky</a>, though it is <a href="https://www.arlp.com/about/contact.php" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">headquartered in Tulsa, Okla.</a>) The latter received more backing from other Alliance employees, with $100,000 from Charles Wesley, the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=404123&privcapId=404105" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">executive vice president</a>, and $10,000 from Thomas Wynne, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=9547947&privcapId=27145848" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">COO and senior vice president</a>.Still, if Murray and Alliance led the pack in donations from a declining industry, five other coal mining firms managed to donate thousands through their PACs <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/peabody-energy-files-for-chapter-11-protection-from-creditors-1460533760" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">despite filing for bankruptcy in the past couple of years</a>. Their outlays, though, were substantially smaller than in past cycles.<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000020856&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Peabody Energy PAC</a> gave $78,000, its smallest total since 1998, donating $10,000 to House Majority Leader <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00028152&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Kevin McCarthy</a> (R-Calif.), $7,500 to Sen. <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00026050&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Lisa Murkowski</a> (R-Alaska) and $6,000 to the Republican National Committee. <a href="http://www.miningglobal.com/Peabody-Energy/executives/Fredrick%20D.-Palmer/476" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Frederick Palmer</a>, the senior vice president of government relations of the St. Louis-based company, gave $11,000 to an assortment of Missouri lawmakers and $2,700 to the presidential bid of Ohio Gov. <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00009778" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">John Kasich</a> (R).
<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000031430&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Alpha Natural Resources PAC</a> gave $15,000 each to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000022137" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">NRCC</a> and <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cycle=2016&cmte=NRSC" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">NRSC</a>, the party committees dedicated to electing Republicans to the House and Senate. The PAC gave out a total of $203,000, the least since 2008. Employees donated a mere $10,000 this year, compared to $169,000 in 2014 and $321,000 in 2012.<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000019258&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Arch Coal’s PAC</a> gave $328,000 in the 2016 campaign; as with Alpha, this was Arch’s smallest total since 2008, doling out $30,000 to the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000022137" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">NRCC</a> and $20,000 to the RNC. Employees gave $9,000 in donations (compared to $137,000 in 2012).And <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000028242&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Patriot Coal</a>‘s PAC gave $2,300 to West Virginia reps; employees contributed $59,000, all to Republicans.<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00508341&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Walter Energy PAC</a> gave $4,500 in total to Reps. <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00031233&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Barr</a> (R-Ky.) and <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00035531&cycle=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Jenkins</a> (R-W.V.) — way down from the $62,000 it contributed in 2014. No employees made political contributions this year.Coal lobbying hits a wall
While Murray Energy gave out more to politicians than ever before, its <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000022123" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">lobbying spending</a> dipped to about $350,000 — roughly one-third of its 2011 peak of $1 million. The company lobbied to support <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1714" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">bills</a> to <a href="https://mckinley.house.gov/press-releases/mckinley-introduces-bill-to-protect-coal-miner-pensions-and-health-care/" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">protect health care benefits and pensions</a> for coal industry workers. The Miners’ Protection Act would <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/s3470.pdf" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">move billions of dollars</a> from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund into health care and pension plans for the United Mine Workers of America. Congress temporarily extended retired miners’ plans late last year. The stopgap expires April 18, and <a href="https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/lighthizer-waiver-may-be-limbo-hatch-expects-miners-bill-fail" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">congressional Democrats</a>, led by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), threatened to stall <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-15/trump-s-trade-pick-needs-waiver-over-work-for-china-and-brazil" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">approving a waiver</a> for Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s U.S. trade representative nominee, unless lawmakers extend it.<div style="margin: 5px 0px;">The company again blamed the Obama administration for its declined spending. “Murray Energy Corporation was forced to substantially reduce its lobbying spending in 2016, due to the total destruction of the United States coal industry as caused by the Obama Administration and by the increased utilization of natural gas to generate electricity,” Broadbent said.</div><div style="margin: 5px 0px;">But given that it made substantial political contributions using corporate funds, Murray clearly made a choice: That same money could have been used to lobby Congress on the issues it cared most about. Instead, it tried to keep another Democrat from occupying the Oval Office. Murray’s involvement in presidential politics isn’t new: In 2012, miners at a company facility in Ohio said they were forced to attend a rally for GOP candidate Mitt Romney and weren’t paid for their time. The FEC <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/wp-admin/post.php?post=20103&action=edit" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">dropped its investigation</a> of the incident in 2015.<div style="margin: 5px 0px;">The <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/induscode.php?id=E1210&year=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">industry as a whole</a> has followed Murray’s pattern of spending less and less on lobbying in recent years. Peak outlays came around 2010 and 2011 as the number of jobs began to tank. Last year marked the lowest spending by the coal industry since 2004. <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000020856&year=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Peabody Energy</a>, which filed for bankruptcy protection <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/peabody-energy-files-for-chapter-11-protection-from-creditors-1460533760" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">last April</a>, logged the highest lobbying spending in the industry at $1.8 million — but that was the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000020856&year=2016" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">smallest amount the company</a> has spent since 2004. The company peaked in 2008 with $8.4 million in spending.</div><div style="margin: 5px 0px;">Trump called the reg he struck from the books — the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule — “another terrible job killing rule,” saying he was keeping his campaign promise to save miners’ jobs.It’s true there are fewer jobs in coal: From 89,500 coal mining jobs at the end of 2011, the figure had sunk to 50,100 as of Jan. 2017, according to the <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CEU1021210001" target="blank" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Bureau of Labor Statistics</a>. And while tighter regulations to help protect the environment are definitely a piece of the puzzle, so are <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25392" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">cheaper energy alternatives such as natural gas</a>, <a href="http://www.mining.com/study-shows-96-of-some-mining-jobs-can-be-automated/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">as well as</a> <a href="https://www.bls.gov/mlr/1990/09/art1full.pdf" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">increased automation of mining jobs</a>.“That’s all because there has been a rise in citizen advocacy as communities across the country push to move beyond coal to clean energy while competition in the marketplace intensifies,” said Mary Anne Hitt, the Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, in an email to OpenSecrets Blog. “That is not going away no matter who is in the Oval Office.”</div>OBAMA: The U.S. Interior Department finalized a contentious rule to protect rivers, streams and forests from the negative impacts of surface coal mining. The Stream Protection Rule is the first update to the department's regulations in 33 years, and is one of the Obama administration's last major moves to protect the environment. Specifically, the rule was established to "avoid or minimize impacts on surface water, groundwater, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources," according to the DOI.
"The responsible rule released [December 20] represents a modern and balanced approach to meeting the nation’s energy needs," U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell said on Monday. "Regulations need to keep pace with modern mining practices, so we worked closely with many stakeholders to craft a plan that protects water quality, supports economic opportunities, safeguards our environment and makes coalfield communities more resilient for a diversified economic future."AN<a href="http://wwwwww.alternet.org/environment/will-big-business-help-fight-trumps-anti-environment-agenda">http://wwwwww.alternet.org/environment/will-big-business-help-fight-trumps-anti-environment-agenda</a>...But environmentalists may yet have a way to fight back. Though their public protests <a href="http://prospect.org/article/it%D5s-really-not-easy-being-green-now" style="text-decoration-line: none;">may fall on deaf ears</a> as long as Trump is in the White House and Republicans control Congress, environmental activists may find more of an audience in corporate boardrooms. At a time when consumers are increasingly eager for green products, services, and energy sources, corporations are seeing the value of resource conservation as a long-term investment strategy, not just good PR or a grudging response to government regulations. And it’s not just Ben & Jerry’s these days that is taking earth stewardship, especially climate change, quite seriously; sustainability is baked into the structure of more and more Fortune 500 businesses. The imperatives of profit have never been so closely intertwined with those of our finite planet.Take Trump’s pledge to <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602853/trumps-empty-promise-to-coal-country/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">bring back coal</a>. In economic terms, that’s a campaign promise that looks destined to fizzle. Simply put, natural gas, a significantly cleaner fuel than coal, has become a more economically viable energy source. David Victor, an energy policy expert at the University of California, San Diego, says that while the price per unit of energy for natural gas and coal are roughly the same right now, natural gas enjoys a decided market advantage, because 21st century grid operators prefer its properties as a fuel source.“Modern power plants need to be able to be turned on and off fairly quickly, but a coal plant is the exact opposite of that,” says Victor. “You need to keep a coal plant warm; the ramp-up for a coal plant from a cold start is many hours, if not longer. Gas plants are much more responsive.”And the “clean coal” that Trump likes to reference? It’s an idea that sounds seductive, but that doesn’t do much to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Clean coal refers to the application of carbon capture and storage technologies to coal-fired power plants—a process that involves diverting carbon dioxide from the smokestack and sequestering it underground in natural geologic formations that prevent it from seeping back to the surface. In practice, this technology is outrageously expensive. The only power plant in the world that has made the numbers come even close to working—the <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/turns-out-the-worlds-first-clean-coal-plant-is-a-backdoor-subsidy-to-oil-producers/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Boundary Dam Power Station</a> in Saskatchewan, Canada—has done so by pumping the carbon dioxide into nearby oil fields, where it has value as an aid for fossil fuel extraction—a process known as <a href="http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/enhanced-oil-recovery" style="text-decoration-line: none;">enhanced oil recovery</a>. But that can hardly be called a clean technology. While the process itself apparently is not polluting, it produces no net gain in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions—the entire point of clean coal. Just storing the CO2 in the ground would be a net improvement. But if the only economically feasible use of carbon capture is to extract more oil, <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/rule-four-of-offsets-no-enhanced-oil-recovery-427da3c722aa#.yw2n92ix6" style="text-decoration-line: none;">it’s a zero-sum game</a>. That’s because any oil extracted releases enough emissions when it’s burned to cancel out the potential benefit.Making truly clean coal a financially viable reality would require massive government incentives, whether in the form of tightened-up emission standards or a price on carbon—both approaches that run counter to Trump’s fossil fuel-friendly, roll-back-the-regulations ideology. The technology holds promise in places like China, where the coal industry is booming, and the political appetite exists for a nationwide carbon market. But in the U.S., clean coal is a non sequitur, both fiscally and environmentally, for the foreseeable future.Even many of the <a href="https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-36599665-10278" style="text-decoration-line: none;">coal company executives</a> with whom Trump is trying to ingratiate himself agree that natural gas is America’s new energy king. “The basic economics of the power sector now favor gas, and that has come directly out of the hide of coal,” says Victor.Not that Trump hasn't also promised to pump up domestic production of natural gas, which is by no means the holy grail of clean energy. It has about half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal, but the “fracking” technology used to extract much of the nation’s natural gas supply is fraught with environmental problems of its own, from air and water pollution to increased earthquakes and habitat destruction....debunk blk death BS:<a href="http://www.desmog.uk/2016/10/25/report-debunks-un-and-world-coal-association-s-promotion-dirty-coal-sustainable-solution-end-extreme-poverty">http://www.desmog.uk/2016/10/25/report-debunks-un-and-world-coal-association-s-promotion-dirty-coal-sustainable-solution-end-extreme-poverty</a>catholic charity, oxfam UN<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/coal-poverty-climate-change-2064757572.html">http://www.ecowatch.com/coal-poverty-climate-change-2064757572.html</a>A group of more than a dozen international organizations lead by the Overseas Development Institute have put out an <a href="https://www.odi.org/publications/10589-beyond-coal-scaling-clean-energy-fight-global-poverty" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">in-depth report</a> on the <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/10/25/13309076/energy-poverty-coal" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">bogus</a> claim that coal can cure poverty. It's true that more than a billion people around the world lack access to energy, but the report shows how more coal will make things worse.The basic facts are very simple: Coal is a primary source of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" style="text-decoration-line: none;">air pollution</a>, <a href="http://time.com/4219575/air-pollution-deaths/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">which kills millions</a>, and is a major driver of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate change</a>. Climate change is very bad for all of us, but even worse for the world's most vulnerable.
At least 2,400 coal-fired power plants are in the planning or construction phases around the world right now. Building just a third of those would push the world over 2 C of global warming, worsen <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/leonardo-dicaprio-before-the-flood-2062971522.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">climate</a> impacts and negatively impact the millions of people that are already struggling with air pollution.<div class="share-tab-img share-buttons share-trigger" style="max-width: 100%; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative; overflow: hidden;"><img class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="SXPMKR1477933803" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" id="d254a" src="https://assets.rbl.ms/8389071/980x.jpg" style="border: 0px; vertical-align: middle; max-width: 100%; margin-bottom: 6px;" /><div class="share-media-panel">Multiple <a href="http://www.peabodyenergy.com/content/491/advocating-coals-role-alleviating-energy-poverty-to-the-worlds-energy-ministers" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">coal companies</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/17/jeb-bush-joins-republican-backlash-pope-climate-change" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">anti-climate action politicians</a>, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/20/if-usa-today-concerned-about-fossil-fuel-groups-spreading-climate-confusion-it-should-stop-helping/213985" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">fossil fuel PR pros</a> and <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/fredsmith/2015/06/15/the-pope-poverty-and-global-warming/#50402c3c5c82" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">denier groups</a> have perpetuated the myth that getting rid of fossil fuels will deny millions of people access to energy and its economic benefits. Surely it is merely coincidence that as <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2016/10/23/Coal-will-not-recover/stories/201610110033" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">coal use declines in the U.S.</a>, they're hoping developing countries pick up the dirty energy addiction....=---ref<a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/10/25/13309076/energy-poverty-coal">http://www.vox.com/2016/10/25/13309076/energy-poverty-coal</a>Some <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/Global-Tracking-Framework-Report" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">1.2 billion people</a> around the world lack access to electricity. 2.8 billion burn charcoal, wood, or other biomass to cook and heat their homes. Lack of access to clean, reliable energy services, or "energy poverty," is a terrible problem for those who face it, leading to hours of drudgery gathering fuels and high mortality from indoor pollution (which kills around <a href="http://www.vox.com/2014/9/15/6150713/the-deadliest-environmental-problem-today-is-indoor-air-pollution" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">4 million people a year</a>).Energy poverty stands in the way of better health, better education, and better jobs. Development experts increasingly agree that there is no way to end extreme poverty without making energy access universal. That’s what the <a href="http://www.se4all.org/sites/default/files/l/2013/09/SG_Sustainable_Energy_for_All_vision_final_clean.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">UN</a> and the <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/Global-Tracking-Framework-Report" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">World Bank</a> have set out to do by 2030 with the <a href="http://www.se4all.org/our-mission" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">Sustainable Energy for All</a> initiative.Meanwhile, the coal industry finds its fortunes on the decline in the developed world, losing out to natural gas and renewables. All its hopes for survival, much less growth, rest with the developing world.So it has <a href="https://grist.org/climate-energy/coal-giant-exploits-the-global-poor-to-save-its-own-hide/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">glommed on</a> to the surge of interest in energy poverty and is now selling itself as a solution.<div class="m-ad m-admobile_article_body" style="box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.2rem; padding: 0px; text-align: center;"><div id="div-gpt-ad-mobile_article_body" class="dfp_ad" data-cb-dfp-id="unit=mobile_article_body" data-cb-ad-id="Mobile article body" style="box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">For instance, here’s <a href="http://www.peabodyenergy.com/content/491/advocating-coals-role-alleviating-energy-poverty-to-the-worlds-energy-ministers" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">Peabody Energy</a>, calling "advanced coal" a solution to energy poverty:<figure class="e-image" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 2.2rem 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="e-imageimage " data-original="https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7340783/peabody_ieaenergy_bicycle_1654x1169-image.jpg" style="text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; width: 726.406px;">
<span class="e-imagemeta" style="text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 8px 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(209, 209, 209); display: block; width: 726.406px;"><figcaption style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;">Man, biking, dreams of coal.</figcaption> <cite style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline; opacity: 0.75;">(<a href="http://www.peabodyenergy.com/content/491/advocating-coals-role-alleviating-energy-poverty-to-the-worlds-energy-ministers" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent;">Peabody Energy</a>)</cite></figure>Here’s the World Coal Association <a href="https://www.worldcoal.org/take-leadership-energy-access-efficient-coal-wca-tells-international-energy-agency-and-development" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">doing the same</a>. Here’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/17/jeb-bush-joins-republican-backlash-pope-climate-change" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">Arch Coal providing energy-poverty talking points</a> to Jeb Bush when he attacked the pope over climate change. Here’s Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/2015/06/18/ceo-says-popes-epa-views-will-condemn-people-to-poverty/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">delivering the same talking points</a> on Fox News. Here’s the Daily Caller <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/16/conservatives-warn-pope-that-climate-policies-will-kill-seniors-poor-video/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">pushing them</a>, direct from right-wing think tank the Energy & Environment Legal Institute. Here’s <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/fredsmith/2015/06/15/the-pope-poverty-and-global-warming/#25cbb0fc5c82" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>. And so on.Are they right? Is coal the key to providing universal energy access?<div class="m-ad m-adnative_ad_mobile" style="box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.2rem; padding: 0px;"><div id="div-gpt-ad-native_ad_mobile" class="dfp_ad" data-cb-dfp-id="unit=native_ad_mobile" data-cb-ad-id="Native ad mobile" style="box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">A <a href="https://www.odi.org/publications/10589-beyond-coal-scaling-clean-energy-fight-global-poverty" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">new paper</a>, from 12 international poverty and development organizations (led by the Overseas Development Institute), argues no. In fact, the opposite is true: Not only will more coal plants do nothing for energy access, they will impose unnecessary suffering on the poor.<h3 id="HDqxtc" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6rem; padding: 0px;">Coal causes climate change, which is bad for the poor</h3>There are some interesting, and not so obvious, reasons why this is true, but the most important reason is also the most self-evident: Coal causes climate change.Coal is the single biggest contributor to global carbon pollution. It provides about <a href="http://www.c2es.org/energy/source/coal" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">30 percent</a>of global energy and produces about 44 percent of global carbon emissions.Climate change is going to be very, very bad for the global poor, for a wide variety of reasons. It threatens to set back decades of development work. As Jim Yong Kim, president of the World Bank, <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2013/07/10/op-ed-ending-poverty-includes-tackling-climate-change" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">puts it</a>, "if we don’t confront climate change, we won’t end poverty."<a href="http://cafod.org.uk/content/download/20298/142968/file/PUSHING%20PEOPLE%20OVER%20THE%20EDGE%20high%20res.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">This separate report</a> from the Catholic Agency For Overseas Development (CAFOD) puts the threat into perspective. "Of the 30 countries most vulnerable to changes in weather patterns and hazards including climate change," it says, "26 are among the world’s poorest — that is, ‘least developed’ countries." Of the populations most vulnerable, four in ten — over 400 million people — already survive at the edge of subsistence, on $1.25 a day. (See also <a href="http://www.cgdev.org/blog/climate-change-regressive" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">this grim report</a> from the Center for Global Development.)<figure class="e-image" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 2.2rem 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="e-imageimage " data-original="https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6643079/india-coal-scavenging.jpg" style="text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: block; width: 726.406px;">
<span class="e-image__meta" style="text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 8px 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(209, 209, 209); display: block; width: 726.406px;"><figcaption style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline;">Villagers carry illegally scavenged coal from an open-cast coal mine in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India, on December 6, 2014.</figcaption> <cite style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline; opacity: 0.75;">(<a href="http://www.gettyimages.com/license/138900966" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent;">Photo by Daniel Berehulak /Getty Images</a>)</cite></figure>Pushing global average temperatures past 2 degrees above preindustrial levels threatens the welfare of hundreds of millions of people who are already close to the edge. And all it will take to push temperatures that high (and higher) is one-third of the coal plants <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11361390/coal-plant-pipeline-china-india" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">already planned</a> in the world.To limit temperatures beneath 2 degrees, the world will need to leave at least 80 percent of known coal reserves unexploited and two-thirds of planned coal plants unbuilt. That is simply incommensurate with using coal to drive development in poor countries.<h3 id="uxue68" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6rem; padding: 0px;">Lack of sufficient energy is not the main cause of energy poverty</h3>How can access to energy services be extended to those who lack it?The coal industry claims the answer is more energy — and that renewables are incapable of providing the quantity needed. They point to China’s decade-long coal binge and its success in lifting people out of poverty."No other poverty alleviation strategy in modern history has been more effective than the one implemented by China and driven by an economy fuelled at over 70% by coal," Milton Catelin, chief executive of the WCA, has <a href="https://www.worldcoal.org/wca-calls-greater-action-fight-against-energy-poverty" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">said</a>.The point about China is misleading (more on that in a second), but more importantly, it fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem with the world’s remaining "energy poor."=http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/13/were-dying-flies-sick-retired-coal-miners-betrayed-gop-senatorsthe country must not turn its back on coal miners," right-wing Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell told constituents in eastern Kentucky last week.Yet coal miners—many "facing a slow death" from black lung and other deadly illnesses from a lifetime of mining coal—say that McConnell and other Senate Republicans are doing exactly that, the Associated Press <a href="http://wvpublic.org/post/republican-leaders-hesitate-coal-miners-pensions">reports</a>.McConnell has been repeatedly blocking a bill that would provide a pension plan and health benefits to about 13,000 retired coal miners in his home state.By doing so, McConnell places his allegiance with coal barons, and not their workers.As coal has declined, the ailing industry has been attempting to "jettison all pension obligations to miners" while still giving multi-billion-dollar bonus packages to executives, as Kelly Mitchell of Greenpeace <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/13/4-things-know-about-peabody-energy-bankruptcy">noted</a> earlier this year.But the legislation in question, the Miners' Protection Act, "would make certain that union retirees who lost healthcare benefits after the bankruptcy or insolvency of an employer are eligible for the benefits," <a href="http://www.register-herald.com/news/key-gop-member-lukewarm-to-coal-miners-pension-bill/article_a2048616-19fb-56c6-99a4-e310b8e4f5d2.html">writes</a> West Virginia's Register-Herald.Because McConnell refused to allow the bill to come to a vote before the October recess, it will not be considered until after the November election.Meanwhile, coal miners are suffering. AP reports:<blockquote style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;">"We're dying like flies," said Billy Smith, a coal miner for 39 years who said McConnell's lack of support was difficult to understand, given all the ailments he sees among his fellow retirees in his local union.[...] Workers like Joseph Holland, a retired union coal miner in Owensboro, said the federal government owes them their pensions and health benefits because of a promise former President Harry Truman made in the 1940s that ended a costly strike. Holland said he believes McConnell is punishing the United Mine Workers of America for endorsing his opponent during the 2014 U.S. Senate race, which McConnell won easily."He says he supports coal, but you know no evidence that he's supported the coal miner," Holland said. "It's very frustrating."</blockquote>Moreover, last week "the Patriot Voluntary Employee Beneficial Association notified about 12,500 retired union coal miners last week that their health benefits would cease on Dec. 31 without congressional action," AP writes.In response, Hillary Clinton issued a <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/statements/2016/10/12/clinton-to-republicans-stop-playing-politics-with-miners-benefits/">statement</a> supporting the Miners' Protection Act. "Time is running out for Republican leadership to stop playing politics and give the Miners Protection Act a vote," Clinton said. Trump has remained silent on the issue.As 350.org U.S. divestment campaign manager Jenny Marienau warned after Peabody Coal <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/13/biggest-coal-giant-has-fallen-peabody-files-bankruptcy">declared</a> bankruptcy in April: "Make no mistake, the fossil fuel industry is going down, but it won't go down easy. The priority now is to make sure it doesn't take its workers [and] the communities it has impacted with it."
INFLECTION PT?!<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/24/china-puts-brakes-on-new-coal-plants/">http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/24/china-puts-brakes-on-new-coal-plants/</a>
peabody almost bankrupt, 4 th coal bargeb sink off bangladesh?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/20/1528950/-As-the-coal-industry-collapses-and-workers-suffer-top-executives-rake-in-more-cash-than-everno linksadvocacy group Public Citizen released a report Tuesday showing how top executives for three giant coal companies got large compensation boosts even as they laid off workers and cut their benefits. The three companies—Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources—are all continuing their operations under Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings. Over the past few years, they went deeply into debt expanding via mergers and other purchases even as coal prices were falling and their bottom lines were going from black to red.  
Their choices were not criminal. But they illustrate the stupidity of how executive compensation works these days. Bonuses and stock options when times are good, higher cash compensation when the company tanks. The so-called “war on coal” has been good to these men.
In conjunction with their report, Public Citizen also sent letters to the CEOs of the three companies asking them to invest in a trust fund for laid-off employees.
Nice gesture. But the folks at Public Citizen surely know that a positive response to their request is about as likely to happen as coal-fired steam locomotives making a comeback.
The guys at the top may no longer qualify as coal barons, but they’ve adequately padded their nests with millions of dollars extracted the way they extracted the coal itself, ripping the resource from the ground and leaving the economic, environmental and social debris from their operations for somebody else to clean up. 
The Public Citizen report points out:Although these companies and their trade association allies have often blamed environmental regulations for their precarious financial state, the truth is that debt-fueled acquisitions hobbled their finances at a time when market conditions were rapidly souring. Namely, Alpha Natural Resources, Peabody Energy, and Arch Coal bet big on future Chinese coal demand growth in 2011, going into debt to finance major expansions into metallurgical coal production during the year it was at peak price, only to see markets decline soon after the transactions were complete. [...]Instead of taking responsibility for their decisions, coal industry representatives lay the blame for their financial woes on mine workers, unions, environmental regulations, and the federal government in an effort to shirk their contractual obligations. In 2015, West Virginia Coal Association President Billy Raney blamed the federal government for the coal industry’s economic problems. Of Alpha Natural Resources, which filed for bankruptcy last year, Nicole Gentile wrote:Seven executives and eight other employees who remain unnamed in court documents are eligible for the bonus if they hit certain metrics for cutting costs while protecting the company’s cash reserves. Top executives were already promised $2 million retention bonuses for staying with the company through August 2016. These bonuses are described by Alpha as incentives to ensure high-level performance, something that is apparently not covered by annual salaries. In 2014, as the company was evidently on the verge of financial collapse, Alpha paid CEO Kevin Crutchfield nearly $8 million, and former President Paul Vinning more than $4.5 million.
The plan to dole out millions of dollars to the same executives that bankrupted the company is the latest in a series of controversial steps taken by the industry giant. Late last year, Alpha also proposed to eliminate health insurance, disability, and other benefits for mine workers. According to court documents, this move would affect more than 4,500 disabled former employees, non-union retirees, and their families.Complaints to Alpha’s shareholders about such bonuses were obviously bound to be ignored. Those executives are, after all, just doing what they have been bidden to do, right? If they performed their screw-job efficiently, surely they deserved the extra money for it.Then there’s Peabody. It created the Patriot Coal Corporation specifically to walk away from its contractually mandated benefits to retirees and disabled workers. Patriot filed for Chapter 11 protection just two years after acquiring the financial obligations for these workers. The bankruptcy outcome means the workers and retirees will get few if any of the obligations their union had negotiated.
Last September, Tim McDonnell at Mother Jones wrote:
According to a report today from the Institute for Policy Studies, which bills itself as the country’s oldest progressive think tank, executive salaries and bonuses at the top 10 publicly traded coal companies increased an average of 8 percent between 2010 and 2014, even as the companies’ combined share price fell 58 percent.Meanwhile, the same executives cashed in well over $100 million in stock options, according to the report, which analyzed the companies’ public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In other words, coal execs are cashing in while their companies tank. ”That [stock-based] part of their compensation package is not so valuable right now, so the value of their cash-based pay has been going up,” said Sarah Anderson, the report’s author. “We’re seeing this move to insulate them from the implosion of the coal sector by handing out more cash.”It’s not just coal companies. From that IPS study cited by McDonnell and titled Executive Excess 2015: Money to Burn:Bonus incentives: None of the 30 oil, gas, and coal companies on our list reward their executives for diversifying into green energy or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A review of the 13 oil producers on our list revealed that all of them reward executives for expanding carbon reserves.
Retirement security: The ongoing disregard for our environment that fossil fuel executives have shown has left the future much less secure for billions of people around the world. These same executives, meanwhile, can all look forward to lavishly secure futures. Executives at America’s top 30 oil, gas, and coal firms have accumulated company-provided retirement assets worth a combined $1.2 billion, enough to cover the entire flood control budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for nearly three years. […]
The CEOs of the 30 largest U.S. publicly held fossil fuel companies took in an average $14.7 million in 2014, over 9 percent more than the average $13.5 million that went that year to S&P 500 CEOs. […] The 30 fossil fuel CEOs had outsized pay packages, despite leading companies with market caps that are smaller on average than the S&P 500.
Ordinary American taxpayers prop up this stratospheric pay for oil, gas, and coal executives through federal subsidies to fossil fuel companies. According to Oil Change International, these subsidies run about $37.5 billion per year.It’s a grotesque system that penalizes workers, investors, taxpayers and the planet itself while rewarding those whose policies, lobbyists and campaign funding of climate change-denying politicians have kept us headed into the ever-growing climate crisis long after critics warned us and them it would happen.
As IPS’s Sarah Anderson told McDonnell: “The smart thing would have been to diversify their portfolio so they wouldn’t be so vulnerable.” And the smartest thing would have been to diversity into renewables.
Meanwhile, coal miners and other workers continue to get screwed. As I wrote in 2012 after the election:
Over the generations, coal communities have been devastated by an extractive economy in which workers have risked their lives and sacrificed their health to keep the juice flowing to our refrigerators and televisions. It's a matter of environmental justice to help pull these communities out of a dirty 19th Century extractive economy into a cleaner 21st Century path.We progressives, environmental advocates or not, don't like the way a lot of people in western Virginia, West Virginia, southern Illinois, Kentucky and Wyoming voted in this election. There are, of course, other reasons than economics for their choices. But finding answers to their economic issues, helping them—really helping them—create sustainable, renewable communities amid the carnage coal has wrought ought to be as high on our list as stopping that carnage.
There are many ways that can be done. The nation already has invested billions of dollars to spur homeowners and commercial operations to install renewable energy. As a nation we spend billions to deal with the diseases caused by burning coal. Given the urgency of getting us off coal, there is no reason billions can't be spent to ease the lives of coal workers and their families as we make this crucial transition.For those workers and their families, the situation has only gotten worse. As Public Citizen and IPS have shown, coal executives continue to profit
<a href="http://www.desmog.uk/2016/03/30/nearly-1-trillion-wasted-globally-unnecessary-new-coal-plants">http://www.desmog.uk/2016/03/30/nearly-1-trillion-wasted-globally-unnecessary-new-coal-plants</a>http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/31/big-coal-bailout-2016/
pope
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=peabody">Peabody Coal</a>’s long-awaited concession <a href="http://trib.com/business/energy/peabody-energy-says-it-will-miss-debt-payments-moves-closer/article_c93db5c7-c054-5e5a-adae-221120fb8c35.html" target="blank">that bankruptcy lies ahead</a> signals the curtain fall on the long-running, silent and secret bailout of the management of the U.S. <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/coal-mining-pollution/">coal</a>industry. As one analyst put it when Peabody announced that it faced a “going concern” letter, “<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/coal-s-last-man-standing-dragged-to-the-brink-of-bankruptcy" target="blank">It’s the end of the era of publicly traded coal companies</a>.”Peabody is about to join <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/03/arch-coal-fund-climate-denial/">Arch</a>, Murray, Alpha and other coal producers in bankruptcy. The total market value of the U.S. coal sector since 2011 has plunged from more than <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/coal-s-last-man-standing-dragged-to-the-brink-of-bankruptcy" target="blank">$70 billion to barely $6 billion</a> and most of the remaining value is natural gas operations owned by Consol Inc. Coal stocks have dropped far faster than coal consumption, because the industry, ignoring competition from <a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/">renewable energy</a> and dismissing pressure to clean up the air, recklessly invested in far greater mining capacity than the market needs. Coal prices dropped by 75 percent.But even as King Coal inescapably rushes towards bankruptcy, the companies are being showered by regulators and judges with extraordinary largesse. This is not a bailout like GM and Chrysler, (or even the banks), when the taxpayers took very large risks but gained a good shot at rescuing operating enterprises and the value they create. This bailout largesse to coal, largely driven by Republican politicians, is showering down on shareholders and management of enterprises which cannot and will not be rescued, just to postpone the moment at which they are reorganized, thus fattening management and shareholders before the evil moment.And who pays? The general taxpayer for sure, but more spectacularly sick and retired mine workers and their communities.<div class="rve" data-content-width="" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500">Peabody Energy is the world's largest coal company & it gave taxpayers the shaft <a href="https://t.co/gFVa5M2iFc">https://t.co/gFVa5M2iFc</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/voxdotcom">@voxdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/SFiWWxVTDO">pic.twitter.com/SFiWWxVTDO</a>— CTJ (@taxjustice) <a href="https://twitter.com/taxjustice/status/715175424418930688">March 30, 2016</a></blockquote></div>I know, Republican politicians, other than <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=trump">Donald Trump</a>, offer as an article of faith that they stand up against bailouts. In fact, the Club of Growth in its first attack on Trump, made a <a href="http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/sep/15/club-growth/did-donald-trump-support-wall-street-bailout-club-/" target="blank">core issue</a> of the idea that Trump has supported the Wall Street Bailout.Except bailout opposition, it seems, falters when it comes to fossil fuels. Republicans took vicious exception to the Obama Administration’s willingness to use federal loan guarantees to help renewable energy companies – most spectacularly Solyndra—even though these loan guarantees, overall, came in under budget, and cumulatively created a powerful clean energy sector, but still, as you have heard thousands of times, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/specialreports/solyndra-scandal/" target="blank">taxpayers lost $535 million dollars</a> when Solyndra failed.So you would expect an enormous conservative outcry if major multinational corporations exploited loopholes in federal law to stick the taxpayers not with hundreds of millions, but with bills for billions for their business mistakes?  Right?Well, maybe not. Because the nation’s coal mining companies have been doing exactly that, with the active cooperation not of liberal Democrats but of <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578513572460160236?alg=y" target="blank">judges</a> and regulators in conservative Republican states like Missouri, Wyoming and West Virginia. Coal companies hold in trust the funds that pay their workers’ pensions and health care. But over the past few years companies like Peabody Coal divided themselves into bits and pieces. Certain bits kept the parts of the coal business Peabody thought were money makers. Other bits (with sexy names like Patriot Coal) got assigned mines that were no longer profitable, along with bundled liabilities like retiree pensions and health care. When Patriot Coal, predictably, filed for bankruptcy it stuck the taxpayers and the workers with the obligations.In one elegantly vicious move, 208 retired coal miners who had no connection to Patriot Coal, had never worked for it, and whose pensions were fiduciarily sound, saw their <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/01/the-plot-to-make-retired-coal-miners-broke.html" target="blank">retirement siphoned off</a> to pay for legal fees and other bankruptcy costs. In essence, Alcoa, which is not going bankrupt, paid Patriot, which was, to assume pension obligations for these 208 miners. Alcoa gave Patriot reasonable money.  But instead of using the funds to pay for pensions, Patriot is using it to pay lawyers, which, in a bankruptcy, it thought it could get away with. <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/2015/10/more-trouble-in-coal-country-health-care-at-risk-f.html" target="blank">Eventually, it had to back down</a>. But 12,000 other mine workers, with more direct relationships with Peabody, <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/2015/10/more-trouble-in-coal-country-health-care-at-risk-f.html" target="blank">face the loss</a> of their hard earned pension and health care benefits.Coal companies are also <a href="http://www.sightline.org/2015/07/06/how-self-bonding-puts-the-public-at-risk/" target="blank">required to post bonds to pay for reclaiming strip mined land</a>. But those with creatively puffed up balance sheets were allowed by states to “<a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2016-03-23/peabody-problems-show-how-taxpayers-lose-with-coal-companies" target="blank">self bond</a>” and guarantee their own obligations. Arch Coal, for example, <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1037676/000110465915064772/a15-19330_18k.htm" target="blank">was allowed</a> to qualify for “self-bonding” only four months before it went bankrupt. Alpha Resources has obligations of almost a half billion dollars. But over the past three years even “strong” coal companies <a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2016-03-23/peabody-problems-show-how-taxpayers-lose-with-coal-companies" target="blank">like Peabody have plummeted towards bankruptcy</a>, making it impossible for them to actually pay their accumulated reclamation costs. Yet state regulator‘s took no effective action to make them put up bonds for the reclamation costs everyone knew were coming. More than 75 percent of Wyoming’s massive clean up bill is “self-bonded” by companies most of which no longer exist or will shortly no longer exist.Now given Republican Congressional rhetoric about President Obama’s “war on coal” and <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/14/hillary-clinton-promise-were-going-to-put-a-lot-of-coal-companies-and-coal-miners-out-of-business/" target="blank">the latest indignation</a> about <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=clinton">Hilary Clinton</a>’s clumsily phrased honesty in recognizing that a lot of coal companies are going out because the market no longer needs the coal they produce, you might think that Democrats had been fierce in cracking down on coal company scofflaws. Alas, until very recently both parties have looked the other way. Obama’s Interior Department <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/corporate-welfare-for-coal.pdf?9e7084" target="blank">continued to award sweetheart coal mining leases</a> of publicly owned coal with no competitive bidding. It permitted coal companies to create shell companies <a href="http://www.ktvq.com/story/28958515/federal-coal-royalties-under-scrutiny-by-interior-department" target="blank">to avoid paying legally obligatory royalties</a>. It allowed the states the play along with the “self-bonding” rip-off. And the Justice Department took no effective action to prevent the coal industry from shifting its pension and health care debts to the taxpayers and workers.<span data-sheets-value="[null,2," this="This" year-old="year-old" citizen="citizen" activist="activist" is="is" running="running" for="for" congress="Congress" data-sheets-userformat="[null,null,6659,[null,0],[null,2,16711680],null,null,null,null,null,null,null,0,null,[null,2,2236962]," arial="arial" sans-serif="sans-serif">This 24-year-old citizen activist is running for CongressFinally, in February 2015, the Administration  moved, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/02/3618103/power-plus-plan-for-coal-miners/" target="blank">proposing a “Power Plus” plan</a> to help protect miner’s pensions, health care and the economic based on coal dependent communities. (It also moved in the same month to reform royalty abuses).But, of course, by this time such aid required Congressional appropriations. Bankruptcy courts had already let Patriot and other companies dump their pension and health care obligations. The same Republican leaders who blasted Obama for making war on coal denounced the new plan. Leading the charge? Kentucky Senator and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who made it clear that his hostility towards the United Mines Workers trumped whatever concern he might have had for Kentucky coal miners. In December, <a href="http://www.wymt.com/content/news/Report-McConnell-blocked-efforts-to-rescue-health-pension-funds-for-miners-368574531.html" target="blank">McConnell personally blocked efforts</a> to include community and pension rescue efforts in the budget deal Republicans cut with Obama.Here there is a partisan difference. Democrats who are waging “War on Coal” favor keeping the promise America made to coal miners. Hilary Clinton has <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11278138/clinton-coal-gaffe" target="blank">strongly advocated help</a> for the workers and communities.How do conservatives justify this stand? By calling any effort to ensure that miners get the pensions they earned yes, “a bailout.” But <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/03/congress-can-help-pensioners-but-not-through-a-bailout" target="blank">conservative attacks on such efforts to protect pensions</a> simply don’t mention the shenanigans by which companies like Peabody got rid of their debts. These are actually worse than bailouts. In a bailout the calculation is that a healthy enterprise emerges. But there is no prospect in these cases that Patriot, Arch or Shortly Peabody is going to bounce back.These are give-aways. What is hard to calculate is how big and costly they are. The UMW Pension fund, for example, protects more than 100,000 coal miners and former miners. It has $3.8 billion in assets, but must pay out about $600 million a year—so if it goes bankrupt, (ignoring the likely collateral damage to the whole U.S. pension insurance system) over a decade $6 billion could be transferred from the coal industry to the public—12 Solydras! How much are the reclamation costs being forgiven? Well, an earlier generation of mining reclamation costs are <a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/coal-bonding-time-to-revisit-self-bonding-requirements" target="blank">now estimated to cost $17 billion—34 Solyndras</a>. And the pending defaults on self-bonded mining costs seem likely to run <a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/coal-bonding-time-to-revisit-self-bonding-requirements" target="blank">another $2.7 billion.</a> So the total give-aways to coal companies as they race towards bankruptcy seems to be over $25 billion—almost 50 Solyndras. That’s quite a bailout—the GM bailout cost taxpayers only $11.2 billion, less than half as much and the taxpayers got a healthy GM out of the deal—we get nothing from coal give-aways.So the next time some economist earnestly lectures you on the need to avoid subsidizing clean energy, or a Republican says government shouldn’t pick winners and losers, ask them to show you where—and how loudly—they denounced the Big Coal Bailout of 2016.YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE<a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/30/boom-bust-future-coal/" style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);">Boom & Bust: The Future of Coal-Fired Power Plants</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/30/link-fracking-earthquakes/" style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);">Groundbreaking Study Confirms Link Between Fracking and Earthquakes</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/30/climate-change-investigation-exxon/" style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);">20 Attorneys General Launch Climate Fraud Investigation of Exxon</a><a class="black-to-green" href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/24/china-puts-brakes-on-new-coal-plants/" style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);">China Puts the Brakes on New Coal Plants</a>

<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/25/renewable-energy-investments/">http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/25/renewable-energy-investments/</a>Global investment in renewable energy was more than twice that of coal and gas last year, according to a <a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=d52c49ba01&e=d462721836" target="blank">new report</a>, despite plummeting fossil fuel prices.
<div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; text-align: left;"></div><div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/06/12845/Jeb-Bush-Speaking-at-Secret-Coal-Industry-Retreat" style="font-style: inherit;">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/06/12845/Jeb-Bush-Speaking-at-Secret-Coal-Industry-Retreat</a></div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; text-align: left;">Jeb Bush is the highest profile speaker at a secretive three-day retreat in Bristol, Virginia, hosted by the CEOs of six coal companies, according to materials for the invitation-only event obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and shared with the Guardian.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The event, dubbed the "Coal & Investment Leadership Forum," which started Sunday and goes through Tuesday, is taking place at an exclusive private golf course and resort called the "Olde Farm," owned by the founder of United Coal Company, Jim McGlothlin. The private country club is known for its annual golf tournament in which players take sides in the Civil War for the South or the Union and which is described by McGlothlin as "our most cherished tradition."</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">In addition to United Coal, the forum is being hosted by the CEOs of five other coal companies: Alliance Resource Partners, Alpha Natural Resources, Consol Energy, Drummond Company, and Arch Coal.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bush is the only candidate expected to run for the 2016 presidential election speaking at the event.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The materials don't say what Bush will be speaking about, but in a room of coal industry executives and potential major Bush campaign funders, climate change and proposed cuts in carbon emissions are sure to dominate the conversation.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The purpose of the event was outlined in a letter from the coal hosts to invitees: "Our industry needs to keep a loud voice with top representatives of our government."</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Having long bemoaned of a "war on coal," facing massive losses in share value, and the likely closure of many coal plants under the Clean Power Plan, the coal industry must be looking to Jeb Bush as a potential ally.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">"It would be our hope that he would touch upon his general energy policies," McGlothlin told the Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Bush has long been considered a climate change denier.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">In 2009 he told Esquire: "I'm a skeptic. I'm not a scientist. I think the science has been politicized."</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Donate to CMD!</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Speaking at a May 2015 fundraising event in New Hampshire, Bush said that it would be "arrogant" to say that the science on climate change is settled.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Despite Bush's claims, which appear to pander to the same dirty energy his family made a fortune in, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is changing because of human activities.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Fully 97% of peer reviewed scientific papers on the topic are in agreement on this, as are the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, NASA, the American Medical Association and countless other bodies of scientific thought.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Just four speakers--including Bush--are scheduled to present over the three days, with most of the time set aside for less formal interactions: "significant time will also be available for golf, fly fishing, one-on-one meetings and small VIP discussion groups, which is the hallmark of this conference," boasts the invitation.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray will also be in attendance, according to reporting by SNL. Murray made news in 2012 when he forced workers at one of his mines in Ohio to attend a Mitt Romney campaign event, closing the mine for the day and docking the miners' wages. Murray reportedly hasn't yet decided who he will be supporting in the upcoming Republican primaries.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Senator Mitch McConnell had been one of the potential speakers but apparently was not able to make the event.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Chris Horner, a lawyer from the coal-industry funded Competitive Enterprise Institute will present on the final day. Horner is also a lawyer for Energy & Environment Legal Institute (formally known as "American Tradition Institute").</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">This is the fourth year the coal companies have held this event, but none of the previous events received any media reporting. It is not known if Jeb Bush attended the previous events because the organizers bar the press from hearing what policymakers promise the coal barons who attend the event.</div>
<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters</a>Coal mining disasters include harm to miners, the public, and the environment. This article discusses disasters involving coal mining, coal sludge spills, and coal transport.<div id="toc" class="toc" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><div id="toctitle" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr;"><h2 style="color: black; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border: none; display: inline; line-height: 1.3; background: none;">Contents</h2>  [<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#" id="togglelink" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">hide</a>] </div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Coal_Mining_Accidents" style="background: none; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">1 Coal Mining Accidents</a></div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#United_States" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.1 United States</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Canada" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.2 Canada</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#China" style="background: none; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">1.3 China</a></div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-5" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Blast_kills_77_in_China.27s_worst_industrial_accident_in_over_a_year" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.1 Blast kills 77 in China's worst industrial accident in over a year</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-6" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Coal_mine_flood_kills_7_in_northeast_China" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.2 Coal mine flood kills 7 in northeast China</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-7" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Miners_trapped_for_25_days_in_flooded_mine" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.3 Miners trapped for 25 days in flooded mine</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-8" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Mine_explosion_kills_more_than_100" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.4 Mine explosion kills more than 100</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-9" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Shanxi_Province_Coal_Mine_Flood" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.5 Shanxi Province Coal Mine Flood</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-10" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#October_2011:Explosion_in_Chinese_coal_mine_kills_at_least_17_workers" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.6 October 2011: Explosion in Chinese coal mine kills at least 17 workers</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-11" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#October_2011:8_die_in_southwestern_China_coal_mine_accident" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.7 October 2011: 8 die in southwestern China coal mine accident</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-12" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#November_2011:52_coal_miners_rescued_following_explosion.2C_eight_dead" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.8 November 2011: 52 coal miners rescued following explosion, eight dead</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-13" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#November_2011:Coal_mine_blast_kills_20.2C_traps_23_in_China" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.9 November 2011: Coal mine blast kills 20, traps 23 in China</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-14" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#January_2012:Collapse_at_coal_mine_in_southwestern_China_kills_9" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.10 January 2012: Collapse at coal mine in southwestern China kills 9</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-15" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#July_2012:16_coal_miners_in_southern_China_trapped_in_flooded_mine_shaft" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.11 July 2012: 16 coal miners in southern China trapped in flooded mine shaft</a></li><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-16" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#July_2013:Coal_mine_blast_in_Xinhua_kills_53" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.3.12 July 2013: Coal mine blast in Xinhua kills 53</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-17" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#New_Zealand" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.4 New Zealand</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-18" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Poland" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.5 Poland</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-19" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Russia" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.6 Russia</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-20" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#United_Kingdom" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1.7 United Kingdom</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-21" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Coal_Sludge_Spills" style="background: none; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">2 Coal Sludge Spills</a></div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-22" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#1966:Aberfan" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2.1 1966: Aberfan</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-23" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#1972:Buffalo_Creek_Flood" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2.2 1972: Buffalo Creek Flood</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-24" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#2000:Martin_County_Sludge_Spill" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2.3 2000: Martin County Sludge Spill</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-25" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#2008:TVA_Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_ash_spill" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2.4 2008: TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash spill</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-26" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#January_2009:TVA_Widows_Creek_coal_waste_spill" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2.5 January 2009: TVA Widows Creek coal waste spill</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-27" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Coal_Transport_Disasters" style="background: none; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">3 Coal Transport Disasters</a></div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-28" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#2010:Shen_Neng_1_coal_carrier_collision" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.1 2010: Shen Neng 1 coal carrier collision</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-29" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Resources" style="background: none; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">4 Resources</a></div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-30" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#References" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4.1 References</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-31" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#Related_SourceWatch_articles" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4.2 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li></ul></li></ul></div><h2 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Coal Mining Accidents</h2>Coal mining accidents can occur in the process of mining coal, and have a variety of causes, including leaks of poisonous gases such as hydrogen sulphide<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[1]</a> or explosive natural gases especially firedamp or<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Methane" title="Methane" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">methane</a>,<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[2]</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_dust" title="Coal dust" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">coal dust</a> dust explosions, collapsing of mine stopes, mining-induced seismicity<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a>, flooding, or general mechanical errors from improperly used or malfunctioning mining equipment.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-NIOSH-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a>Since many of these disasters are exacerbated by lack of regulation and/or enforcement, some refer to these incidents not as "accidents" but as human-caused disasters. Around the world, thousands of miners die each year from coal mining accidents, with the largest number of deaths occuring in China.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-Xiaohui-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[5]</a><h3 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">United States</h3>According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), there have been 622 coal mining accidents that resulted in five or more fatalities from 1839 to 2007.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-NIOSH-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a> On October 11, 2010, the 45th US miner died so far that year: William Dooley, a roof bolter, was crushed by falling rock at an <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alpha_Natural_Resources" title="Alpha Natural Resources" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Alpha Natural Resources</a> Mine in West Virginia.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[6]</a>The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monongah_Mining_Disaster" title="Monongah Mining Disaster" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Monongah Mining Disaster</a> was the worst mining accident in American history; 362 men and young boys were killed in an underground explosion on December 6, 1907 in Monongah, West Virginia.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-NIOSH-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a>Following a decade in which the number of coal mining fatalities exceeded 2,000 annually, Congress established the Bureau Of Mines in 1910 as a new agency in the Department of the Interior. The Bureau was to investigate accidents, advise industry, conduct production and safety research, and teach courses in accident prevention, first aid, and mine rescue. However, Congress did not empower the federal inspectors to enter and inspect mines until 1941, and did not authorize a code of federal regulations for mine safety until 1947.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-Philpot-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[7]</a>The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Acts of 1969 and 1977 set greater safety standards for the industry. Where annual mining deaths had numbered more than 1,000 a year in the early part of the 20th century, they decreased to an average of about 500 in the late 1950s, and to 93 during the 1990s. In addition to deaths, many thousands more are injured (an average of 21,351 injuries per year between 1991 and 1999).<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a>In 2006, 72 miners (coal and non-coal) lost their lives at work, 47 in coal mining. The majority of these fatalities occurred in <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kentucky" title="Kentucky" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Kentucky</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/West_Virginia" title="West Virginia" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">West Virginia</a>, including the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sago_Mine_Disaster" title="Sago Mine Disaster" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Sago Mine Disaster</a> and the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Aracoma_Alma_Mine_accident" title="Aracoma Alma Mine accident" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Aracoma Alma Mine accident</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[10]</a>On April 5, 2010, an explosion at a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Massey_Energy" title="Massey Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Massey Energy</a>'s underground <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Upper_Big_Branch_Mine_South" title="Upper Big Branch Mine South" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Upper Big Branch Mine</a> in southern West Virginia killed 25 miners, with four unaccounted for, making it the worst U.S. coal mining accident in two decades.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-la_times-11" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[11]</a> Mine-safety experts said explosions are typically caused by high levels of methane produced during <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Longwall_mining" title="Longwall mining" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">longwall mining</a>, which mining companies try to dilute with ventilation systems, although Massey has been repeatedly cited for violating this requirement: the Upper Big Branch mine has had six violations related to ventilation since January and four since March 17, according to Mine Safety and Health Administration data. In 2009, the mine had 50 "unwarrantable failure citations," the most serious findings of negligence a mine inspector can issue, including a citation for not properly marking miner escape routes in case of an accident.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[12]</a> There have been three other fatalities at the Upper Big Branch mine in the last 12 years.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-la_times-11" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[11]</a>The Mine Safety and Health Administration reported that 21 U.S. coal miners died in accidents in 2011.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-13" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[13]</a>...<h2 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Coal Sludge Spills</h2><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_sludge" title="Coal sludge" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Coal sludge</a>, also known as slurry, is the liquid <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_waste" title="Coal waste" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">coal waste</a> produced by mining activities. After mining, coal is crushed and washed to remove the surrounding soil and rock. The washing process generates huge amounts of liquid waste, and the mining process itself produces millions of tons of solid waste. Coal sludge is filled with toxins. Each year coal preparation creates waste water containing an estimated 13 tons of mercury, 3236 tons of arsenic, 189 tons of beryllium, 251 tons of cadmium, and 2754 tons of nickel, and 1098 tons of selenium.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-rachel-48" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[48]</a>Coal companies usually dispose of this waste by constructing dams from the solid mining refuse to store the liquid waste. These impoundments are usually located in valleys near their coal processing plants.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-49" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[49]</a>These impoundments have broken open, flooding neighborhoods, killing and injuring people, and contaminating the water supply:<h3 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">1966: Aberfan</h3><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Aberfan" title="Aberfan" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Aberfan</a> is a village four miles south of Merthyr Tydfil in Wales, England. The village is chiefly known because of the catastrophic collapse of a coal mining sludge spill that occurred there in 1966, known as the Aberfan Disaster, which killed 144 people, including 116 children.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-Johnes-50" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[50]</a><h3 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">1972: Buffalo Creek Flood</h3>The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Buffalo_Creek_Flood" title="Buffalo Creek Flood" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Buffalo Creek Flood</a> was an incident that occurred on February 26, 1972, when the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pittston_Coal_Company" title="Pittston Coal Company" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Pittston Coal Company</a>'s coal slurry impoundment dam #3, located on a hillside in Logan County, West Virginia, burst four days after having been declared 'satisfactory' by a federal mine inspector.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-MM-51" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[51]</a>The resulting flood unleashed approximately 132 million gallons (500,000,000 L) of black waste water, cresting over 30ft high, upon the residents of 16 coal mining hamlets in Buffalo Creek Hollow. Out of a population of 5,000 people, 125 were killed, 1,121 were injured, and over 4,000 were left homeless. 507 houses were destroyed, in addition to forty-four mobile homes and 30 businesses.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-MM-51" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[51]</a> The disaster also destroyed or damaged homes in Lundale, Saunders, Amherstdale, Crites, Latrobe and Larado. In its legal filings, Pittston Coal referred to the accident as "an Act of God."Dam #3, constructed of coarse mining refuse dumped into the Middle Fork of Buffalo Creek starting in 1968, failed first, following heavy rains. The water from Dam #3 then overwhelmed Dams #2 and #1. Dam #3 had been built on top of coal slurry sediment that had collected behind dams # 1 and #2, instead of on solid bedrock. Dam #3 was approximately 260 feet above the town of Saunders when it failed.<h3 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">2000: Martin County Sludge Spill</h3>The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Martin_County_Sludge_Spill" title="Martin County Sludge Spill" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Martin County Sludge Spill</a> occurred after midnight on October 11, 2000 when the bottom of a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_sludge" title="Coal sludge" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">coal sludge</a> impoundment owned by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Massey_Energy" title="Massey Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Massey Energy</a> in Martin County, Kentucky, broke into an abandoned underground mine below. The slurry came out of the mine openings, sending an estimated 306 million gallons (1.16 billion liters) of sludge down two tributaries of the Tug Fork River. By morning, Wolf Creek was oozing with the black waste; on Coldwater Fork, a ten-foot (3 m) wide stream became a 100-yard (91 m) expanse of thick sludge.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-Sludge-52" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[52]</a><h3 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">2008: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/TVA_Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_ash_spill" title="TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash spill" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash spill</a></h3><div class="thumb tleft" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; float: left; clear: left; margin: 0.5em 1.4em 1.3em 0px; width: auto; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); line-height: 22.4px;"><div class="thumbinner" style="text-align: left; min-width: 100px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 3px; overflow: hidden; width: 302px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/File:SPILL2.JPG" class="image" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><img alt="" src="http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/thumb/9/96/SPILL2.JPG/300px-SPILL2.JPG" class="thumbimage" srcset="/images/thumb/9/96/SPILL2.JPG/450px-SPILL2.JPG 1.5x, /images/9/96/SPILL2.JPG 2x" height="201" width="300" style="border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); vertical-align: middle;" /></a></div></div>







On December 22, 2008, a retention pond wall collapsed at Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kingston_Fossil_Plant" title="Kingston Fossil Plant" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Kingston plant</a> in Harriman, Tennessee, releasing a combination of water and fly ash that flooded 12 homes, spilled into nearby Watts Bar Lake, contaminated the Emory River, and caused a train wreck. Officials said 4 to 6 feet of material escaped from the pond to cover an estimated 400 acres of adjacent land. A train bringing coal to the plant became stuck when it was unable to stop before reaching the flooded tracks.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-knox-53" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[53]</a> Hundreds of fish were floating dead downstream from the plant.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-knox2-54" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[54]</a> Water tests showed elevated levels of lead and thallium.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-55" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[55]</a><h3 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">January 2009: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/TVA_Widows_Creek_coal_waste_spill" title="TVA Widows Creek coal waste spill" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">TVA Widows Creek coal waste spill</a></h3>On January 9, 2009, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tennessee_Valley_Authority" title="Tennessee Valley Authority" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Tennessee Valley Authority</a> confirmed another coal waste spill at its <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Widows_Creek_Fossil_Plant" title="Widows Creek Fossil Plant" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Widows Creek plant</a> in northeast Alabama, less than three weeks after the enormous <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/TVA_Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_ash_spill" title="TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash spill" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Tennessee coal ash spill</a> at TVA's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kingston_Fossil_Plant" title="Kingston Fossil Plant" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Kingston Fossil Plant</a>. The spill, which TVA said originated from a gypsum treatment operation, released about 10,000 gallons of toxic gypsum material, some of which spilled into Widows Creek and the nearby Tennessee River.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-56" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[56]</a>Gypsum ponds contain limestone spray from smokestack scrubbers, which trap <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sulfur_dioxide_and_coal" title="Sulfur dioxide and coal" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">sulfur dioxide</a> emissions before they are released into the air and turn them into sludge and solid waste.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-ens-57" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[57]</a> According to a TVA statement, the spill occurred at 6 AM when a cap dislodged from a 30-inch standpipe, releasing material from the gypsum pond into a settling pond, which then reached capacity and overflowed.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mining_disasters#cite_note-58" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[58]</a>CPP lawyers
Lawyers from coal-dependent states, led by West Virginia, are <a href="http://www.energyandpolicy.org/states-file-stay-against-the-clean-power-plan" title="Link: http://www.energyandpolicy.org/states-file-stay-against-the-clean-power-plan" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">challenging President Obama’s Clean Power Plan</a>. Joining their effort is an army of industry-funded law firms that specialize in fighting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Together, they will argue that the EPA does not have any authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to issue the carbon regulations; they will also contest the legality of the <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/obamas-carbon-rule-hangs-on-this-one-legal-question/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">“fence line</a>” used to set state emission targets. Yet, buried in coverage of the litigation is the fact that the coalition suing the EPA is connected to some of the largest electric utility companies in the country – and many have purposefully kept themselves at arms’ length so that their customers never know they are funding lawyers who are working to stop one of  President Obama’s main pillars to fight climate change. Policymakers, regulators, and customers should know what electricity companies are secretly working together with coal companies to sue the EPA. Above is a network map built using the LittleSis free database. It details connections between powerful people and organizations; the data is derived from government filings, news articles, and other reputable sources. This map illustrates the links between the handful of lawyers involved in the litigation against the Clean Power Plan and the companies paying their firms. The National Mining Association (NMA), shown in the middle of the LittleSis network map, <a href="http://www.nma.org/pdf/tmp/080315-NMA-request-for-EPA-to-Stay-CPP.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">filed a stay with the EPA</a> to stop the plan from going into effect earlier this month. This is in addition to a stay filed on August 5 by the coal-dependent states that has recently resulted in the <a href="http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/08/14/document_ew_04.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">attorneys general</a> <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060023474" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">filing an emergency petition</a> in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking for federal judges to postpone the rule’s deadlines. NMA was <a href="http://www.republicreport.org/2015/meet-the-lawyers-who-pushed-the-supreme-court-to-block-toxic-power-plant-rules/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">represented by Troutman Sanders</a> in <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/michigan-v-environmental-protection-agency/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Michigan et al. vs. EPA</a>, which was the case decided in June regarding the mercury and air toxics standard (MATS). NMA is also a <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jwalke/UARG%20members%20from%202006%20filing%20on%20PM%20standards.pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Acrobat%20Pro.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">member in the Utility Air Regulatory Group</a> (UARG), run by attorneys at Hunton & Williams. Clicking on NMA in the network map will highlight the connections and reveal the manner in which the trade association is linked to the companies and/or lawyers. After the Clean Power Plan was released, The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/obama-unveils-plan-to-sharply-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html?r=0" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">reported</a> that Peter Glaser, an attorney at Troutman Sanders, has been holding meetings with <a href="http://www.sidley.com/people/martella_roger" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Roger Martella Jr. of Sidley Austin</a> to devise the legal strategy to throw out EPA’s regulation via the courts. Additionally, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), another trade association that is also a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2190240-american-coalition-for-clean-coal-electricity.html#document/p2/a233558" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">member of the Utility Air Regulatory Group</a> and includes <a href="http://www.southerncompany.com/news/2015-05-27-so-annual-meeting.cshtml" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Southern Company as a member</a>, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-02/wind-and-solar-cheer-as-coal-vows-legal-battle-on-energy-plan" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">said</a>, “It’s illegal and we will not stop opposing it until it is withdrawn completely.” ACCCE is shown above NMA in the network map and is linked to other companies besides Southern. The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a group of power and coal companies <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WULWozFgN1oJ:ercc.bracewellgiuliani.info/+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">run out of Bracewell & Giuliani</a> that also <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000022035&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">pays Hunton & Williams</a>, <a href="https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-33425052-11833&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvq%2FLdO%2FhmjTEU5z17ugtWaS3gIkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMT8VkMLjYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3FJNANysRuRhDgCw%3D%3D" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">said</a> the that final plan still intrudes into state affairs and that it contains issues that could expose it to significant legal challenges.  And when the EPA was formally published in the Federal Register, Paul Monies of The Oklahoman <a href="http://newsok.com/pruitt-files-quick-challenge-to-epa-carbon-rule/article/5455443/?page=2" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">reported</a> Baker & Hostetler LLP is representing Oklahoma Attorney General Pruitt in the lawsuit. Attorney David Rivkin said, "They're really trying to hurt coal on every possible regulatory means." Here are some of the companies that fund law firms known to be working against the Clean Power Plan: Bracewell & Giuliani’s <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/blog/meet-coal-lobbyists-who-call-mercury-safeguards-unfortunate" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Electric Reliability Coordinating Council</a>:•   <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000021879&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Ameren</a>•   <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000021879&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Arch Coal</a>•   <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000021879&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">DTE Energy</a>•   <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000021879&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Duke Energy</a>•   <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000021879&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Energy Future Holdings</a>•   <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000021879&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Southern Company</a> Hunton & Williams’ <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-22767" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Utility Air Regulatory Group</a>:•   <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2111936-aep-comments-to-epa.html#document/p2/a224973" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">American Electric Power</a>•   <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1374693-2013-eei-990.html#document/p9/a217534" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Edison Electric Institute</a>•   <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2111099-duke-energy-comments-to-epa.html#document/p11/a224823" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Duke Energy</a>•   <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000022035&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Energy Future Holdings</a>•   <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000022035&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Southern Company</a> Troutman Sanders:•   <a href="http://www.nma.org/index.php/member-list" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Alpha Natural Resources</a>•   <a href="http://www.nma.org/index.php/member-list" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Arch Coal</a>•   <a href="http://www.nma.org/index.php/member-list" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Cloud Peak Energy</a>•   <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1211709/efhcorporateservicessofa.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Energy Future Holdings</a>•   <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV5/14-46_pet_nma_reply.authcheckdam.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">National Mining Association</a>•   <a href="http://www.nma.org/index.php/member-list" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Peabody Energy</a>•   <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000022287&year=2015" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Southern Company</a> Sidley Austin:In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">American Electric Power v. Connecticut </a>that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions under federal common law, because the Clean Air Act delegates the management of carbon dioxide emissions to the EPA. Peter Keisler, a partner at Sidley Austin, <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_10_174" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">argued on behalf of the petitioners</a>:•   American Electric Power•   Cinergy Company•   Southern Company•   Xcel Energy Earlier this year, Keisler, along with Roger Martella Jr. also argued on behalf of the Pacific Legal Foundation in a case led by Murray Energy seeking to preemptively throw out the Clean Power Plan. The original <a href="http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/61AA9C6759829C8B85257E5F005110D8/%24file/14-1112.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">plaintiffs before the court</a> were <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/murray-energy" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Murray Energy</a> and West Virginia. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/peabody-energy" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Peabody Energy,</a> the <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/12/04/influence-analytics-what-is-the-utility-air-regulatory-group-which-opposes-obamas-clean-power-plan/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Utility Air Regulatory Group</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Legal_Foundation" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Pacific Legal Foundation</a>, <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/national-mining-association" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">National Mining Association</a>, the <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/american-coalition-clean-coal-electricity-accce" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a>, and 13 additional states joined the plaintiffs’ cause.  In June, the federal appeals court in Washington DC dismissed that lawsuit as premature. This LittleSis network map will be updated as polluters fund more attorneys in the fight against the Clean Power Plan. Others with new information are encouraged to build off of this map and connect more companies to the law firms. Not only is it important for people to see these connections, but many will remember that in 2009, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/09/02/174417/duke-quits-accce/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Duke Energy was pressured to leave ACCCE</a> after it was caught playing both sides of the Waxman-Markey debate: it publically supported the bill but also was a paying member of ACCCE, which was working to kill the legislation. Duke Energy also quit the National Association of Manufacturers for similar reasons. If utility companies voice support for the Clean Power Plan, it’s crucial to put pressure on them to leave front groups or trade associations working to fight the EPA. Pacific Legal Foundation Background Ronald Zumbrun and Ramond Momboise, former advisors to California Gov. Ronald Reagan, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-tushnet7jul07-story.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">founded the Pacific Legal Foundation</a>. The founding results from Lewis F. Powell’s <a href="http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">secret memo</a> to a friend at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System.” Powell wanted the business community to create non-for-profit law firms; thus, the<a href="http://prospect.org/article/legend-powell-memo" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Pacific Legal Foundation was created</a>. It’s website <a href="http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-tushnet7jul07-story.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">says</a> it exists to fight “tyranny” engendered by “overzealous bureaucracies and government red tape” and that it is a foe of “government regulators and environmental extremists.” Powell would go on to become a Supreme Court justice. Patric Morrisey BackgroundPatrick Morrisey is the Attorney General in West Virginia. Besides leading the states to sue the EPA earlier this year, he recently joined with 15 other states to ask the EPA for an immediate stay of its Clean Power Plan pending the outcome of an impending legal challenge to the rule. From 2004 to 2010, Morrisey was a partner at Sidley Austin LLP. In his campaign to become Attorney General American Electric Power, Alpha Natural Resources, Arch Coal, and Consol Energy, just to name a few, donated to his campaign.  Baker & Hosteler BackgroundIn Michigan v. EPA in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 5-4 vote struck down the EPA's carefully crafted rules to limit the emission of mercury and other toxic pollutants from oil and coal power plants, <a href="http://www.bakerlaw.com/davidbrivkinjr" title="Link: http://www.bakerlaw.com/davidbrivkinjr" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">David B. Rivkin Jr.</a> of Baker & Hostetler represented the Cato Institute, which in turn has <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute#Finances_and_Funding" title="Link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute#Finances_and_Funding" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">received millions</a> from energy interests including the David H. Koch Foundation and ExxonMobil. Rivkin worked in the Reagan Justice Department and was the associate general counsel at the Department of Energy under George H. W. Bush. More recently, he has been part of the legal effort to strike down Obamacare and also has <a href="http://www.law360.com/articles/392593/7th-circ-says-rumsfeld-can-t-be-held-liable-for-torture" title="Link: http://www.law360.com/articles/392593/7th-circ-says-rumsfeld-can-t-be-held-liable-for-torture" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 122, 183); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">defeated lawsuits</a> aimed at holding former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally liable for alleged torture in Iraq. Rivkin also argued the cause for petitioner State of Texas in Texas v. EPA, which was decided in July 2013. The U.S. Court of Appeals slapped down Texas’ attempt to block the EPA from controlling the state’s system for issuing permits to power plants.
http://littlesis.org/maps/872-lawyers-suing-the-epa-over-clean-power-plan<div style="text-align: left;">=</div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0308/JPMorgan-moves-to-divest-from-coal-at-least-partly" style="font-style: inherit;">http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0308/JPMorgan-moves-to-divest-from-coal-at-least-partly</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div>
<a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/27012016/new-mexico-coal-plant-partial-shutdown-san-juan-generating-station-pnm">http://insideclimatenews.org/news/27012016/new-mexico-coal-plant-partial-shutdown-san-juan-generating-station-pnm</a>

lcv BREAKING: Minutes ago, the White House announced a temporary pause to new coal mining leases on public lands, effectively stopping production of at least 3.5 billion tons of coal! 1/16
pnas AMERICAN COAL FOUNDATION  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundationlesson plans<div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; direction: ltr; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); line-height: 22.4px;">The American Coal Foundation is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit funded by coal and mining interests that creates and distributes educational materials, like school curricula, to teachers in an effort to positively influence children's perception of the extractive energy industries.ACF's elementary school lesson plans include an activity called "Cookie Mining," where students participate in a simulation of the mining process using chocolate chip cookies and toothpicks.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[1]</a> Other subjects covered include "clean coal" and mining reclamation.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_note-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[2]</a><div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><div id="toctitle" style="text-align: left; direction: ltr;"><h2 style="color: black; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border: none; display: inline; line-height: 1.3; background: none;">Contents</h2>  [<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#" id="togglelink" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">hide</a>] </div><ul style="line-height: 1.5em; list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#Controversy_over_materials:coal_curriculum" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1 Controversy over materials: coal curriculum</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#Contact_details" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2 Contact details</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#Articles_and_resources" style="background: none; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">3 Articles and resources</a></div><ul style="line-height: 1.5em; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#References" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.1 References</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#Related_SourceWatch_resources" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.2 Related SourceWatch resources</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#External_resources" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.3 External resources</a></li></ul></li></ul></div><h2 style="text-align: left; color: black; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none;">Controversy over materials: coal curriculum</h2>In May 2011, it was reported that the American Coal Foundation paid <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Scholastic,Inc." title="Scholastic, Inc." class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Scholastic</a> to help produce and place in classrooms maps and worksheets called the "United States of Energy," with much of the information from the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Mining_Association" title="National Mining Association" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">National Mining Association</a>, a coal-lobbying group. One widely distributed chart did not mention damage from mining or pollution. The Coal Foundation had been distributing materials on its own, then partnered with Scholastic so that 66,000 fourth grade teachers received materials to build into lesson plans.In the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Appalachian" title="Appalachian" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Appalachian</a> mining communities of Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, mining companies sponsor <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_Education_Development_and_Resources" title="Coal Education Development and Resources" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Coal Education Development and Resources</a> (CEDAR), which offers teachers booklets and DVDs produced by coal-burning utility <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/AEP" title="AEP" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">AEP</a> and mining giant <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peabody_Coal" title="Peabody Coal" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Peabody Coal</a>. One emphasizes how Kentucky has benefited from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_mine_reclamation" title="Coal mine reclamation" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">coal mine reclamation</a>, with little mention of any negatives of strip mining. And on the issue of coal's <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Carbon_dioxide" title="Carbon dioxide" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">carbon dioxide</a> emissions, CEDAR offers teachers a video, titled "The Greening of Planet Earth" that asserts: "As more and more scientists are confirming, our world is deficient in carbon dioxide and a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is very beneficial."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_note-LOE-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a>On May 13, 2011, Scholastic, Inc., issued the following statement regarding its partnership with the American Coal Foundation: "This week, Scholastic came under criticism for an 11" x 16" poster map which displays different sources of energy – coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind and natural gas – not so much for the content of the poster but primarily for its sponsorship by the American Coal Foundation. We acknowledge that the mere fact of sponsorship may call into question the authenticity of the information, and therefore conclude that we were not vigilant enough as to the effect of sponsorship in this instance. We have no plans to further distribute this particular program."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_note-LOE-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[3]</a>The New York Times noted that materials from the American Coal Foundation fail to mention the downsides of burning coal, particularly its negative effects on the environment and human life, such as the removal of Appalachian mountaintops; the release of sulfur dioxide, mercury and arsenic; the toxic wastes; the mining accidents; and the lung disease.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_note-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[4]</a>The organization also stated that the publisher would be undertaking a thorough review of its policy and editorial procedures on sponsored content in the future.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[5]</a><h2 style="text-align: left; color: black; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none;">Contact details</h2><div style="text-align: left;">American Coal Foundation</div><div style="text-align: left;">101 Constitution Avenue, NW</div><div style="text-align: left;">Suite 525 East</div><div style="text-align: left;">Washington, DC 20001-2133</div><div style="text-align: left;">Phone: 202-463-9785</div><div style="text-align: left;">Fax: 202-463-9786</div><div style="text-align: left;">E-Mail: info@teachcoal.org</div><div style="text-align: left; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" base64="base64" pd94bwwgdmvyc2lvbj0ims4wiiblbmnvzgluzz0ivvrgltgipz48c3znihhtbg5zpsjodhrwoi8vd3d3lnczlm9yzy8ymdawl3n2zyigd2lkdgg9ijewiibozwlnahq9ijewij48zyb0cmfuc2zvcm09inryyw5zbgf0zsgtodi2ljqyosatnjk4ljc5mskipjxyzwn0ihdpzhropsi1ljk4miigagvpz2h0psi1ljk4miiged0iodi2ljkyosiget0inzayljmwosigzmlsbd0ii2zmziigc3ryb2tlpsijmdzjii8="PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0iVVRGLTgiPz48c3ZnIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2ZyIgd2lkdGg9IjEwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEwIj48ZyB0cmFuc2Zvcm09InRyYW5zbGF0ZSgtODI2LjQyOSAtNjk4Ljc5MSkiPjxyZWN0IHdpZHRoPSI1Ljk4MiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1Ljk4MiIgeD0iODI2LjkyOSIgeT0iNzAyLjMwOSIgZmlsbD0iI2ZmZiIgc3Ryb2tlPSIjMDZjIi8" pgc="PGc" phbhdgggzd0ittgzms4xotqgnjk4ljc5mwg1ljiznhy1ljm5mwwtms41nzegms41ndutms4zms0xljmxltiunzi1idiunzi1ltiunjg5ltiunjg5idiuoda4ltiuoda4lteumzexlteumzexeiigzmlsbd0iiza2ziivpjxwyxroigq9ik04mzuundi0idy5os43otvsljaymia0ljg4ns0xljgxny0xljgxny0yljg4msayljg4ms0xljiyoc0xljiyocayljg4ms0yljg4ms0xljg1ms0xljg1mxoiigzpbgw9iinmzmyilz48l2c="PHBhdGggZD0iTTgzMS4xOTQgNjk4Ljc5MWg1LjIzNHY1LjM5MWwtMS41NzEgMS41NDUtMS4zMS0xLjMxLTIuNzI1IDIuNzI1LTIuNjg5LTIuNjg5IDIuODA4LTIuODA4LTEuMzExLTEuMzExeiIgZmlsbD0iIzA2ZiIvPjxwYXRoIGQ9Ik04MzUuNDI0IDY5OS43OTVsLjAyMiA0Ljg4NS0xLjgxNy0xLjgxNy0yLjg4MSAyLjg4MS0xLjIyOC0xLjIyOCAyLjg4MS0yLjg4MS0xLjg1MS0xLjg1MXoiIGZpbGw9IiNmZmYiLz48L2c" pc9npjwvc3znpg="=" xmlns:data="data"><a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.teachcoal.org/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" base64="base64" pd94bwwgdmvyc2lvbj0ims4wiiblbmnvzgluzz0ivvrgltgipz48c3znihhtbg5zpsjodhrwoi8vd3d3lnczlm9yzy8ymdawl3n2zyigd2lkdgg9ijewiibozwlnahq9ijewij48zyb0cmfuc2zvcm09inryyw5zbgf0zsgtodi2ljqyosatnjk4ljc5mskipjxyzwn0ihdpzhropsi1ljk4miigagvpz2h0psi1ljk4miiged0iodi2ljkyosiget0inzayljmwosigzmlsbd0ii2zmziigc3ryb2tlpsijmdzjii8="PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0iVVRGLTgiPz48c3ZnIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2ZyIgd2lkdGg9IjEwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEwIj48ZyB0cmFuc2Zvcm09InRyYW5zbGF0ZSgtODI2LjQyOSAtNjk4Ljc5MSkiPjxyZWN0IHdpZHRoPSI1Ljk4MiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1Ljk4MiIgeD0iODI2LjkyOSIgeT0iNzAyLjMwOSIgZmlsbD0iI2ZmZiIgc3Ryb2tlPSIjMDZjIi8" pgc="PGc" phbhdgggzd0ittgzms4xotqgnjk4ljc5mwg1ljiznhy1ljm5mwwtms41nzegms41ndutms4zms0xljmxltiunzi1idiunzi1ltiunjg5ltiunjg5idiuoda4ltiuoda4lteumzexlteumzexeiigzmlsbd0iiza2ziivpjxwyxroigq9ik04mzuundi0idy5os43otvsljaymia0ljg4ns0xljgxny0xljgxny0yljg4msayljg4ms0xljiyoc0xljiyocayljg4ms0yljg4ms0xljg1ms0xljg1mxoiigzpbgw9iinmzmyilz48l2c="PHBhdGggZD0iTTgzMS4xOTQgNjk4Ljc5MWg1LjIzNHY1LjM5MWwtMS41NzEgMS41NDUtMS4zMS0xLjMxLTIuNzI1IDIuNzI1LTIuNjg5LTIuNjg5IDIuODA4LTIuODA4LTEuMzExLTEuMzExeiIgZmlsbD0iIzA2ZiIvPjxwYXRoIGQ9Ik04MzUuNDI0IDY5OS43OTVsLjAyMiA0Ljg4NS0xLjgxNy0xLjgxNy0yLjg4MSAyLjg4MS0xLjIyOC0xLjIyOCAyLjg4MS0yLjg4MS0xLjg1MS0xLjg1MXoiIGZpbGw9IiNmZmYiLz48L2c" pc9npjwvc3znpg="=" xmlns:data="data" /><a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.teachcoal.org/" style="font-style: inherit; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" base64="base64" pd94bwwgdmvyc2lvbj0ims4wiiblbmnvzgluzz0ivvrgltgipz48c3znihhtbg5zpsjodhrwoi8vd3d3lnczlm9yzy8ymdawl3n2zyigd2lkdgg9ijewiibozwlnahq9ijewij48zyb0cmfuc2zvcm09inryyw5zbgf0zsgtodi2ljqyosatnjk4ljc5mskipjxyzwn0ihdpzhropsi1ljk4miigagvpz2h0psi1ljk4miiged0iodi2ljkyosiget0inzayljmwosigzmlsbd0ii2zmziigc3ryb2tlpsijmdzjii8="PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0iVVRGLTgiPz48c3ZnIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2ZyIgd2lkdGg9IjEwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEwIj48ZyB0cmFuc2Zvcm09InRyYW5zbGF0ZSgtODI2LjQyOSAtNjk4Ljc5MSkiPjxyZWN0IHdpZHRoPSI1Ljk4MiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1Ljk4MiIgeD0iODI2LjkyOSIgeT0iNzAyLjMwOSIgZmlsbD0iI2ZmZiIgc3Ryb2tlPSIjMDZjIi8" pgc="PGc" phbhdgggzd0ittgzms4xotqgnjk4ljc5mwg1ljiznhy1ljm5mwwtms41nzegms41ndutms4zms0xljmxltiunzi1idiunzi1ltiunjg5ltiunjg5idiuoda4ltiuoda4lteumzexlteumzexeiigzmlsbd0iiza2ziivpjxwyxroigq9ik04mzuundi0idy5os43otvsljaymia0ljg4ns0xljgxny0xljgxny0yljg4msayljg4ms0xljiyoc0xljiyocayljg4ms0yljg4ms0xljg1ms0xljg1mxoiigzpbgw9iinmzmyilz48l2c="PHBhdGggZD0iTTgzMS4xOTQgNjk4Ljc5MWg1LjIzNHY1LjM5MWwtMS41NzEgMS41NDUtMS4zMS0xLjMxLTIuNzI1IDIuNzI1LTIuNjg5LTIuNjg5IDIuODA4LTIuODA4LTEuMzExLTEuMzExeiIgZmlsbD0iIzA2ZiIvPjxwYXRoIGQ9Ik04MzUuNDI0IDY5OS43OTVsLjAyMiA0Ljg4NS0xLjgxNy0xLjgxNy0yLjg4MSAyLjg4MS0xLjIyOC0xLjIyOCAyLjg4MS0yLjg4MS0xLjg1MS0xLjg1MXoiIGZpbGw9IiNmZmYiLz48L2c" pc9npjwvc3znpg="=" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns:data="data">http://www.teachcoal.org/</a></div><h2 style="text-align: left; color: black; font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); line-height: 1.3; background: none;">Articles and resources</h2><h3 style="text-align: left; color: black; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none;">References</h3><div class="references-small"><ol class="references" style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li id="cite_note-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none; text-align: left; top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; user-select: none; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Jump up</a><div style="text-align: left; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">↑</a> American Coal Foundation <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.teachcoal.org/lessonplans/elementary.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" base64="base64" pd94bwwgdmvyc2lvbj0ims4wiiblbmnvzgluzz0ivvrgltgipz48c3znihhtbg5zpsjodhrwoi8vd3d3lnczlm9yzy8ymdawl3n2zyigd2lkdgg9ijewiibozwlnahq9ijewij48zyb0cmfuc2zvcm09inryyw5zbgf0zsgtodi2ljqyosatnjk4ljc5mskipjxyzwn0ihdpzhropsi1ljk4miigagvpz2h0psi1ljk4miiged0iodi2ljkyosiget0inzayljmwosigzmlsbd0ii2zmziigc3ryb2tlpsijmdzjii8="PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0iVVRGLTgiPz48c3ZnIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2ZyIgd2lkdGg9IjEwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEwIj48ZyB0cmFuc2Zvcm09InRyYW5zbGF0ZSgtODI2LjQyOSAtNjk4Ljc5MSkiPjxyZWN0IHdpZHRoPSI1Ljk4MiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1Ljk4MiIgeD0iODI2LjkyOSIgeT0iNzAyLjMwOSIgZmlsbD0iI2ZmZiIgc3Ryb2tlPSIjMDZjIi8" pgc="PGc" phbhdgggzd0ittgzms4xotqgnjk4ljc5mwg1ljiznhy1ljm5mwwtms41nzegms41ndutms4zms0xljmxltiunzi1idiunzi1ltiunjg5ltiunjg5idiuoda4ltiuoda4lteumzexlteumzexeiigzmlsbd0iiza2ziivpjxwyxroigq9ik04mzuundi0idy5os43otvsljaymia0ljg4ns0xljgxny0xljgxny0yljg4msayljg4ms0xljiyoc0xljiyocayljg4ms0yljg4ms0xljg1ms0xljg1mxoiigzpbgw9iinmzmyilz48l2c="PHBhdGggZD0iTTgzMS4xOTQgNjk4Ljc5MWg1LjIzNHY1LjM5MWwtMS41NzEgMS41NDUtMS4zMS0xLjMxLTIuNzI1IDIuNzI1LTIuNjg5LTIuNjg5IDIuODA4LTIuODA4LTEuMzExLTEuMzExeiIgZmlsbD0iIzA2ZiIvPjxwYXRoIGQ9Ik04MzUuNDI0IDY5OS43OTVsLjAyMiA0Ljg4NS0xLjgxNy0xLjgxNy0yLjg4MSAyLjg4MS0xLjIyOC0xLjIyOCAyLjg4MS0yLjg4MS0xLjg1MS0xLjg1MXoiIGZpbGw9IiNmZmYiLz48L2c" pc9npjwvc3znpg="=" xmlns:data="data">Lesson Plans - Elementary</a>, organizational web site, accessed May 17, 2011</div></li><li id="cite_note-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none; text-align: left; top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; user-select: none; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Jump up</a><div style="text-align: left; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">↑</a> American Coal Foundation <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.teachcoal.org/lessonplans/" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" base64="base64" pd94bwwgdmvyc2lvbj0ims4wiiblbmnvzgluzz0ivvrgltgipz48c3znihhtbg5zpsjodhrwoi8vd3d3lnczlm9yzy8ymdawl3n2zyigd2lkdgg9ijewiibozwlnahq9ijewij48zyb0cmfuc2zvcm09inryyw5zbgf0zsgtodi2ljqyosatnjk4ljc5mskipjxyzwn0ihdpzhropsi1ljk4miigagvpz2h0psi1ljk4miiged0iodi2ljkyosiget0inzayljmwosigzmlsbd0ii2zmziigc3ryb2tlpsijmdzjii8="PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0iVVRGLTgiPz48c3ZnIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2ZyIgd2lkdGg9IjEwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEwIj48ZyB0cmFuc2Zvcm09InRyYW5zbGF0ZSgtODI2LjQyOSAtNjk4Ljc5MSkiPjxyZWN0IHdpZHRoPSI1Ljk4MiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1Ljk4MiIgeD0iODI2LjkyOSIgeT0iNzAyLjMwOSIgZmlsbD0iI2ZmZiIgc3Ryb2tlPSIjMDZjIi8" pgc="PGc" phbhdgggzd0ittgzms4xotqgnjk4ljc5mwg1ljiznhy1ljm5mwwtms41nzegms41ndutms4zms0xljmxltiunzi1idiunzi1ltiunjg5ltiunjg5idiuoda4ltiuoda4lteumzexlteumzexeiigzmlsbd0iiza2ziivpjxwyxroigq9ik04mzuundi0idy5os43otvsljaymia0ljg4ns0xljgxny0xljgxny0yljg4msayljg4ms0xljiyoc0xljiyocayljg4ms0yljg4ms0xljg1ms0xljg1mxoiigzpbgw9iinmzmyilz48l2c="PHBhdGggZD0iTTgzMS4xOTQgNjk4Ljc5MWg1LjIzNHY1LjM5MWwtMS41NzEgMS41NDUtMS4zMS0xLjMxLTIuNzI1IDIuNzI1LTIuNjg5LTIuNjg5IDIuODA4LTIuODA4LTEuMzExLTEuMzExeiIgZmlsbD0iIzA2ZiIvPjxwYXRoIGQ9Ik04MzUuNDI0IDY5OS43OTVsLjAyMiA0Ljg4NS0xLjgxNy0xLjgxNy0yLjg4MSAyLjg4MS0xLjIyOC0xLjIyOCAyLjg4MS0yLjg4MS0xLjg1MS0xLjg1MXoiIGZpbGw9IiNmZmYiLz48L2c" pc9npjwvc3znpg="=" xmlns:data="data">Lessons by Subject</a>, organizational web site, accessed May 17, 2011</div></li><li id="cite_note-LOE-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><div style="text-align: left;">↑ </div><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none; text-align: left; top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; user-select: none; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-LOE_3-0" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Jump up to:</a><div style="text-align: left; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-LOE_3-0" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-LOE_3-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3.1</a> Jeff Young, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.pri.org/arts-entertainment/books/scholastic-distributed-coal-propaganda-in-schools3880.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" base64="base64" pd94bwwgdmvyc2lvbj0ims4wiiblbmnvzgluzz0ivvrgltgipz48c3znihhtbg5zpsjodhrwoi8vd3d3lnczlm9yzy8ymdawl3n2zyigd2lkdgg9ijewiibozwlnahq9ijewij48zyb0cmfuc2zvcm09inryyw5zbgf0zsgtodi2ljqyosatnjk4ljc5mskipjxyzwn0ihdpzhropsi1ljk4miigagvpz2h0psi1ljk4miiged0iodi2ljkyosiget0inzayljmwosigzmlsbd0ii2zmziigc3ryb2tlpsijmdzjii8="PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0iVVRGLTgiPz48c3ZnIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2ZyIgd2lkdGg9IjEwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEwIj48ZyB0cmFuc2Zvcm09InRyYW5zbGF0ZSgtODI2LjQyOSAtNjk4Ljc5MSkiPjxyZWN0IHdpZHRoPSI1Ljk4MiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1Ljk4MiIgeD0iODI2LjkyOSIgeT0iNzAyLjMwOSIgZmlsbD0iI2ZmZiIgc3Ryb2tlPSIjMDZjIi8" pgc="PGc" phbhdgggzd0ittgzms4xotqgnjk4ljc5mwg1ljiznhy1ljm5mwwtms41nzegms41ndutms4zms0xljmxltiunzi1idiunzi1ltiunjg5ltiunjg5idiuoda4ltiuoda4lteumzexlteumzexeiigzmlsbd0iiza2ziivpjxwyxroigq9ik04mzuundi0idy5os43otvsljaymia0ljg4ns0xljgxny0xljgxny0yljg4msayljg4ms0xljiyoc0xljiyocayljg4ms0yljg4ms0xljg1ms0xljg1mxoiigzpbgw9iinmzmyilz48l2c="PHBhdGggZD0iTTgzMS4xOTQgNjk4Ljc5MWg1LjIzNHY1LjM5MWwtMS41NzEgMS41NDUtMS4zMS0xLjMxLTIuNzI1IDIuNzI1LTIuNjg5LTIuNjg5IDIuODA4LTIuODA4LTEuMzExLTEuMzExeiIgZmlsbD0iIzA2ZiIvPjxwYXRoIGQ9Ik04MzUuNDI0IDY5OS43OTVsLjAyMiA0Ljg4NS0xLjgxNy0xLjgxNy0yLjg4MSAyLjg4MS0xLjIyOC0xLjIyOCAyLjg4MS0yLjg4MS0xLjg1MS0xLjg1MXoiIGZpbGw9IiNmZmYiLz48L2c" pc9npjwvc3znpg="=" xmlns:data="data">"Scholastic distributed coal propaganda in schools"</a> PRI's Living on Earth, May 16, 2011.</div></li><li id="cite_note-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none; text-align: left; top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; user-select: none; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Jump up</a><div style="text-align: left; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-4" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">↑</a> Tamar Lewin <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/education/12coal.html?r=2" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" base64="base64" pd94bwwgdmvyc2lvbj0ims4wiiblbmnvzgluzz0ivvrgltgipz48c3znihhtbg5zpsjodhrwoi8vd3d3lnczlm9yzy8ymdawl3n2zyigd2lkdgg9ijewiibozwlnahq9ijewij48zyb0cmfuc2zvcm09inryyw5zbgf0zsgtodi2ljqyosatnjk4ljc5mskipjxyzwn0ihdpzhropsi1ljk4miigagvpz2h0psi1ljk4miiged0iodi2ljkyosiget0inzayljmwosigzmlsbd0ii2zmziigc3ryb2tlpsijmdzjii8="PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0iVVRGLTgiPz48c3ZnIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2ZyIgd2lkdGg9IjEwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEwIj48ZyB0cmFuc2Zvcm09InRyYW5zbGF0ZSgtODI2LjQyOSAtNjk4Ljc5MSkiPjxyZWN0IHdpZHRoPSI1Ljk4MiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1Ljk4MiIgeD0iODI2LjkyOSIgeT0iNzAyLjMwOSIgZmlsbD0iI2ZmZiIgc3Ryb2tlPSIjMDZjIi8" pgc="PGc" phbhdgggzd0ittgzms4xotqgnjk4ljc5mwg1ljiznhy1ljm5mwwtms41nzegms41ndutms4zms0xljmxltiunzi1idiunzi1ltiunjg5ltiunjg5idiuoda4ltiuoda4lteumzexlteumzexeiigzmlsbd0iiza2ziivpjxwyxroigq9ik04mzuundi0idy5os43otvsljaymia0ljg4ns0xljgxny0xljgxny0yljg4msayljg4ms0xljiyoc0xljiyocayljg4ms0yljg4ms0xljg1ms0xljg1mxoiigzpbgw9iinmzmyilz48l2c="PHBhdGggZD0iTTgzMS4xOTQgNjk4Ljc5MWg1LjIzNHY1LjM5MWwtMS41NzEgMS41NDUtMS4zMS0xLjMxLTIuNzI1IDIuNzI1LTIuNjg5LTIuNjg5IDIuODA4LTIuODA4LTEuMzExLTEuMzExeiIgZmlsbD0iIzA2ZiIvPjxwYXRoIGQ9Ik04MzUuNDI0IDY5OS43OTVsLjAyMiA0Ljg4NS0xLjgxNy0xLjgxNy0yLjg4MSAyLjg4MS0xLjIyOC0xLjIyOCAyLjg4MS0yLjg4MS0xLjg1MS0xLjg1MXoiIGZpbGw9IiNmZmYiLz48L2c" pc9npjwvc3znpg="=" xmlns:data="data">Coal Curriculum Called Unfit for 4th Graders</a>, New York Times/Education, May 11, 2011</div></li><li id="cite_note-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none; text-align: left; top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px 1px 1px 1px); overflow: hidden; user-select: none; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Jump up</a><div style="text-align: left; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coal_Foundation#cite_ref-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">↑</a> Chris Morran, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://consumerist.com/2011/05/scholastic-pulls-big-coal-sponsored-kids-guide-to-energy-sources.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" base64="base64" pd94bwwgdmvyc2lvbj0ims4wiiblbmnvzgluzz0ivvrgltgipz48c3znihhtbg5zpsjodhrwoi8vd3d3lnczlm9yzy8ymdawl3n2zyigd2lkdgg9ijewiibozwlnahq9ijewij48zyb0cmfuc2zvcm09inryyw5zbgf0zsgtodi2ljqyosatnjk4ljc5mskipjxyzwn0ihdpzhropsi1ljk4miigagvpz2h0psi1ljk4miiged0iodi2ljkyosiget0inzayljmwosigzmlsbd0ii2zmziigc3ryb2tlpsijmdzjii8="PD94bWwgdmVyc2lvbj0iMS4wIiBlbmNvZGluZz0iVVRGLTgiPz48c3ZnIHhtbG5zPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LnczLm9yZy8yMDAwL3N2ZyIgd2lkdGg9IjEwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjEwIj48ZyB0cmFuc2Zvcm09InRyYW5zbGF0ZSgtODI2LjQyOSAtNjk4Ljc5MSkiPjxyZWN0IHdpZHRoPSI1Ljk4MiIgaGVpZ2h0PSI1Ljk4MiIgeD0iODI2LjkyOSIgeT0iNzAyLjMwOSIgZmlsbD0iI2ZmZiIgc3Ryb2tlPSIjMDZjIi8" pgc="PGc" phbhdgggzd0ittgzms4xotqgnjk4ljc5mwg1ljiznhy1ljm5mwwtms41nzegms41ndutms4zms0xljmxltiunzi1idiunzi1ltiunjg5ltiunjg5idiuoda4ltiuoda4lteumzexlteumzexeiigzmlsbd0iiza2ziivpjxwyxroigq9ik04mzuundi0idy5os43otvsljaymia0ljg4ns0xljgxny0xljgxny0yljg4msayljg4ms0xljiyoc0xljiyocayljg4ms0yljg4ms0xljg1ms0xljg1mxoiigzpbgw9iinmzmyilz48l2c="PHBhdGggZD0iTTgzMS4xOTQgNjk4Ljc5MWg1LjIzNHY1LjM5MWwtMS41NzEgMS41NDUtMS4zMS0xLjMxLTIuNzI1IDIuNzI1LTIuNjg5LTIuNjg5IDIuODA4LTIuODA4LTEuMzExLTEuMzExeiIgZmlsbD0iIzA2ZiIvPjxwYXRoIGQ9Ik04MzUuNDI0IDY5OS43OTVsLjAyMiA0Ljg4NS0xLjgxNy0xLjgxNy0yLjg4MSAyLjg4MS0xLjIyOC0xLjIyOCAyLjg4MS0yLjg4MS0xLjg1MS0xLjg1MXoiIGZpbGw9IiNmZmYiLz48L2c" pc9npjwvc3znpg="=" xmlns:data="data">"Scholastic Pulls Big Coal-Sponsored Kids Guide To Energy"</a>, The Consumerist, May 17, 2011.</div></li></ol></div><h3 style="text-align: left; color: black; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none;">Related SourceWatch resources</h3><ul style="line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" png="png" base64="base64" ivborw0kggoaaaansuheugaaaauaaaanaqmaaabb8jblaaaablbmvex="iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAAUAAAANAQMAAABb8jbLAAAABlBMVEX" auow5qsojaaaaaxrstlmaqobyzgaaabnjrefucb1jyeabbqw="AUow5QSOjAAAAAXRSTlMAQObYZgAAABNJREFUCB1jYEABBQw" wlcagqeagpidyt0ivcsaaaaasuvork5cyii=");" xmlns:data="data"><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_Industry_PR_in_Schools" title="Coal Industry PR in Schools" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Coal Industry PR in Schools</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Front_groups" title="Front groups" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Front groups</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tobacco_Industry_Youth_Smoking_Prevention_Programs" title="Tobacco Industry Youth Smoking Prevention Programs" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Tobacco Industry Youth Smoking Prevention Programs</a> (early youth education program by industry)</li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_industry_front_groups" title="Coal industry front groups" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Coal industry front groups</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/America%27s_Power" title="America's Power" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">America's Power</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/America%27s_Power_Army" title="America's Power Army" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">America's Power Army</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Balanced_Energy_Choices" title="Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Americans for Balanced Energy Choices</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Audio_news_releases" title="Audio news releases" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Audio news releases</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal" title="Clean Coal" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Clean Coal</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal_Marketing_Campaign" title="Clean Coal Marketing Campaign" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Clean Coal Marketing Campaign</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal_Technology" title="Clean Coal Technology" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Clean Coal Technology</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fake_news" title="Fake news" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Fake news</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mining_industry" title="Mining industry" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Mining industry</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Mining_Association" title="National Mining Association" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">National Mining Association</a></li><li style="text-align: left; margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/U.S.coal_industry_lobbyists_2008" title="U.S. coal industry lobbyists 2008" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">U.S. coal industry lobbyists 2008</a></li></ul><h3 style="text-align: left; color: black; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background: none;">External resources</h3></div><div id="catlinks" class="catlinks" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 5px; margin-top: 1em; clear: both; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); line-height: 22.4px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Categories</a>: <ul style="line-height: 1.5em; list-style: none none; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; display: inline;"><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left-style: none; padding: 0px 0.5em 0px 0.25em; zoom: 1;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Front_groups_portal" title="Category:Front groups portal" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Front groups portal</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Coal_Issues" title="Category:Coal Issues" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Coal Issues</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Energy" title="Category:Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Energy</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Lobbying" title="Category:Lobbying" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Lobbying</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Environment" title="Category:Environment" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Environment</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Public_health" title="Category:Public health" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Public health</a></li><li style="margin: 0.125em 0px; display: inline-block; line-height: 1.25em; border-left: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0px 0.5em; zoom: 1;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Youth" title="Category:Youth" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Youth</a></li></ul></div></div>Table!7.!InvestorUowned!&!stateUowned coal!producers!and attributed!emissionsData!set Coal!prod EmissionsEntity anno million!tonnes!(Mt) MtCO2((1.( British(Coal(Corp.,(UK 1947L1994 7,275 17,742((2. Coal(India,(India 1973L2010 8,052 14,282((3.( Peabody(Energy,(USA 1945L2010 5,341 11,461((4. CONSOL(Energy,(USA 1864L2010 3,454 8,342((5. Anglo(American,(UK 1909L2010 2,963 6,676((6. RWE,(Germany 1965L2010 4,717 6,309((7. Rio(Tinto,(Australia 1961L2010 2,697 5,495((8. Arch(Coal,(USA 1973L2010 2,550 5,428((9. BHPLBilliton,(Australia 1955L2010 2,345 5,35510. Sasol,(South(Africa 1953L2010 1,329 3,24111. Xstrata,(Switzerland 1998L2010 828 2,04912. Massey(Energy,(USA 1981L2010 811 2,02713. Alpha(Natural(Resources,(USA 1998L2010 879 1,98114. Singareni(Collieries,(India 1947L2010 978 1,73515. Occidental,(USA 1945L1992 688 1,72516. Cyprus(Amax,(USA 1969L1998 1,084 1,61117. Westmoreland(Coal,(USA 1854L2010 878 1,41118. ExxonMobil,(USA 1970L2002 619 1,31719. Chevron(Mining((&(Midway),(USA 1965L2010 504 1,22920. Kiewit(Mining(Group,(USA 1944L2010 671 1,19421. North(American(Coal,(USA 1950L2010 905 1,08822. Ruhrkohle(AG,(Germany 1989L2003 631 1,04923. Luminant,(USA 1977L2010 804 96724. BP(Coal,(The(Netherlands 1960L1989 431 91825. Murray(Coal,(USA 1988L2010 301 73426. UK(Coal,(UK 1995L2010 300 73227. Kerr(McGee((Anadarko),(USA 1979L1996 299 636Sum(all(IOC(&(SOE(coal(producers 52,333 106,736Vented(CO2 naFlaring(CO2 naFugitive(methane((CO2e) 9,043Total 115,779Table!7.!InvestorUowned!&!stateUowned coal!producers!and attributed!emissions Data!set Coal!prod Emissions !!!!!!!Entity anno million!tonnes!(Mt) MtCO2 ((1.( British(Coal(Corp.,(UK 1947L1994 7,275 17,742 ((2. Coal(India,(India 1973L2010 8,052 14,282 ((3.( Peabody(Energy,(USA 1945L2010 5,341 11,461 ((4. CONSOL(Energy,(USA 1864L2010 3,454 8,342 ((5. Anglo(American,(UK 1909L2010 2,963 6,676 ((6. RWE,(Germany 1965L2010 4,717 6,309 ((7. Rio(Tinto,(Australia 1961L2010 2,697 5,495 ((8. Arch(Coal,(USA 1973L2010 2,550 5,428 ((9. BHPLBilliton,(Australia 1955L2010 2,345 5,355 10. Sasol,(South(Africa 1953L2010 1,329 3,241 11. Xstrata,(Switzerland 1998L2010 828 2,049 12. Massey(Energy,(USA 1981L2010 811 2,027 13. Alpha(Natural(Resources,(USA 1998L2010 879 1,981 14. Singareni(Collieries,(India 1947L2010 978 1,735 15. Occidental,(USA 1945L1992 688 1,725 16. Cyprus(Amax,(USA 1969L1998 1,084 1,611 17. Westmoreland(Coal,(USA 1854L2010 878 1,411 18. ExxonMobil,(USA 1970L2002 619 1,317 19. Chevron(Mining((&(Midway),(USA 1965L2010 504 1,229 20. Kiewit(Mining(Group,(USA 1944L2010 671 1,194 21. North(American(Coal,(USA 1950L2010 905 1,088 22. Ruhrkohle(AG,(Germany 1989L2003 631 1,049 23. Luminant,(USA 1977L2010 804 967 24. BP(Coal,(The(Netherlands 1960L1989 431 918 25. Murray(Coal,(USA 1988L2010 301 734 26. UK(Coal,(UK 1995L2010 300 732 27. Kerr(McGee((Anadarko),(USA 1979L1996 299 636 Sum(all(IOC(&(SOE(coal(producers 52,333 106,736 Vented(CO2 na Flaring(CO2 na Fugitive(methane((CO2e) 9,043 Total 115,779alpha busted, hornerhristopher Horner, an attorney who <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/ec.01.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(102, 83, 255); outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">claims</a> that the earth is cooling, is known within the scientific community for hounding climate change researchers with relentless investigations and public ridicule, often deriding scientists as “communists” and frauds.Horner is a regular guest on Fox News and CNN, and has <a href="http://fmelawclinic.org/?page_id=160" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(102, 83, 255); outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">been affiliated</a> with a number of think tanks and legal organizations over the last decade. He has called for investigations of climate scientists affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA, and inundated climate researchers at major universities across the country with records requests that critics say are designed to distract them from their work.New court documents reveal one source of Horner’s funding: big coal.Last Thursday’s <a href="https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/25/coal-giant-bankruptcy-reveals-secret-ties-republican-dark-money-groups/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(102, 83, 255); outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">bankruptcy filing</a> of Alpha Natural Resources, one of the largest coal companies in America, includes line items for all of the corporation’s contractors and grant recipients. Among them are Horner individually at his home address, as well as the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, where he is a senior staff attorney.Reached by phone today about his relationship with Alpha Natural Resources, Horner said he would get back with us. David W. Schnare, director of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, subsequently emailed a response neither confirming nor denying that Horner or his organizations have received funding from the coal giant. Schnare said that “nearly all” his organization’s donors “request that we not disclose their names” and noted that under IRS regulations it is not required to do so. Schnare also stated that “the sources of our funding have no role in which cases” his organization prosecutes.The Alpha Natural Resources filing corroborates the suggestion in a recent email from chief executives of major coal firms that they are underwriting Horner’s current work.In early June this year, the Coal & Investment Leadership Forum, a trade show, sent this message to its email list: “As the ‘war on coal’ continues, I trust that the commitment we have made to support Chris Horner’s work will eventually create great awareness of the illegal tactics being employed to pass laws that are intended to destroy our industry.” The email was signed by Alliance Resource Partners’ Joe Craft III, Alpha Natural Resources’ Kevin Crutchfield, Drummond Company’s Gary Drummond, Arch Coal’s John Eaves and United Coal Co.’s Jim McGlothlin.Horner has played a prominent role in the climate science debate for many years, though he has failed to uncover wrongdoing.In 2009, thousands of emails were hacked from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia. Horner quickly blogged that the “<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/14525/blue-dress-moment-may-have-arrived-chris-horner" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(102, 83, 255); outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">blue-dress moment</a> may have arrived” and began appearing on media outlets to claim that the emails revealed “admissions of falsifying results, collaborating to subvert and violate the laws” in what he dubbed “Climategate.”“Climategate” became a media phenomenon, with prominent politicians declaring that the emails revealed that climate change is a “<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/08/ltm.03.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(102, 83, 255); outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">hoax</a>.” The Koch organization Americans for Prosperity traveled to international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009 and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100211133126/http://www.americansforprosperity.org/120809-exposing-hot-air-copenhagen" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(102, 83, 255); outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">proclaimed</a> that the emails revealed a “scandal.”Six official investigations later <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VdysfBNViko" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(102, 83, 255); outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">cleared</a> the University of East Anglia scientists of accusations of any wrongdoing.Horner has filed numerous records requests for personal emails from climate scientists and litigated to force universities to comply with his requests. Horner continued his investigations of climate scientists earlier this year by filing a records request with John Byrne, distinguished professor of energy climate policy at the University of Delaware. The request was made on behalf of the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic and the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, where Horner is a senior fellow.“He has been instrumental in orchestrating the attacks on climate scientists over the past decade in the form of vexatious and frivolous FOIA demands, efforts to force scientists to turn over all of their personal email,” says Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/02/freedom-to-bully-ucs-2015_0.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(102, 83, 255); outline: 0px; text-decoration-line: none;">targeted</a> by Horner.Horner has also often cast scientists as villains. He claimed on Alex Jones’ program “Infowars” that climate science is a backdoor strategy for enacting “global governance.” On Fox News, Horner mysteriously claimed that White House science adviser John Holdren is “if not borderline communist — communist.”In an interview with The Intercept, Dr. Gretchen T. Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists said it is “reprehensible” to learn that coal companies are “funding the harassment of scientists.”Last month, Bank of America published its <a href="http://about.bankofamerica.com/assets/pdf/Bank-of-America-2014-Corporate-Social-Responsibility-Report.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">2014 Corporate Social Responsibility Report</a> [3], which addressed the bank’s financing policies and practices in detail. This post looks back on the bank’s release of its updated <a href="http://about.bankofamerica.com/assets/pdf/COAL_POLICY.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">coal polic</a> [4]<a href="http://about.bankofamerica.com/assets/pdf/COAL_POLICY.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">y</a> [4] in May, and looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the policy update and what it means for the banking sector’s financing of coal more broadly.Bank of America’s new coal policy is both groundbreaking and imperfect. It acknowledges that the bank has a responsibility not only to finance the transition to low-carbon energy but also to cut financing for high-carbon energy sources. The policy goes well beyond comparable policies at the bank’s U.S. peers by committing to a broad cutback to BofA’s lending for coal mining both in the U.S. and internationally. However, this commitment lacks public-facing detail in terms of targets and deadlines, and fails to address the bank’s continued exposure to coal-fired power production. In spite of these flaws, Bank of America’s updated coal policy represents a clear step away from financing coal and a bold challenge to the bank’s peers in the months leading up to the Paris climate conference.Strengths<ul style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;"><li style="text-align: left;">Statement of responsibility for addressing the climate impacts of BofA’s financing – Bank of America’s updated coal policy states that the bank “has a responsibility to help mitigate climate change by leveraging our scale and resources to accelerate the transition from a high-carbon to a low-carbon society, and from high-carbon to low-carbon sources of energy.” This symbolic statement of responsibility is commendable, as it acknowledges that the bank considers addressing climate change to be an obligation and not just an optional initiative.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Commitment to reduce financing for coal mining companies worldwide – The new policy commits the bank to “continue to reduce our credit exposure to coal extraction companies” and specifies that this commitment is global in scope. Rainforest Action Network (RAN) will be monitoring Bank of America’s involvement with transactions with coal mining companies to verify that it is following through on this commitment.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Specific commitment to cut financing for producers of mountaintop removal coal – In addition to making a global commitment to cut exposure to coal mining, the policy specifically states that the bank will be cutting its exposure to companies that engage in mountaintop removal coal mining. RAN will also be tracking the bank’s follow-through on reducing its exposure to coal companies with mountaintop removal mining operations.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Additional environmental and human rights criteria for legacy coal mining transactions – The policy includes additional human rights, regulatory compliance, and environmental due diligence criteria to guide the bank’s assessment of any future transactions with its legacy coal portfolio.  </li></ul>Concerns<ul style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;"><li style="text-align: left;">Lack of transparent deadlines and ambiguity about transaction types covered by the commitment – The policy does not include a clear timeline or deadlines for how the bank will proceed with its transition away from financing coal mining. Furthermore, the policy refers to the bank’s “credit exposure” and does not publicly specify how this commitment will apply to other corporate banking transactions other than loans, such as bond or equity issuance. However, RAN expects that BofA’s bond and equity underwriting exposure to coal producers will decline in tandem with its lending exposure to these companies, and we will be monitoring these transactions going forward.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Continued support for coal-fired power generation – Although BofA’s policy is bold on coal mining, it does not address coal-fired power generation financing. The policy’s discussion of coal-fired power focuses on monitoring and reporting on emissions from the bank’s electric power financing portfolio, which falls well short of the urgent need to phase out not only coal mining but coal power generation as well. Moreover, the policy includes a worrying endorsement of carbon capture and storage technology, which, if widely-adopted, would further entrench coal-based power production.</li><li style="text-align: left;">Need for a comprehensive approach to human rights and environmental due diligence – The bank’s disclosure of human rights, governance, and environmental due diligence commitments for its legacy coal finance portfolio is welcome. However, these issues are relevant not just to coal mining companies but to companies in other sectors as well. Therefore, Bank of America should disclose details of its human rights and environmental transaction screening processes for corporate clients in all high-risk sectors.</li></ul>The Bottom LineWith the window for avoiding the worst climate change emissions scenarios rapidly closing, 2015 will be a critical year for the climate. As the Paris climate summit approaches, the banking sector must act decisively to stop financing the production and burning of a fuel that is incompatible with a livable planet. Bank of America’s new coal policy is a major step in this direction. And with Crédit Agricole, Europe’s third largest bank <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/20/credit-agricole-coal-idUSL5N0YB4NO20150520" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">adopting a similar policy</a> [5] later this spring, pressure is building on the rest of the industry to cut ties to coal. This summer and fall, RAN and over 75 other organizations are calling on global banks to meet and surpass Bank of America’s policy by <a href="http://dotheparispledge.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">committing to the Paris Pledge</a> [6] and ending financing for coal mining and coal-fired power production. The challenge to other U.S. banks is clear: It’s past time to stop financing coal. YOU MAY ALSO LIKE<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/oh-irony-coal-plants-especially-vulnerable-climate-change-study-finds" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Oh, the Irony: Coal Plants "Especially Vulnerable" to Climate Change, Study Finds</a> [7]<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/investors-who-divest-dirty-fuel-outperform-those-who-invest-coal-oil-and-gas" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Investors Who Divest from Dirty Fuel Outperform Those Who Invest in Coal, Oil and Gas</a> [8]<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/google-convert-coal-power-plant-data-center-powered-100-renewable-energy" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Google to Convert Coal Power Plant Into Data Center Powered by 100% Renewable Energy</a> [9]<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/jeb-bush-just-got-super-cozy-coal-barons-secretive-retreat" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Jeb Bush Just Got Super Cozy With Coal Barons at a Secretive Retreat</a> [10]<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/coal-mining-poisoning-west-virginias-water" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Is Coal Mining Poisoning West Virginia's Water?</a> [11] <h3 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Coal Execs Invite Presidential Hopeful Jeb Bush to Closed-Door Weekend Retreat (2015)</h3>Drummond and other coal companies invited former Florida Governor and likely presidential candidate <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jeb_Bush" title="Jeb Bush" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Jeb Bush</a> to be the keynote speaker at the 2015 Coal and Investment Leadership Forum, an invitation-only retreat that brings together coal industry executives, Republican donors, and other "stakeholders," according to an invitation obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy and reported on by The Guardian. Bush "evidently signalled his willingness to meet with industry leaders as early as February when the hosts of the coal forum – all owners and executives of coalmining companies – emailed out the first save-the-date notices," The Guardian reported.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Drummond#cite_note-goldenberg_coal_forum-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[14]</a><dl style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; line-height: 22.4px; margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em;"><dd style="text-align: left; line-height: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">“It is a great opportunity to meet with stakeholders in the state,” Kristy Campbell, a spokeswoman for Bush, said. “He will be talking about a variety of topics.”<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Drummond#cite_note-goldenberg_coal_forum-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[14]</a></dd></dl>Bush had not yet officially declared his candidacy and was not disclosing fundraising information. "I think the major question is what promises is Jeb Bush making to the coal chief executives in that room. We assume Bush is there to raise money for his campaign [...] it is pretty clear why Jeb Bush was invited there. If Jeb Bush is elected they want him to protect their industry," Nick Surgey, research director of CMD, told The Guardian.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Drummond#cite_note-goldenberg_coal_forum-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[14]</a>Others named in the 2015 invitation included <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tennessee_Valley_Authority" title="Tennessee Valley Authority" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Tennessee Valley Authority</a> president Bill Johns, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Christopher_C.Horner" title="Christopher C. Horner" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Christopher C. Horner</a> of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute" title="Competitive Enterprise Institute" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy%26_Environment_Legal_Institute" title="Energy & Environment Legal Institute" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Energy & Environment Legal Institute</a>, and "the owners and chief executives of coalmining and energy companies" including <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alliance_Resource_Partners" title="Alliance Resource Partners" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Alliance Resource Partners</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alpha_Natural_Resources" title="Alpha Natural Resources" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Alpha Natural Resources</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Consol_Energy" title="Consol Energy" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Consol Energy</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Arch_Coal" title="Arch Coal" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Arch Coal</a>, and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/United_Coal_Company" title="United Coal Company" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">United Coal Company</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Drummond#cite_note-goldenberg_coal_forum-14" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); outline: none; white-space: nowrap; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">[14]</a>6/15Jeb Bush was the highest profile speaker at a secretive three-day retreat in Bristol, Virginia, hosted by the CEOs of six coal companies, according to materials for the invitation-only event obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/29/jeb-bush-closed-door-meeting-coal-industry-barons" target="blank" style="line-height: 32px; color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration-line: none;">shared with the Guardian</a>.The event, dubbed the "Coal & Investment Leadership Forum," which ran from Sunday through Tuesday, took place at an exclusive private golf course and resort called the "Olde Farm," owned by the founder of United Coal Company, Jim McGlothlin. The private country club is known for its annual golf tournament in which players take sides in the Civil War for the South or the Union and which is described by McGlothlin as "<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/29/jeb-bush-closed-door-meeting-coal-industry-barons" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration-line: none;">our most cherished tradition.</a>"In addition to United Coal, the forum was hosted by the CEOs of five other coal companies: Alliance Resource Partners, Alpha Natural Resources, Consol Energy, Drummond Company, and Arch Coal.Bush was the only candidate expected to run for the 2016 presidential election to speak at the event.The materials didn't say what Bush  was to speak about, but in a room of coal industry executives and potential major Bush campaign funders, climate change and proposed cuts in carbon emissions likely dominated the conversation.The purpose of the event was outlined in a letter from the coal hosts to invitees: "Our industry needs to keep a loud voice with top representatives of our government."Having long bemoaned of a "<a href="http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration-line: none;">war on coal</a>," facing massive losses in share value, and the likely closure of many coal plants under the Clean Power Plan, the coal industry must be looking to Jeb Bush as a potential ally."It would be our hope that he would touch upon his general energy policies," McGlothlin told <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/29/jeb-bush-closed-door-meeting-coal-industry-barons" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration-line: none;">the Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg</a>.Bush has long been considered a climate change denier.In 2009 he <a href="http://grist.org/politics/meet-the-climate-deniers-who-want-to-be-presiden" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration-line: none;">told Esquire</a>: "I'm a skeptic. I'm not a scientist. I think the science has been politicized."Speaking at a May 2015 fundraising event in New Hampshire, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/21/3661573/jeb-bush-climate-change-intellectual-arrogance/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration-line: none;">Bush said that</a> it would be "arrogant" to say that the science on climate change is settled.Despite Bush's claims, which appear to pander to the same dirty energy his<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-bushes--a-wall-street-dynasty-2012-11" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration-line: none;">family made a fortune in</a>, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is changing because of human activities.Inside the war on coalHow Mike Bloomberg, red-state businesses, and a lot of Midwestern lawyers are changing American energy faster than you think.
By MICHAEL GRUNWALD
The war on coal is not just political rhetoric, or a paranoid fantasy concocted by rapacious polluters. It’s real and it’s relentless. Over the past five years, it has killed a coal-fired power plant every 10 days. It has quietly transformed the U.S. electric grid and the global climate debate.
The industry and its supporters use “war on coal” as shorthand for a ferocious assault by a hostile White House, but the real war on coal is not primarily an Obama war, or even a Washington war. It’s a guerrilla war. The front lines are not at the Environmental Protection Agency or the Supreme Court. If you want to see how the fossil fuel that once powered most of the country is being battered by enemy forces, you have to watch state and local hearings where utility commissions and other obscure governing bodies debate individual coal plants. You probably won’t find much drama. You’ll definitely find lawyers from the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, the boots on the ground in the war on coal.
Beyond Coal is the most extensive, expensive and effective campaign in the Club’s 123-year history, and maybe the history of the environmental movement. It’s gone largely unnoticed amid the furor over the Keystone pipeline and President Barack Obama’s efforts to regulate carbon, but it’s helped retire more than one third of America’s coal plants since its launch in 2010, one dull hearing at a time. With a vast war chest donated by Michael Bloomberg, unlikely allies from the business world, and a strategy that relies more on economics than ecology, its team of nearly 200 litigators and organizers has won battles in the Midwestern and Appalachian coal belts, in the reddest of red states, in almost every state that burns coal.
“They’re sophisticated, they’re very active, and they’re better funded than we are,” says Mike Duncan, a former Republican National Committee chairman who now heads the industry-backed American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “I don’t like what they’re doing; we’re losing a lot of coal in this country. But they do show up.”
Coal still helps keep our lights on, generating nearly 40 percent of U.S. power. But it generated more than 50 percent just over a decade ago, and the big question now is how rapidly its decline will continue. Almost every watt of new generating capacity is coming from natural gas, wind or solar; the coal industry now employs fewer workers than the solar industry, which barely existed in 2010. Utilities no longer even bother to propose new coal plants to replace the old ones they retire. Coal industry stocks are tanking, and analysts are predicting a new wave of coal bankruptcies.
This is a big deal, because coal is America’s top source of greenhouse gases, and coal retirements are the main reason U.S. carbon emissions have declined 10 percent in a decade. Coal is also America’s top source of mercury, sulfur dioxide and other toxic air pollutants, so fewer coal plants also means less asthma and lung disease—not to mention fewer coal-ash spills and coal-mining disasters. The shift toward cleaner-burning gas and zero-emissions renewables is the most important change in our electricity mix in decades, and while Obama has been an ally in the war on coal—not always as aggressive an ally as the industry claims—the Sierra Club is in the trenches. The U.S. had 523 coal-fired power plants when Beyond Coal began targeting them; just last week, it celebrated the 190th retirement of its campaign in Asheville, N.C., culminating a three-year fight that had been featured in the climate documentary “Years of Living Dangerously.” 
Beyond Coal isn’t the stereotypical Sierra Club campaign, tree-huggers shouting save-the-Earth slogans. Yes, it sometimes deploys its 2.4 million-member, grass-roots army to shutter plants with traditional not-in-my-back-yard organizing and right-to-breathe agitating. But it usually wins by arguing that ditching coal will save ratepayers money. 
Behind that argument lies a revolution in the economics of power, changes few Americans think about when they flick their switches. Coal used to be the cheapest form of electricity by far, but it’s gotten pricier as it’s been forced to clean up more of its mess, while the costs of gas, wind and solar have plunged in recent years. Now retrofitting old coal plants with the pollution controls needed to comply with Obama’s limits on soot, sulfur and mercury is becoming cost-prohibitive—and the EPA is finalizing its new carbon rules as well as tougher ozone restrictions that should add to the burden. That’s why the Sierra Club finds itself in foxholes with big-box stores, manufacturers and other business interests, fighting coal upgrades that would jack up electricity bills, pushing for cheaper renewables and energy efficiency instead. ...hese days, growing concerns about climate have heightened concerns about coal, which produces 75 percent of the power sector’s carbon, and more emissions than all our cars and trucks combined. But even at the dawn of the 21st century, the George W. Bush administration’s main concern about coal power and fossil energy in general was that the U.S. wasn’t producing enough of it. In 2001, an energy task force led by Dick Cheney, after a series of secret meetings with fossil-fuel executives, called for a new power-plant construction boom, warning that the alternative was a national reprise of the rolling blackouts that had just roiled California. Utilities quickly proposed about 200 new coal plants, and faced no organized national opposition. Coal plants have a useful lifespan of at least 40 years, so the U.S. was poised to lock in a new generation of dirty power. And all that new capacity was poised to destroy any incentive to develop clean wind or solar power.That’s when the Sierra Club got into its first big coal fight over a proposed billion-dollar plant south of Chicago, a welcome-to-the-NFL episode. The Chicago area already had poor air quality—the coal plants around the Loop were known as the Ring of Fire—and local volunteers, led by an indefatigable German immigrant named Verena Owen, were desperate to block the project. Their cause seemed hopeless, but for Owen, who is now Beyond Coal’s lead volunteer, it was personal. Her best friend had struggled to breathe whenever the air was hazy and eventually died of lung disease, leaving behind a daughter in kindergarten. “I don’t know how many people we ended up saving, but I know one we didn’t,” Owen says.The first time Nilles, at the time a lawyer for the Sierra Club’s Midwest office in Chicago, tried to attend a hearing about the plant, union members who supported the project came early and packed the hall while the Club was holding a news conference. Illinois regulators soon rubber-stamped the permit. Owen and Nilles can still recite the date and time of the news dump: Friday, Oct. 10, 2003, at 5:10 p.m., so the bureaucrats could ignore their calls and escape for the weekend. And the industry had an even easier time of it elsewhere. Nilles later reviewed the record for another billion-dollar plant that broke ground in Iowa about the same time, and discovered there hadn’t been a single public comment in opposition.“Everything was going full speed in the wrong direction, and we had no capacity to fight,” he says. “We realized we needed a strategy. Fast.”The strategy that Nilles devised was to fight every new plant from every conceivable environmental, economic and political angle. The Sierra Club began organizing boot camps to teach lawyers and volunteers around the region how to block coal permits. Demand for the seminars was so intense that, at one point, Nilles’ boss had to remind him that Texas was not part of the Midwest. But he figured Texans who breathed air and drank water had as much to lose from exposure to coal-fired pollutants as Midwesterners had. Some of the Club’s funders thought his fight-everything-everywhere approach was unrealistic during a national coal rush, but every proposed plant was in someone’s backyard, and the Club had members in every corner of the country. Nilles couldn’t imagine telling any of them their communities would have to be sacrificed for the greater tactical good.Environmentalists have always been good at blocking stuff, and over the next few years, the kitchen-sink strategy produced some improbable victories. ...http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002<a href="http://www.globalpossibilities.org/church-of-england-divests-from-coal-and-tar-sands-citing-moral-responsibility/">http://www.globalpossibilities.org/church-of-england-divests-from-coal-and-tar-sands-citing-moral-responsibility/</a>=3/15<div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; text-align: left;">A new <a href="http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/Coal_Tracker_report_final_3-9-15.pdf?docID=17381" target="blank" style="font-style: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(216, 27, 34); text-decoration-line: none; letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 19.5px;">report by CoalSwarm and the Sierra Club</a> provides compelling evidence that the death knell for the global coal boom might very well have rung some time between 2010 and 2012.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Based on data CoalSwarm compiled of every coal plant proposed worldwide for the past five years as part of its <a href="http://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/" target="blank" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(216, 27, 34); letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 19.5px;">Global Coal Plant Tracker</a> initiative, the report finds that for every coal plant that came online, plans for two other plants were put on hold or scrapped altogether.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">The failure-to-completion rate was even higher, as much as 4 to 1, in Europe, South Asia, Latin America, and Africa, according to the report, which also says that the long decline in coal-fired energy production in the United States and </div>=<table class="wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; margin: 1em 1em 1em 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 19.2px; background: rgb(249, 249, 249);"><thead><tr><th class="headerSort" tabindex="0" role="columnheader button" title="Sort ascending" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 21px 0.2em 0.2em; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; background: url(" data:image="data:image" gif="gif" base64="base64" r0lgodlhfqajaiabaaaaaaaaach="R0lGODlhFQAJAIABAAAAAAAAACH" 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"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" idwvcmrmoljerj4gpc94onhtcg1ldge="IDwvcmRmOlJERj4gPC94OnhtcG1ldGE" idw="IDw" ehbhy2tldcblbmq9iniipz4b="eHBhY2tldCBlbmQ9InIiPz4B" pv6="Pv6" fj39vx08="fj39vX08" lx8o="Lx8O" u7ezr6uno5="u7ezr6uno5" bl5opi4edf3t3c29rz2nfw1dtt0thqz87nzmvkycjhxsxew8lbwl="bl5OPi4eDf3t3c29rZ2NfW1dTT0tHQz87NzMvKycjHxsXEw8LBwL" vby7urm4t7a1tloysbcvrq2sq6qpqkempasjoqggn56dnjuamzixlpwuk5krki="vby7urm4t7a1tLOysbCvrq2sq6qpqKempaSjoqGgn56dnJuamZiXlpWUk5KRkI" ojyyliomih4afhiocgyb="OjYyLiomIh4aFhIOCgYB" fn18e3p5ehd2dxrzcnfwb25tbgtqawhnzmvky2jhyf9exvxbwllyv1zvvfnsuvbptk1ms0pjsedgrurdqkfapz49pds6otg3nju0mzixmc8ulswrkikojyyljcmiisafhh0cgxozgbcwfrqteheqdw4ndaskcqghbgueawibaaah="fn18e3p5eHd2dXRzcnFwb25tbGtqaWhnZmVkY2JhYF9eXVxbWllYV1ZVVFNSUVBPTk1MS0pJSEdGRURDQkFAPz49PDs6OTg3NjU0MzIxMC8uLSwrKikoJyYlJCMiISAfHh0cGxoZGBcWFRQTEhEQDw4NDAsKCQgHBgUEAwIBAAAh" qqbaaabacwaaaaafqajaaacf4ypgmsj2mj4vdkkrd4gvz5lypemivuaads=") 100% 50% no-repeat rgb(242, 242, 242);" xmlns:data="data">CEO</th><th class="headerSort" tabindex="0" role="columnheader button" title="Sort ascending" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 21px 0.2em 0.2em; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; background: url(" data:image="data:image" gif="gif" base64="base64" r0lgodlhfqajaiabaaaaaaaaach="R0lGODlhFQAJAIABAAAAAAAAACH" 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"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" idwvcmrmoljerj4gpc94onhtcg1ldge="IDwvcmRmOlJERj4gPC94OnhtcG1ldGE" idw="IDw" ehbhy2tldcblbmq9iniipz4b="eHBhY2tldCBlbmQ9InIiPz4B" pv6="Pv6" fj39vx08="fj39vX08" lx8o="Lx8O" u7ezr6uno5="u7ezr6uno5" bl5opi4edf3t3c29rz2nfw1dtt0thqz87nzmvkycjhxsxew8lbwl="bl5OPi4eDf3t3c29rZ2NfW1dTT0tHQz87NzMvKycjHxsXEw8LBwL" vby7urm4t7a1tloysbcvrq2sq6qpqkempasjoqggn56dnjuamzixlpwuk5krki="vby7urm4t7a1tLOysbCvrq2sq6qpqKempaSjoqGgn56dnJuamZiXlpWUk5KRkI" ojyyliomih4afhiocgyb="OjYyLiomIh4aFhIOCgYB" fn18e3p5ehd2dxrzcnfwb25tbgtqawhnzmvky2jhyf9exvxbwllyv1zvvfnsuvbptk1ms0pjsedgrurdqkfapz49pds6otg3nju0mzixmc8ulswrkikojyyljcmiisafhh0cgxozgbcwfrqteheqdw4ndaskcqghbgueawibaaah="fn18e3p5eHd2dXRzcnFwb25tbGtqaWhnZmVkY2JhYF9eXVxbWllYV1ZVVFNSUVBPTk1MS0pJSEdGRURDQkFAPz49PDs6OTg3NjU0MzIxMC8uLSwrKikoJyYlJCMiISAfHh0cGxoZGBcWFRQTEhEQDw4NDAsKCQgHBgUEAwIBAAAh" qqbaaabacwaaaaafqajaaacf4ypgmsj2mj4vdkkrd4gvz5lypemivuaads=") 100% 50% no-repeat rgb(242, 242, 242);" xmlns:data="data">Company/Entity</th><th class="headerSort" tabindex="0" role="columnheader button" title="Sort ascending" width="75" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 21px 0.2em 0.2em; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; background: url(" data:image="data:image" gif="gif" base64="base64" r0lgodlhfqajaiabaaaaaaaaach="R0lGODlhFQAJAIABAAAAAAAAACH" 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"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" idwvcmrmoljerj4gpc94onhtcg1ldge="IDwvcmRmOlJERj4gPC94OnhtcG1ldGE" idw="IDw" ehbhy2tldcblbmq9iniipz4b="eHBhY2tldCBlbmQ9InIiPz4B" pv6="Pv6" fj39vx08="fj39vX08" lx8o="Lx8O" u7ezr6uno5="u7ezr6uno5" bl5opi4edf3t3c29rz2nfw1dtt0thqz87nzmvkycjhxsxew8lbwl="bl5OPi4eDf3t3c29rZ2NfW1dTT0tHQz87NzMvKycjHxsXEw8LBwL" vby7urm4t7a1tloysbcvrq2sq6qpqkempasjoqggn56dnjuamzixlpwuk5krki="vby7urm4t7a1tLOysbCvrq2sq6qpqKempaSjoqGgn56dnJuamZiXlpWUk5KRkI" ojyyliomih4afhiocgyb="OjYyLiomIh4aFhIOCgYB" fn18e3p5ehd2dxrzcnfwb25tbgtqawhnzmvky2jhyf9exvxbwllyv1zvvfnsuvbptk1ms0pjsedgrurdqkfapz49pds6otg3nju0mzixmc8ulswrkikojyyljcmiisafhh0cgxozgbcwfrqteheqdw4ndaskcqghbgueawibaaah="fn18e3p5eHd2dXRzcnFwb25tbGtqaWhnZmVkY2JhYF9eXVxbWllYV1ZVVFNSUVBPTk1MS0pJSEdGRURDQkFAPz49PDs6OTg3NjU0MzIxMC8uLSwrKikoJyYlJCMiISAfHh0cGxoZGBcWFRQTEhEQDw4NDAsKCQgHBgUEAwIBAAAh" qqbaaabacwaaaaafqajaaacf4ypgmsj2mj4vdkkrd4gvz5lypemivuaads=") 100% 50% no-repeat rgb(242, 242, 242);" xmlns:data="data">Number of Coal Plants in U.S. (2005)</th><th class="headerSort" tabindex="0" role="columnheader button" title="Sort ascending" width="100" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 21px 0.2em 0.2em; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; background: url(" data:image="data:image" gif="gif" base64="base64" r0lgodlhfqajaiabaaaaaaaaach="R0lGODlhFQAJAIABAAAAAAAAACH" 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"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" idwvcmrmoljerj4gpc94onhtcg1ldge="IDwvcmRmOlJERj4gPC94OnhtcG1ldGE" idw="IDw" ehbhy2tldcblbmq9iniipz4b="eHBhY2tldCBlbmQ9InIiPz4B" pv6="Pv6" fj39vx08="fj39vX08" lx8o="Lx8O" u7ezr6uno5="u7ezr6uno5" bl5opi4edf3t3c29rz2nfw1dtt0thqz87nzmvkycjhxsxew8lbwl="bl5OPi4eDf3t3c29rZ2NfW1dTT0tHQz87NzMvKycjHxsXEw8LBwL" vby7urm4t7a1tloysbcvrq2sq6qpqkempasjoqggn56dnjuamzixlpwuk5krki="vby7urm4t7a1tLOysbCvrq2sq6qpqKempaSjoqGgn56dnJuamZiXlpWUk5KRkI" ojyyliomih4afhiocgyb="OjYyLiomIh4aFhIOCgYB" fn18e3p5ehd2dxrzcnfwb25tbgtqawhnzmvky2jhyf9exvxbwllyv1zvvfnsuvbptk1ms0pjsedgrurdqkfapz49pds6otg3nju0mzixmc8ulswrkikojyyljcmiisafhh0cgxozgbcwfrqteheqdw4ndaskcqghbgueawibaaah="fn18e3p5eHd2dXRzcnFwb25tbGtqaWhnZmVkY2JhYF9eXVxbWllYV1ZVVFNSUVBPTk1MS0pJSEdGRURDQkFAPz49PDs6OTg3NjU0MzIxMC8uLSwrKikoJyYlJCMiISAfHh0cGxoZGBcWFRQTEhEQDw4NDAsKCQgHBgUEAwIBAAAh" qqbaaabacwaaaaafqajaaacf4ypgmsj2mj4vdkkrd4gvz5lypemivuaads=") 100% 50% no-repeat rgb(242, 242, 242);" xmlns:data="data">U.S. Coal-Fired Capacity (2005)</th><th class="headerSort" tabindex="0" role="columnheader button" title="Sort ascending" width="125" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 21px 0.2em 0.2em; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; background: url(" data:image="data:image" gif="gif" base64="base64" r0lgodlhfqajaiabaaaaaaaaach="R0lGODlhFQAJAIABAAAAAAAAACH" 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"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" idwvcmrmoljerj4gpc94onhtcg1ldge="IDwvcmRmOlJERj4gPC94OnhtcG1ldGE" idw="IDw" ehbhy2tldcblbmq9iniipz4b="eHBhY2tldCBlbmQ9InIiPz4B" pv6="Pv6" fj39vx08="fj39vX08" lx8o="Lx8O" u7ezr6uno5="u7ezr6uno5" bl5opi4edf3t3c29rz2nfw1dtt0thqz87nzmvkycjhxsxew8lbwl="bl5OPi4eDf3t3c29rZ2NfW1dTT0tHQz87NzMvKycjHxsXEw8LBwL" vby7urm4t7a1tloysbcvrq2sq6qpqkempasjoqggn56dnjuamzixlpwuk5krki="vby7urm4t7a1tLOysbCvrq2sq6qpqKempaSjoqGgn56dnJuamZiXlpWUk5KRkI" ojyyliomih4afhiocgyb="OjYyLiomIh4aFhIOCgYB" fn18e3p5ehd2dxrzcnfwb25tbgtqawhnzmvky2jhyf9exvxbwllyv1zvvfnsuvbptk1ms0pjsedgrurdqkfapz49pds6otg3nju0mzixmc8ulswrkikojyyljcmiisafhh0cgxozgbcwfrqteheqdw4ndaskcqghbgueawibaaah="fn18e3p5eHd2dXRzcnFwb25tbGtqaWhnZmVkY2JhYF9eXVxbWllYV1ZVVFNSUVBPTk1MS0pJSEdGRURDQkFAPz49PDs6OTg3NjU0MzIxMC8uLSwrKikoJyYlJCMiISAfHh0cGxoZGBcWFRQTEhEQDw4NDAsKCQgHBgUEAwIBAAAh" qqbaaabacwaaaaafqajaaacf4ypgmsj2mj4vdkkrd4gvz5lypemivuaads=") 100% 50% no-repeat rgb(242, 242, 242);" xmlns:data="data">2007 Revenue</th><th class="headerSort" tabindex="0" role="columnheader button" title="Sort ascending" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em 21px 0.2em 0.2em; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; background: url(" data:image="data:image" gif="gif" base64="base64" r0lgodlhfqajaiabaaaaaaaaach="R0lGODlhFQAJAIABAAAAAAAAACH" c1hnucbeyxrhwe1qpd94cgfja2v0igjlz2lupslvu78iiglkpsjxnu0wtxbdzwhpshpyzvn6tlrjemtjowqipz4gphg6eg1wbwv0ysb4bwxuczp4psjhzg9iztpuczptzxrhlyigedp4bxb0az0iqwrvymugwe1qienvcmugns4wlwmwnjagnjeumtm0nzc3lcaymdewlzaylzeylte3ojmyojawicagicagicaipia8cmrmoljerib4bwxuczpyzgy9imh0dha6ly93d3cudzmub3jnlze5otkvmdivmjitcmrmlxn5bnrhec1ucymipia8cmrmokrlc2nyaxb0aw9uihjkzjphym91dd0iiib4bwxuczp4bxbntt0iahr0cdovl25zlmfkb2jllmnvbs94yxavms4wl21tlyigeg1sbnm6c3rszwy9imh0dha6ly9ucy5hzg9izs5jb20vegfwlzeumc9zvhlwzs9szxnvdxjjzvjlzimiihhtbg5zonhtcd0iahr0cdovl25zlmfkb2jllmnvbs94yxavms4wlyigeg1wtu06t3jpz2luywxeb2n1bwvudelepsj4bxauzglkojaxodaxmtc0mdcymdy4mte4oem2reyyn0exmdhbndjfiib4bxbnttpeb2n1bwvudelepsj4bxauzglkojdcntayodcwmey4njexrtbbmzkyqzaym0e1rdk3rdc3iib4bxbnttpjbnn0yw5jzulepsj4bxauawlkojdcntayodzgmey4njexrtbbmzkyqzaym0e1rdk3rdc3iib4bxa6q3jlyxrvclrvb2w9ikfkb2jlifbob3rvc2hvccbduzugtwfjaw50b3noij4gphhtce1nokrlcml2zwrgcm9tihn0umvmomluc3rhbmnlsuq9inhtcc5pawq6mde4mdexnzqwnziwnjgxmtg4qzzerji3qtewoee0mkuiihn0umvmomrvy3vtzw50suq9inhtcc5kawq6mde4mdexnzqwnziwnjgxmtg4qzzerji3qtewoee0mkuilz4gpc9yzgy6rgvzy3jpchrpb24="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" idwvcmrmoljerj4gpc94onhtcg1ldge="IDwvcmRmOlJERj4gPC94OnhtcG1ldGE" idw="IDw" ehbhy2tldcblbmq9iniipz4b="eHBhY2tldCBlbmQ9InIiPz4B" pv6="Pv6" fj39vx08="fj39vX08" lx8o="Lx8O" u7ezr6uno5="u7ezr6uno5" bl5opi4edf3t3c29rz2nfw1dtt0thqz87nzmvkycjhxsxew8lbwl="bl5OPi4eDf3t3c29rZ2NfW1dTT0tHQz87NzMvKycjHxsXEw8LBwL" vby7urm4t7a1tloysbcvrq2sq6qpqkempasjoqggn56dnjuamzixlpwuk5krki="vby7urm4t7a1tLOysbCvrq2sq6qpqKempaSjoqGgn56dnJuamZiXlpWUk5KRkI" ojyyliomih4afhiocgyb="OjYyLiomIh4aFhIOCgYB" fn18e3p5ehd2dxrzcnfwb25tbgtqawhnzmvky2jhyf9exvxbwllyv1zvvfnsuvbptk1ms0pjsedgrurdqkfapz49pds6otg3nju0mzixmc8ulswrkikojyyljcmiisafhh0cgxozgbcwfrqteheqdw4ndaskcqghbgueawibaaah="fn18e3p5eHd2dXRzcnFwb25tbGtqaWhnZmVkY2JhYF9eXVxbWllYV1ZVVFNSUVBPTk1MS0pJSEdGRURDQkFAPz49PDs6OTg3NjU0MzIxMC8uLSwrKikoJyYlJCMiISAfHh0cGxoZGBcWFRQTEhEQDw4NDAsKCQgHBgUEAwIBAAAh" qqbaaabacwaaaaafqajaaacf4ypgmsj2mj4vdkkrd4gvz5lypemivuaads=") 100% 50% no-repeat rgb(242, 242, 242);" xmlns:data="data">Active Coal Plant Proposals (2013)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Michael_G.Morris" title="Michael G. Morris" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Michael G. Morris</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Electric_Power" title="American Electric Power" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">American Electric Power</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">63</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">27,636 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$12,101 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hempstead" title="Hempstead" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Hempstead</a></td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/David_M.Ratcliffe" title="David M. Ratcliffe" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">David M. Ratcliffe</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Southern_Company" title="Southern Company" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Southern Company</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">68</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">26,610 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$15,140 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kemper_Project" title="Kemper Project" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Kemper Project</a></td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jim_Rogers(Duke_Energy_CEO)" title="Jim Rogers (Duke Energy CEO)" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Jim Rogers</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Duke_Energy" title="Duke Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Duke Energy</a> (including <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Progress_Energy" title="Progress Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Progress Energy</a>)</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">93</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">26,502 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$21,596 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Edwardsport_Plant" title="Edwardsport Plant" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Edwardsport Plant</a></td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/David_W.Crane" title="David W. Crane" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">David W. Crane</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/NRG_Energy" title="NRG Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">NRG Energy</a> (including <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/GenOn_Energy" title="GenOn Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">GenOn Energy</a>)</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">70</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">20,865 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$19,216 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tom_D.Kilgore" title="Tom D. Kilgore" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Tom D. Kilgore</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tennessee_Valley_Authority" title="Tennessee Valley Authority" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Tennessee Valley Authority</a> (U.S. gov't)</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">63</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">17,647 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$9,105 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Gary_L.Rainwater" title="Gary L. Rainwater" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Gary L. Rainwater</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ameren" title="Ameren" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Ameren</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">31</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">10,719 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$7,380 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Warren_Buffett" title="Warren Buffett" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Warren Buffett</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Gregory_E.Abel" title="Gregory E. Abel" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Gregory E. Abel</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/MidAmerican_Energy" title="MidAmerican Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">MidAmerican Energy</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">29</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">10,281 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$12,376 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_W.Rowe" title="John W. Rowe" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">John W. Rowe</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Exelon" title="Exelon" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Exelon</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">21</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">9,415 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$18,916 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_C.Kelly" title="Richard C. Kelly" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Richard C. Kelly</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Xcel_Energy" title="Xcel Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Xcel Energy</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">30</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">9,021 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$9,960 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_J.Alexander" title="Anthony J. Alexander" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Anthony J. Alexander</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/FirstEnergy" title="FirstEnergy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">FirstEnergy</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">36</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">8,495 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$12,552 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Thomas_F.Farrell_II" title="Thomas F. Farrell II" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Thomas F. Farrell II</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Dominion" title="Dominion" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Dominion</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">32</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">8,417 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$15,674 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wulf_H.Bernotat" title="Wulf H. Bernotat" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Wulf H. Bernotat</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/E.ON" title="E.ON" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">E.ON</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">29</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">8,347 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$108,026 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_F.Earley_Jr." title="Anthony F. Earley Jr." style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Anthony F. Earley Jr.</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/DTE_Energy" title="DTE Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">DTE Energy</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">22</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">7,997 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$8,506 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Paul_J.Evanson" title="Paul J. Evanson" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Paul J. Evanson</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Allegheny_Energy" title="Allegheny Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Allegheny Energy</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">22</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">7,636 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$3,307 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/David_Campbell" title="David Campbell" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">David Campbell</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Luminant" title="Luminant" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Luminant</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">9</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">6,137 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$8,500 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_H.Miller" title="James H. Miller" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">James H. Miller</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/PPL" title="PPL" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">PPL</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">13</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">5,981 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$6,498 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Paul_Hanrahan" title="Paul Hanrahan" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Paul Hanrahan</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/AES" title="AES" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">AES</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">29</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">5,406 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$13,588 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/William_D.Harvey" title="William D. Harvey" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">William D. Harvey</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Alliant_Energy" title="Alliant Energy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Alliant Energy</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">30</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">4,055 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$3,438 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J.Wayne_Leonard" title="J. Wayne Leonard" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">J. Wayne Leonard</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Entergy" title="Entergy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Entergy</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">5</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">4,014 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$11,484 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bruce_A.Williamson" title="Bruce A. Williamson" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Bruce A. Williamson</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Dynegy/LS_Power" title="Dynegy / LS Power" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Dynegy / LS Power</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">12</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">3,755 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$3,103 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sandy_Creek_Plant" title="Sandy Creek Plant" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Sandy Creek Plant</a></td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Paul_M.Barbas" title="Paul M. Barbas" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Paul M. Barbas</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/DPL" title="DPL" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">DPL</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">11</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">3,521 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$1,516 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr><tr><th align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em; text-align: center; background: rgb(242, 242, 242);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Robert_C.Skaggs_Jr." title="Robert C. Skaggs Jr." style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Robert C. Skaggs Jr.</a></th><td align="left" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/NiSource" title="NiSource" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">NiSource</a></td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">10</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">3,470 MW</td><td align="right" style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">$6,894 million</td><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170); padding: 0.2em;">none</td></tr></tbody></table><h2 class="yiv9940562282null" style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 32.5px; outline: none; color: rgb(64, 64, 64); letter-spacing: -0.75px;"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://insideclimatenews.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=c087856bdb&e=06876ede6b" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word; font-weight: normal;">Losing Streak Continues for U.S. Coal Export Terminals</a></h2>The U.S. coal export industry continued its losing streak as 2014 ended and 2015 began. A coal terminal project in Louisiana lost its permit in state court, and one in Washington ran into a stiff legal challenge. Last month, the company behind several other planned terminals sold its remaining projects to a high-risk investment firm at a major loss.<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://insideclimatenews.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=eb796b43e9&e=06876ede6b" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Read more</a>.<div class="headline" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;"><h1 class="node-title" style="text-align: left;">Paul Krugman Reveals the Culprit Behind the GOP's Rabid Anti-Environment Stance</h1></div><div class="big_story_tools_bottom_container" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;"><div class="talk_box"></div><div class="clear" style="text-align: left;"> </div></div><div class="clear" style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;"> </div><div class="story_tools_bottom" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;"><div class="story-date" style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;">November 28, 2014  |  </div>Since when did breathing clean air become so politicized? It predates President Obama's recent attempts to install regulations to curb ozone emissions, but not by that much. Paul Krugman takes up the truly bizarre Republican opposition to even the most tepid attempts to protect the environment in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/opinion/paul-krugman-pollution-and-politics.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region">Friday's column</a> [3] and digs deeper to find the root cause. Of course, polluters will defend their right to pollute, he points out, but why can they always depend on Republican support?Some background from Krugman: <blockquote style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;">It wasn’t always thus. The Clean Air Act of 1970, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/without-passing-a-single-law-obama-crafts-bold-enviornmental-policy.html" title="A Times article">the legal basis for the Obama administration’s environmental actions</a> [4], passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote of 73 to 0, and was signed into law by Richard Nixon. (I’ve heard veterans of the E.P.A. describe the Nixon years as a golden age.) A major amendment of the law, which among other things made possible the cap-and-trade system that limits acid rain, was signed in 1990 by former President George H.W. Bush.But that was then. Today’s Republican Party is putting a conspiracy theorist who views climate science as a “gigantic hoax” in charge of the Senate’s environment committee. And this isn’t an isolated case. Pollution has become a deeply divisive partisan issue.</blockquote>The Republicans have moved to the right of Nixon and Bush. That's part of it, but, again, why?Money in politics is part of the answer, no doubt. Mega polluters like the Koch brothers pour mega doses of cash into politics, and while it used to flow to both parties, it goes "overwhelmingly in one direction" today. What changed? Rabid anti-government, pro-market ideology is part of the answer. Krugman peels the onion further to conclude that this pernicious ideology is just "a symptom of the underlying cause of the divide: <a href="http://themonkeycage.org/2011/10/18/polarization-and-inequality/">rising inequality</a> [5]."<blockquote style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;">The basic story of political polarization over the past few decades is that, as a wealthy minority has pulled away economically from the rest of the country, it has pulled one major party along with it. True, Democrats often cater to the interests of the 1 percent, but Republicans always do. Any policy that benefits lower- and middle-income Americans at the expense of the elite — like health reform, which guarantees insurance to all and pays for that guarantee in part with taxes on higher incomes — will face bitter Republican opposition.</blockquote>Protecting the environment has become a class issue, in part. Everyone breathes, but only the super-wealthy own huge amount of stock in coal companies. Krugman concludes: <blockquote style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;">In the case of the new ozone plan, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/20141125fs-overview.pdf">the E.P.A.’s analysis suggests</a> [6] that, for the average American, the benefits would be more than twice the costs. But that doesn’t necessarily matter to the nonaverage American driving one party’s priorities. On ozone, as with almost everything these days, it’s all about inequality.</blockquote>

 turkey ct win goons <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/13/court-ruling-coal-power-plant/">http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/13/court-ruling-coal-power-plant/</a>

<div class="byline environment" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><a href="http://ecowatch.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">EcoWatch</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/kevin-grandia" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Kevin Grandia</a> [2]</div><div class="headline" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">Why Is Big Coal Pretending to Be the Savior of the Developing World?</h1></div><div class="the_body body_environment clearfix" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><div class="story-date">October 22, 2014  |  </div>This story first <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/21/coal-global-poverty-energy-debate/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">appeared</a> [3] at EcoWatch.comThere is a growing drumbeat being played by the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/coal-mining-pollution/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">coal</a> [4] industry around the idea that their product will “save” developing African and Asian regions that are deprived of a reliable energy source or what is known in policy circles as energy poverty.But I would say these countries deserve something much better than the old, dirty energy that we in North America no longer want.New global marketing campaigns like “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/oct/14/how-big-coal-is-lobbying-g20-leaders-and-trying-to-capture-the-global-poverty-debate" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Advanced Energy For Life</a> [5],” which is sponsored by Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private-sector coal company, have projected the fantasy of <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/21/exxon-fossil-fuel-divestment/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">“clean coal” as the solution for energy poverty</a> [6]. If the developed West with its environmental and health standards would simply get out of the way, Africa and Asia could coal-fire their way to economic prosperity.The timing is uncanny for this burst of random benevolence on the part the coal industry. After all, the idea of energy poverty is not new, and neither is coal.Or could it be that as coal is becoming less favorable in places like the U.S., where strict new environmental and health concerns have all but halted any new domestic growth, these companies are looking to hawk their “clean” coal product in new markets.Call me cynical, but I would say this poor-need-coal concept is a Hail Mary attempt by a dying industry to find the few last markets for a product that nobody seems to want anymore. Markets susceptible to being convinced by sophisticated marketing techniques that coal is somehow “clean.”First, let’s get one thing straight, there is no such thing as “clean coal.” Mining and burning coal remains one of the most destructive of all human activities. It flattens mountains, poisons rivers and drinking water supplies, pollutes the air, causes severe respiratory illnesses, and is over-heating our planet.The phrase “clean coal” is no more than a clever bit of marketing—an advertising slogan that cannot honestly define any physical thing. Industry definitions of “clean coal” shift whenever its strategically expedient/convenient.Big coal continues to hail the promise of carbon capture and storage (CCS)—remember all the commercials during the 2008 Presidential election? Carbon capture, we were told, would “soon” be commercially viable. Except we never reach that horizon. High profile CCS projects like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutureGen" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">FutureGen</a> [7] continue to struggle, with more than 11 years of promises, hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars spent, and still not a spade in the ground.And then there is the copycat “clean” coal carbon capture and storage project <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GreenGen" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">GreenGen in China</a> [8], which is supported in part by none other than Peabody Energy, the same company behind the Advanced Energy for Life campaign.So if coal has been, for all intents and purposes, essentially banned in the U.S., for environment, health and <a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">climate concerns</a> [9]. Why is it seen as a solution for other nations in Africa and Asia? Especially when there are cheaper, cleaner, more high tech 21st Century options.Just as cell phone technology has helped the developing world leapfrog landline telecoms and their costly infrastructure, advanced <a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">renewables</a> [10] like distributed solar and wind can help the world’s poor electrify, skipping the the centralized coal-utilities entirely.The coal industry predictably argues that renewables are still too expensive, and that we have a “moral obligation” to provide “low cost” fossil fuels (read: coal) to lift the developing world out of energy poverty. However, commercially viable carbon capture and storage, and advanced coal gasification remain elusive pipe dreams that will likely be prohibitively expensive if they ever prove to be a workable solution.None other than the International Energy Agency (IEA), the traditionally conservative Paris-based organization, recently argued that coal is not the best option for Africa and developing Asia.In its <a href="http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapSolarPhotovoltaicEnergy_2014edition.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">latest Solar Roadmap report</a> [11], published in September, the IEA made a strong case for solar as the best path out of energy poverty.<blockquote>“The rapid cost decrease of photovoltaic modules and systems in the last few years has opened new perspectives for using solar energy as a major source of electricity in the coming years and decades,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven, introducing the report.</blockquote>The report showed how, by 2030, 500 million people with no current access to electricity could enjoy light in their homes with solar photovoltaics, describing the “considerable merits” of both on-grid and off-grid solar.Provided financing options for the considerable upfront costs of solar, the IEA argues that photovoltaics are already competitive with fossil fuel alternatives.Compared to coal with carbon capture and advanced coal gasification, solar photovoltaics, solar thermal, wind, and other advanced renewables are already a bargain.Ultimately, it shouldn’t be for the coal companies or western think tanks to decide what’s best for Africa and developing Asia.In India, a country with both extreme energy poverty and massive coal deposits, the recently elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/03/india-prime-minister-modi-climate-change/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">has announced a goal of delivering electricity</a> [12] to all Indian citizens by 2020. Modi’s plan for delivering power to the roughly 300 million that currently live without: mostly solar.Last year, at a climate and development conference in Ethiopia, delegates from throughout Africa met to discuss economic growth in the face of climate change and energy poverty. One main conclusion from their summary report speaks volumes:“There is no question of a choice between economic growth and environmental protection. The green economy is about <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/10/climate-change-action-economic-gains/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">achieving green growth while at the same time protecting our environment</a> [13].”Over the past 200 years or so, the Western world has learned so much about what works and what doesn’t when it comes to powering a sustainable economy and planet. Developing nations in Africa and Asia don’t need to learn those lessons all over again.</div>   =<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/05/china-war-pollution-kick-coal-habit/">http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/05/china-war-pollution-kick-coal-habit/</a><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/conservatives-typo-unravel-obama-climate-law-epa-coal">http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/conservatives-typo-unravel-obama-climate-law-epa-coal</a><div id="content-header" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; padding-top: 1.2em;"><h1 class="title" style="text-align: left; line-height: 1em; margin: 0px 0px 0.2em; font-weight: normal;">Conservatives Want to Wipe Out Coal Rules…Over a Typo</h1></div><div id="content-area" class="clear-block" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit;"><div id="node-258951" class="node node-type-article node-type-article-full"><div class="node-inner clear-block"><div class="content clear-block" style="line-height: 25px;"><div id="node-header" class="clear-block"><div id="node-header-data" class="node-header-data-primary" style="overflow: hidden; padding-bottom: 0.6em;"><h3 class="dek" style="text-align: left; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; font-style: italic; color: rgb(94, 113, 133); padding-bottom: 0.3em;">A federal appeals court took a red pen to Obamacare. The president's signature environmental achievement could be next.</h3><div><div class="print-content" style="line-height: 1.8em;"><div id="node-258951" class="node node-type-html node-type-article-full"><div class="node-inner clear-block"><div class="content clear-block"><div class="field field-type-text field-field-social-title"><div class="field-label" style="text-align: left; font-weight: bold;">Social Title: </div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd" style="text-align: left;">Conservatives want to wipe out coal rules…over a typo.</div></div></div><div class="field field-type-text field-field-short-body"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd">This <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/could-a-copy-editing-error-undermine-obamas-climate-rule/" target="blank">story</a> [1] originally appeared on <a href="http://grist.org/" target="blank">Grist</a> [2] and is republished here as part of the <a href="http://climatedesk.org/" target="blank">Climate Desk</a> [3] collaboration.If you can't beat 'em, point out their typos.That seems to be the lesson of the D.C. Circuit Court's recent decision in Halbig v. Sebelius, which could render millions of Americans ineligible for health insurance subsidies on the basis of some sloppy syntax in the Affordable Care Act. After surviving more than 50 repeal votes in the House, a Supreme Court challenge to its constitutionality, and a famously rocky online rollout, health-care reform may end up hobbled by a mere drafting error. And the anti-regulatory crowd wasted no time in launching its next AutoCorrect attack: A <a href="http://www.ok.gov/oag/documents/Section%20111d%20Settlement%20Filing.pdf" target="blank">new suit</a> [4] asks the D.C. Circuit to nix the president's biggest climate-change initiative—EPA's "Clean Power Plan"—due to a 25-year-old mistake in the text of the Clean Air Act.</div></div></div><div class="field field-type-text field-field-article-text"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd">But don't panic just yet. As others have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/upshot/after-health-law-rulings-here-are-possible-next-steps.html?abt=0002&abg=0" target="blank">pointed</a> [5] <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/obamacare_rulings_two_courts_differ_on_heath_insurance_subsidies_but_the.html" target="blank">out</a> [6], Halbig is far from a done deal. A different federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit, upheld the insurance subsidies on the same day the Halbig court invalidated them. If the full D.C. Circuit doesn't end up reversing its three-judge panel's initial decision (through a sort of mini-appeal known as en banc review), the Supreme Court will almost certainly step in to resolve the circuit split. In the meantime, no one loses her insurance.The prospects for EPA's climate rule aren't so bleak either. First of all, the 12 state attorneys general who filed suit were a bit too quick on the spell-check trigger. Federal courts generally limit review of agency decisions to "final actions," and the Clean Power Plan is still in draft form. As a result, the current case will probably be dismissed as premature. That won't stop the state AGs from re-filing as soon as EPA does publish a final rule, but even then, their victory will hardly be assured. Here's why.The "Clean Power Plan" is the administration's catchy(ish) nickname for a set of <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-nine-things-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-new-climate-rules/" target="blank">restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants</a> [7], which generate a full third of the nation's greenhouse gas pollution. EPA's authority to regulate these emissions derives from a little-used Clean Air Act provision called Section 111(d). The section has been around since 1970, but when a bipartisan majority of Congress overhauled the Clean Air Act back in 1990, it amended 111(d). Twice. The details are complicated (you can read more about them <a href="http://legal-planet.org/2014/05/28/guest-blogger-kate-konschnik-epas-111d-authority-follow-homer-and-avoid-the-sirens/" target="blank">here</a> [8]), but the upshot is simple: Under the language of an amendment that originated in the Senate, regulating power plants' carbon emissions is perfectly kosher; under the House's amendment, not so much.Competing House and Senate amendments—doesn't Congress have an app for that? Yep, even back in the digital dark ages of 1990, there was software designed to identify overlapping or incompatible changes to statutory text. But the conference committee charged with reconciling the House and Senate bills didn't have time to run it. As a result, both 111(d) amendments ended up in the compromise bill that was passed by both chambers and signed by the first President Bush. Meaning that both versions are, in some sense, the law of the land.A self-contradicting statute—doesn't the judiciary have an app for that? Sort of. Federal courts certainly have an established rule for dealing with vague or ambiguous laws. Under the Chevron doctrine, if a statute does not "speak clearly" with respect to a particular issue, courts will defer to any reasonable interpretation offered by the executive agency charged with implementing the law. In this case, the EPA maintains that the Senate amendment is more consistent with the Clean Air Act's overall structure and purpose. If Chevron applies, that justification should pass muster.The tough question is whether Chevron will apply. It's hard to see how a court could find that the competing amendments to Section 111(d) "speak clearly." But are the amendments "ambiguous" in the Chevron sense, or are they something else altogether—say, nonsensical?Plenty of legal experts have shared their views, but at the end of the day, the opinions that really matter will be those of nine black-robed individuals in Washington, D.C. Handily enough, five of the Big Nine previewed their positions in a recent, fractured decision about an immigration rule. In Scialabba v. Cuellar De Osorio, the Supreme Court was confronted not with two contradictory versions of a single statutory section, but with a single statutory section that contained two seemingly contradictory instructions. (Cut Congress some slack, you guys. Drafting laws is really hard.) Justice Kagan, writing for herself and Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy, called the statute "Janus-faced," concluded that its "internal tension ma[de] possible alternative reasonable constructions," and deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretive choice. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justice Scalia, disagreed that the two clauses were truly in conflict but, even more importantly, rejected the idea that Chevron was "a license for an agency to repair a statute that does not make sense." In Roberts' view, "Direct conflict is not ambiguity, and the resolution of such a conflict is not statutory construction but legislative choice."The other four justices didn't weigh in on this particular question in Scialabba, so it's not clear whether Kagan's or Roberts' camp will carry a majority if and when litigation over the Clean Power Plan reaches the high court. But it's also not clear that the vote count will matter, because either way EPA should retain authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.Come again? First, consider Justice Kagan's view. If her logic controls, the court will apply Chevron, defer to EPA's interpretation of Section 111(d), and affirm the agency's authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. A win for EPA and the president.Alternatively, assume that Chief Justice Roberts gets the majority. The two amendments to Section 111(d) are almost undoubtedly in "direct conflict," so, in Roberts' view, EPA's interpretation doesn't warrant deference. Now what? Roberts' Scialabba opinion doesn't say what the court should substitute for Chevron in the case of a provision that's truly at war with itself. But if the chief justice believes that giving effect to only one of the two amendments represents a "legislative choice," the judicial branch has no more business picking a winner than EPA. (In fact, courts are even less suited than executive agencies to this sort of policy decision. Agencies are, at least, indirectly accountable to the people, because agency leaders serve at the pleasure of a democratically elected president.) If it's not possible to honor the House and Senate amendments simultaneously, the only remaining option is to throw out both as invalid, in which case Section 111(d) would revert to its pre-1990 form.That's the reason backers of the climate rule shouldn't panic: Under the earlier version of Section 111(d), EPA would still have authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. The agency still wins.Oh, and if the current Congress doesn't like that result? Well, it remains free to share its preferred method for addressing climate change at any time. There's an app for that, too. It's called new legislation.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><hr class="print-hr" style="text-align: left; height: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: gray; line-height: normal;" /><div class="print-source_url" style="text-align: left; line-height: normal;">Source URL: <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/conservatives-typo-unravel-obama-climate-law-epa-coal">http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/conservatives-typo-unravel-obama-climate-law-epa-coal</a></div><div class="print-links" style="line-height: normal;"><div style="text-align: left;">Links:</div><div style="text-align: left;">[1] http://grist.org/climate-energy/could-a-copy-editing-error-undermine-obamas-climate-rule/</div><div style="text-align: left;">[2] http://grist.org</div><div style="text-align: left;">[3] http://climatedesk.org</div><div style="text-align: left;">[4] http://www.ok.gov/oag/documents/Section%20111d%20Settlement%20Filing.pdf</div><div style="text-align: left;">[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/upshot/after-health-law-rulings-here-are-possible-next-steps.html?abt=0002&abg=0</div><div style="text-align: left;">[6] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/obamacare_rulings_two_courts_differ_on_heath_insurance_subsidies_but_the.html</div><div style="text-align: left;">[7] http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-nine-things-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-new-climate-rules/</div><div style="text-align: left;">[8] http://legal-planet.org/2014/05/28/guest-blogger-kate-konschnik-epas-111d-authority-follow-homer-and-avoid-the-sirens/</div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div>=murray coal<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/12/coal-ceo-epa-global-warming/"> </a><a href="http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/12/coal-ceo-epa-global-warming/">http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/12/coal-ceo-epa-global-warming/</a>  7/14  data q actcolo social cost of coal  A federal judge has blocked a coal project in the wilds of Colorado because federal agencies failed to consider the future global-warming damages from burning fossil fuels.U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke <a href="http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/91%20-%20Order%20on%20Merits%20%282%29.pdf" style="color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Jackson's decision</a> halts exploration proposed by Arch Coal that would have bulldozed six miles of roads on 1,700 untrammeled acres of public land. When the agencies touted the supposed economic benefits of expanded coal mining in the Sunset Roadless Area, Jackson ruled, they should also have considered any global-warming costs. The decision was a significant judicial endorsement of a policy tool known as the "social cost of carbon," which economists and climate scientist use to put a price in today's dollars on the damages from drought, flood, storm, fire, disease and so forth caused by future global warming due to our emissions from burning fossil fuels."It is arbitrary to offer detailed projections of a project's upside while omitting a feasible projection of the project's costs," Jackson decreed.The Obama administration has increasingly used the social-cost figure to help decide whether restraints on carbon dioxide emissions are worthwhile. Industry groups and their allies in Congress have sought to limit its use. Environmentalists call it a useful device for making clear that there are high costs as well as benefits to burning fossil fuels.... <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/20140701/coal-mines-rejection-global-warming-grounds-has-major-implications">http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/20140701/coal-mines-rejection-global-warming-grounds-has-major-implications</a> = forecast vs coal icn ...<h3 style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">A 'more bullish' forecast for renewables</h3><p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">BNEF's outlook, based on the work of 65 analysts over nine months of data collection, generally mirrors that of other forecasting agencies. But officials described it as "more bullish" on renewable energy due to Bloomberg analysts' strong belief that costs for renewable energy will continue to fall over the coming years.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">"What we are seeing is global CO2 emissions on track to stop growing by the end of next decade, with the peak only pushed back because of fast-growing developing countries, which continue adding fossil fuel capacity as well as renewables," Michael Liebreich, chairman of BNEF's advisory board, said in a statement.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Representatives of the fossil fuel industry, however, characterized the report as reflecting a particular view of the global energy sector. "Maybe Bloomberg's analysts are drinking the same Kool-Aid that their anti-coal founder has been drinking," Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said, referring to Michael Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, climate activist and founder of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of BNEF.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Seb Henbest, BNEF's regional head for Europe, Middle East and Africa, based in London, responded to critics, saying in an email that the analysis "is a conservative, bottom-up, country-by-country economic analysis of the evolving state of the power sector.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">"Rather than dismiss and politicize our conclusions, the coal industry should study them to help quantify and better understand the risks and opportunities ahead of it," he said.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">BNEF notes that the Asia-Pacific region "has become the centre of global energy growth" and that Asian countries will install as much power capacity through 2030 as the rest of the world combined. Renewables are expected to account for two-thirds of total investment in new power projects in Asia, averaging $252 billion per year, and by 2030 renewables should account for 33 percent of all electricity generated in the region.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">In Europe, wind energy and solar photovoltaics will become "the main driver of capacity additions," and renewables will attract more than 75 percent of the projected $1.3 trillion invested in power generation over the 2013-2030 period, according to the analysis. Consumption of both coal and gas is expected to precipitously decline over the same period with coal falling from 19 percent to 8 percent of energy capacity and gas falling from 25 percent to 17 percent of capacity.<h3 style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Natural gas constitutes 'largest single slice' in America</h3><p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Bloomberg forecasts that public- and private-sector firms in the Americas will spend $1.3 trillion to add 943 GW of gross new power generation capacity by 2030, including for new and replacement power plants. More than half of that new capacity, 522 GW, will be built in the United States, while 341 GW will be added in Latin America and 80 GW in Canada.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The "largest single slice" of that future investment will be for new natural-gas-fired plants, at $314 billion, due to "the persistence of low natural gas prices in North America following the shale gas boom," according to the report. Bloomberg projects that between 2013 and 2030, the U.S. gas-fired power plant fleet will grow by 134 GW of capacity.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Bloomberg also forecasts continued strong growth in the Americas for rooftop solar PV and onshore wind power with investment of $231 billion and $200 billion, respectively. Roughly 90 percent of all new solar power generation will occur in developing countries as they seek to meet rising power demand and begin to achieve economies of scale for large solar arrays.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Projections for coal are stark, however, with expected coal-fired power generation shrinking to 17 percent of all electricity generation in the Americas combined by 2030, down from 26 percent today. In the United States, coal-fired capacity is expected to shrink by 109 GW, "mainly due to being out-competed by gas and renewables," BNEF said. But also because new U.S. regulations targeting emissions from coal plants, including recently announced carbon dioxide regulations, will make coal an less attractive fuel for power production.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">"[Government] policy makes it all but impossible to build new coal in the U.S. and Canada," the analysis states.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> <p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">By contrast, other parts of the developing world will embrace the construction of new coal, gas and oil plants in part "to meet the increased power demand that comes with industrialization, and also to balance variable generation sources such as wind and solar."<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> <p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Henbest, BNEF's London-based analyst, said that coal should maintain and even grow its market share over the near term in China and India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Turkey, South Africa and parts of Eastern Europe.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> <p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Yet even with those caveats, NMA's Popovich argued that Bloomberg's findings are skewed with respect to coal consumption.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">He pointed to the recent "BP Statistical Review of World Energy," which found that coal, while growing more slowly than before, is still the fastest-growing fossil fuel in the world.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">"Coal's share of global primary energy consumption reached 30.1 percent, the highest since 1970," the BP PLC <a href="http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-full-report.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-weight: bold; background: transparent;">analysis</a> said.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20.034px; text-align: start; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">"If there was a World Cup for energy sources powering the global economy, coal would be crowned champion," Popovich said.= gore RS 6/18/14 ...<a class="inStoryLink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(0, 51, 102); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Global Warming's Terrifying New Math</a>There is surprising – even shocking – good news: Our ability to convert sunshine into usable energy has become much cheaper far more rapidly than anyone had predicted. The cost of electricity from photovoltaic, or PV, solar cells is now equal to or less than the cost of electricity from other sources powering electric grids in at least 79 countries. By 2020 – as the scale of deployments grows and the costs continue to decline – more than 80 percent of the world's people will live in regions where solar will be competitive with electricity from other sources.No matter what the large carbon polluters and their ideological allies say or do, in markets there is a huge difference between "more expensive than" and "cheaper than." Not unlike the difference between 32 degrees and 33 degrees Fahrenheit. It's not just a difference of a degree, it's the difference between a market that's frozen up and one that's liquid. As a result, all over the world, the executives of companies selling electricity generated from the burning of carbon-based fuels (primarily from coal) are openly discussing their growing fears of a "utility death spiral."Germany, Europe's industrial powerhouse, where renewable subsidies have been especially high, now generates 37 percent of its daily electricity from wind and solar; and analysts predict that number will rise to 50 percent by 2020. (Indeed, one day this year, renewables created 74 percent of the nation's electricity!)<a class="inStoryLink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scorched-earth-20110624" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(0, 51, 102); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">Scorched Earth: How Climate Change Is Spreading Drought Throughout the Globe</a>What's more, Germany's two largest coal-burning utilities have lost 56 percent of their value over the past four years, and the losses have continued into the first half of 2014. And it's not just Germany. Last year, the top 20 utilities throughout Europe reported losing half of their value since 2008. According to the Swiss bank UBS, nine out of 10 European coal and gas plants are now losing money.In the United States, where up to 49 percent of the new generating capacity came from renewables in 2012, 166 coal-fired electricity-generating plants have either closed or have announced they are closing in the past four and a half years. An additional 183 proposed new coal plants have been canceled since 2005.To be sure, some of these closings have been due to the substitution of gas for coal, but the transition under way in both the American and global energy markets is far more significant than one fossil fuel replacing another. We are witnessing the beginning of a massive shift to a new energy-distribution model – from the "central station" utility-grid model that goes back to the 1880s to a "widely distributed" model with rooftop solar cells, on-site and grid battery storage, and microgrids.The principal trade group representing U.S. electric utilities, the Edison Electric Institute, has identified distributed generation as the "largest near-term threat to the utility model." Last May, Barclays downgraded the entirety of the U.S. electric sector, warning that "a confluence of declining cost trends in distributed solarphotovoltaic-power generation and residentialscale power storage is likely to disrupt the status quo" and make utility investments less attractive.<a class="inStoryLink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-10-dumbest-things-ever-said-about-global-warming-20130619" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(0, 51, 102); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">See the 10 Dumbest Things Said</a>

Read more: <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-turning-point-new-hope-for-the-climate-20140618#ixzz350KCIUmP" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(0, 51, 153); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-turning-point-new-hope-for-the-climate-20140618#ixzz350KCIUmP</a> 
Follow us: <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bbJxak64Kr4kEzacwqm_6l&u=rollingstone" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(0, 51, 102); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">@rollingstone on Twitter</a> | <a href="http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bbJxak64Kr4kEzacwqm_6l&u=RollingStone" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(0, 51, 102); text-decoration-line: none; background: transparent;">RollingStone on Facebook</a>... =On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to release its ambitious climate rule, one aimed at cutting the carbon pollution emitted by the nation’s fleet of existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. These emissions drive up the health problems that stem from dirty air and fuel climate change and taking action to address them, particularly in light of Congress’ refusal to do the same, is widely being regarded as one of President Obama’s key accomplishments.But the fight is far from over. While the EPA is required to regulate pollutants under the Clean Air Act, cries of overreach and unfair punishment of the coal industry have begun and will likely intensify as each state determines the best path to achieve the required reductions. While the rule itself hasn’t even been released, several groups have already begun to attack it, largely the same well-funded entities that have fought any attempt to address global warming for decades.<h3 style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 20px 0px 10px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start;">U.S. Chamber of Commerce</h3>The Chamber didn’t wait for the rule to come out, instead publishing their own speculative report Wednesday. The Chamber found that it would cost American industry $28.1 billion annually to comply with EPA’s new regulations and that as many as 224,000 jobs would be lost between now and 2030. However, as Climate Progress’ Jeff Spross <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/28/3442314/chamber-of-commerce-epa-carbon-study/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">points out</a>, the Chamber’s ‘analysis’ only counts up the negative side of the ledger — failing to account for the economic benefit that will come from cleaning up the air and creating new jobs in the clean energy sector. In its attempt to scare the country about the new plan, the Chamber “fails utterly,” <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/lobby-tries-fails-to-frighten-on-clean-energy.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">according</a> to Jonathan Chait. The report uses an inflated number for projected electricity demand and bases its analysis off of an ambitious proposal by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), rather than the EPA’s actual proposal, but “even the Chamber’s unrealistically dire number is still low enough that most people would barely notice it,” Chait writes.The country’s largest business lobby, the Chamber has a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/05/2500831/chamber-carbon-tax/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">long history</a> of opposing action to address climate change. The group lobbied hard against the failed Waxman-Markey climate bill — spending a whopping $17 million in the early months of 2009 alone. The Chamber then created an entire subsidiary organization, the Institute for 21st Century Energy, to promote its view of climate and energy issues. <a href="http://chamber.350.org/poster/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">94 percent</a> of the $32 million the Chamber spent on the 2010 elections went to climate deniers.In October, the Chamber <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/329671-us-chamber-kochs-join-social-cost-of-carbon-lobbying-battle" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">joined</a> Koch Industries, among others, to officially lobby against the use of the social cost of carbon — a calculation that takes into account all of the negative economic effects of carbon pollution.The Chamber also helped create the Partnership for a Better Energy Future, a <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/196968-business-plans-major-pushback-on-energy-regulation" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">coalition</a> of 76 business groups that has vowed “to be present every step of the way” as the regulations are introduced and enforced.<h3 style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 20px 0px 10px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start;">American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)</h3>Funded by petrochemical billionaires Charles and David Koch, along with various corporate and fossil fuel interests, ALEC is a secretive organization designed to pass conservative legislation in states across the country. The group set its sights on attacking clean energy laws in multiple states but <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/08/2399121/corporations-clean-energy-standards/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">failed in every attempt</a> last year. This year, ALEC identified the coming restrictions on coal-fired power plants as a key area of focus and, according to internal documents obtained by the Guardian earlier this month, they have a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/02/3433615/alec-campaign-push/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">new strategy</a>. ALEC’s plan for attacking the regulations involves seeking out friendly state attorneys general and encouraging them to sue the EPA, a move reportedly spearheaded by Nebraska attorney general and ALEC member Jon Bruning, who has already filed a lawsuit against the agency.ALEC has also “targeted a dozen state legislatures, including Kentucky and Ohio, to prevent certain states from implementing EPA carbon rules,” Reuters <a href="https://sg.news.yahoo.com/big-public-push-white-house-seeks-smooth-way-114229633--finance.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">reported</a> last week. Ohio has already <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/ohio-energy-inc/2014/05/lawmakers-want-to-give-ohio-flexibility-with-epa.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">introduced</a> model legislation.<h3 style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 20px 0px 10px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start;">Americans For Prosperity (AFP)</h3>Another Koch-funded organization, AFP reacted to proposed regulations by citing its concern over the impact it would have on low-income Americans. “Using the EPA to drive up electricity prices will have a negative impact on American families, their pocketbooks and their standard of living,” the group said in a 2013 <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/minnesota/newsroom/afp-responds-to-obamas-epa-carbon-regulations/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">statement</a>. “The President claims to care about jobs and the economy, but his EPA regulations and resulting higher energy bills will hurt the little guy the most, the senior citizen, the single mom on a fixed income.”AFP, however, has <a href="http://americansforprosperity.org/legislativealerts/minimum-wage-more-harm-than-good" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">fought against</a> raising the minimum wage, claiming that “it does more harm than good.” Last year they launched a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/19/2806521/billionaire-koch-brothers-spending-millions-deny-health-coverage-income-americans/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">massive campaign</a> pressuring states to deny health care coverage to lower income Americans through the Medicaid expansion contained in the Affordable Care Act.AFP has worked to protect fossil fuel interests and slander clean energy in multiple states — recently running ads attacking Kansas’ clean energy standard that former Senate President Dave Kerr, (R-Hutchinson) <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/24/3418060/koch-kansas-clean-energy-repeal/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">called</a> “provably false” and failing in their <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/09/2267051/koch-brothers-fund-effort-to-undermine-tea-party-support-of-solar-energy-in-georgia/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">attempt</a> to undermine Tea Party support for solar power in Georgia.<h3 style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 20px 0px 10px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start;">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)</h3>In March, the group, which represents coal mining companies as well as owners of coal-fired plants like American Electric Power and Southern Co, released a <a href="http://www.betterenergyfuture.org/analysis-the-true-cost-of-proposed-epa-greenhouse-gas-regulations/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">report</a> claiming the EPA’s new rule would kill more than 2.85 million jobs and cause consumers’ electricity bills to rise in 29 states — a prediction even more dire than the Chamber’s. The position is in line with ACCCE’s long history of staunch opposition to any action to reduce carbon pollution. ACCCE has been a top lobbyist on climate change and energy, spending over <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000046880&year=2013" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">$20 million</a> since 2008. In 2010, they spent <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/news/2010/10/27/8530/interactive-big-polluters-big-ad-spending/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">$16.4 million</a> on misleading television ads and in 2012, the group launched a broad-based <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/31/611401/coal-front-group-helps-back-6-million-campaign-against-higher-renewable-energy-standard/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">$40 million</a> messaging and outreach campaign where one ad accused the EPA of attempting to raise electricity prices.ACCCE’s tactics don’t stop with lobbying. In 2009, the group <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/green/2009/08/03/174394/accce-bonner-party/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">admitted</a> to hiring a firm to forge letters from civil rights organizations to Congress opposing climate legislation, going as far as to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/09/10/60147/veterans-14th-letter/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">impersonate veterans</a>. While being investigated by Congress, the president and CEO <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/29/204883/forged-letter-hearing-coal-industry-accce-lies-under-oath-lobbying/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">lied under oath</a>, claiming the group never opposed climate legislation. Congressional investigations also discovered the group <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/10/30/204887/energy-and-global-warming-news-for-october-30-coal-industry-knew-of-fraudulent-letters-senate-gop-may-try-to-stall-climate-bill/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">knew of the fraudulent letters</a> but failed to disclose it until several weeks after a major House vote on climate legislation.<h3 style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 20px 0px 10px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start;">National Mining Association (NMA)</h3>The National Mining Association, which represents large coal companies such as Peabody Coal Co, Arch Coal Inc, Alpha Natural Resources and Cloud Peak Energy Inc., “has spent $1 million on a radio and digital campaign in five states depicting shocked consumers opening expensive electricity bills,” Reuters <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/28/us-usa-climatechange-industry-analysis-idUSKBN0E80CP20140528" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">reported</a>. The advertisements claim that electricity bills will jump by 80 percent as a result of the Obama administration’s proposal to limit carbon pollution from new coal and natural gas plants, something the Washington Post’s Fact Checker <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/23/a-bogus-claim-that-electricity-prices-will-nearly-double-because-of-clean-coal-technology/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">recently said</a> was “wholly unsupported” and reliant on “bogus, hyped evidence to make its claim.”The NMA has <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/22/3429463/final-coal-dust-rules-black-lung-disease/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">spoken out</a> against new coal dust regulations aimed at reducing cases of black lung disease in coal miners, claiming the administration’s long-awaited rule is unnecessary and <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/08/17/10712/gao-report-supports-science-behind-black-lung-rule" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">criticizing</a> multiple studies that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined were sound. The NMA also intervened in a <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/22/3320911/mountaintop-removal-mining-stream-buffer-rule/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">recent court decision</a> to restore a law overturned by the Bush administration designed to keep toxic coal mining spoil from entering sensitive waterways, <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059994937" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">saying</a> they found the ruling “obviously very disappointing.”<h3 style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 20px 0px 10px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start;">Heritage Foundation</h3>The conservative think tank, which has received funding from the Koch Family Foundations and ExxonMobil, has been staunchly opposed to the EPA’s move to cut carbon emissions since the rules were initially proposed. The group has called on Congress to intervene and stop the EPA (which it does not have the authority to do), citing far-reaching impacts like<a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/epas-climate-regulations-will-harm-american-manufacturing" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">damage</a> to manufacturing, constituting a “back-door energy tax,” and accomplishing <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/epa-power-plant-regulations-a-backdoor-energy-tax" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">nothing more</a> than raising energy prices and killing jobs “with no noticeable climate impact.”Heritage has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">long sought</a> to cast doubt on the scientific consensus behind climate change and oppose cutting greenhouse gas emissions. A 2010 white paper asserts that “the only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” (In reality, 97 percent of scientists agree climate change is happening and human activity is the root cause). The think tank also has a long history of opposing any initiative that might impede fossil fuel corporations. Heritage recently <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/20/2973431/heritage-koch-brothers-fracking/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">joined</a> Americans for Prosperity and the Chamber of Commerce in supporting a bill that would have prevented the federal government from regulating fracking operations.A recent study published in the journal Climactic Change found that conservative think tanks like Heritage, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Foundation are among the top recipients of the nearly <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/22/3099141/climate-denying-groups-funding/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">$1 billion a year</a> that funnels from conservative donors to organizations that oppose limits on carbon pollution.<h3 style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 20px 0px 10px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start;">American Energy Alliance/Institute For Energy Research</h3>The Institute for Energy Research and its political arm, the American Energy Alliance, are both<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74643.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">funded</a> in part by the Koch brothers and their donor network and run by Tom Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries. The group was recently identified as a beneficiary of the Kochs’ vast political network, which raised at least <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/01/06/3121881/400-million-kochs/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">$407 million</a> in the last election alone, according to a recent analysis by the Washington Post and the Center for Responsive Politics. In January, an IER <a href="http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/obamas-war-on-coal-continues-while-global-demand-increases/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">blog post</a> said the plan to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants “will wreak havoc on our largest source of electricity.”Pyle <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/us/epa-staff-struggling-to-create-rule-limiting-carbon-emissions.html?hpw&rref=politics&r=1" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">told</a> the New York Times in February that the group was preparing to attack the proposal with television and radio ads. “That’s going to be a big fight, when they roll out the rule for existing plants,” Pyle said. “We’ll be ready for them.”AEA has recently been <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/04/3017891/conservative-group-targets-carbon-tax/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">attacking</a> vulnerable Democrats in fossil-fuel friendly states — Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), Sen. Mark Begich (AK) — for supporting a carbon tax, even though they never did. In 2012, the group sought to make the Production Tax Credit for wind energy <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/19/1045661/koch-group-campaigns-to-make-wind-tax-credit-so-toxic-republicans-wont-back-it/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">“so toxic”</a> that Republicans wouldn’t back it.Tiffany Germain, Senior Researcher with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, contributed to this piece.<div class="tags" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.5em 0px 1em; border: 0px; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline; text-align: start;"><ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding: 1em 0px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none; display: inline;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/alec/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">ALEC</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/american-coalition-for-clean-coal-electricity/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/american-energy-alliance/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(153, 0, 0); border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(238, 238, 238);">American Energy Alliance</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/americans-for-prosperity/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Americans for Prosperity</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/carbon-emissions/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Carbon Emissions</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/chamber-of-commerce/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Chamber of Commerce</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/clean-air-act/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Clean Air Act</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/heritage-foundation/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Heritage Foundation</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/national-mining-association/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">National Mining Association</a></li></ul></div> yikes, CU meets local ordinances: <section class="article-body" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.5em;">Early in April, coal industry executive Shaun McCutcheon won big when the Supreme Court<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;"> swept away limits</a> on how much money wealthy donors can contribute to federal political campaigns. But in St. Louis, Mo., coal interests are trying to prevent people from even voting.This story began when ordinary citizens<a href="http://www.takebackstlouis.com/the_initiative" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;"> joined together</a> and took a stand against both climate change and their city’s destructive practice of granting enormous tax breaks to big business while cutting funding for public services. They talked to thousands of residents who were upset that St. Louis keeps giving away tens of millions of dollars of badly needed public money to <a href="http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data/ord8701.htm" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">Peabody Energy</a> (the world’s largest private-sector coal company) and the <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/st-louis-opens-checkbook-to-keep-e%E2%80%A6cle_2030e424-4d19-5c00-ae2b-5351bf21dab4.html" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">lobbyists, banks, and law firms</a> that enable it. And after hearing over and over again that “there oughta be a law” against corporate welfare for polluters, they did what we learned in civics class: they wrote a law that would<a href="http://www.takebackstlouis.com/full_text" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;"> ban public financial incentives</a> to unsustainable energy producers and their major business partners.They didn’t just write the law: Under the banner of <a href="http://www.takebackstlouis.com/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">Take Back St. Louis</a>, they walked door-to-door, talking to friends, neighbors, and strangers about their idea. They collected over 22,000 signatures — more than 10 percent of all the voters in St. Louis — on a petition for a ballot initiative. The city’s elections board<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/anti-coal-initiative-heading-for-april-ballot/article_c74ff1da-de8b-529a-9134-70bbd82ed4c9.html" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;"> verified the signatures</a>, and began preparing to print ballots. This is where you might expect to hear about a vigorous election campaign, with arguments from both sides put to the voters, a spirited debate about the future of St. Louis and our planet, and finally, the voters making their choice at the ballot box. You might even expect to hear about the coal company spending millions of dollars to fight the initiative in the days before the vote. But you’d be wrong: There was no vote. Instead, the<a href="http://www.stinsonleonard.com/uploadedFiles/Content/News_and_Events/In_the_News/2013_In_the_News/Dueker_STLBJReprint_Character.pdf" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;"> coal company’s lawyers</a> rushed<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/lawsuit-seeks-to-block-anti-coal-measure-from-ballot/article_c2d61509-55cf-5199-9630-dc2f2c72b5d5.html" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;"> to court</a> and asked a judge to <a href="http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/judge-halts-election-limiting-tax-breaks" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">block the election</a> on the grounds that the law would unfairly discriminate against the coal company and its business partners, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The judge <a href="http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/judge-halts-election-limiting-tax-breaks" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">agreed</a>, and <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/206544694/Sustainable-Energy-Order-Feb-11-2014" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">cited the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision</a> for the theory that business entities “are entitled to constitutional protection as citizens.” He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the vote, and scheduled a trial for March 31.At the <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morning_call/2014/03/anti-coal-initiative-heads-back-to-st-louis-court.html?ana=twt" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">trial</a>, Take Back St. Louis <a href="http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/sites/default/files/SLSF%20Post%20Trial%20Brief-Final.pdf#page=21" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">provided evidence</a> about the environmental damage caused by burning coal, and the damage to the fabric of St. Louis caused by the city’s penchant for giving away public dollars to big business. The other side <a href="http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/666" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">didn’t put any witnesses on the stand</a>. The judge may make his final decision any day now. Not everyone will agree that this ballot initiative is the best policy, and that’s fine. The Take Back St. Louis folks think they can convince a majority of St. Louis voters, and they’re willing to take on the coal interests in a contest for votes. But first, the court has to get out of the way. Now that the judge has the evidence, he has a chance to get this right, lift his injunction, and let the vote proceed.Whether or not you think that giving tax breaks to coal companies and their business partners is a good idea, we should all agree that this is a question for voters, not judges. Because it was bad enough when coal companies could simply open their checkbooks to flood elections with unlimited spending; now they won’t even let people vote.<a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(237, 95, 0); max-width: 100%;"> </a></section><section class="author-bio clear margin-bottom-x4" style="font-style: italic; text-decoration-line: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.5em;">Ron Fein is the Legal Director for <a href="http://freespeechforpeople.org/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(157, 157, 157); text-decoration-line: none;">Free Speech For People</a>, an organization dedicated to challenging the misuse of corporate power and restoring republican democracy to the people.</section><a href="http://grist.org/business-technology/do-coal-companies-have-more-rights-than-voters/">http://grist.org/business-technology/do-coal-companies-have-more-rights-than-voters/</a>=<div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; text-align: left;">NV Energy has announced that it will close three of its four coal-fired units at the Reid Gardner power plant in southern Nevada by the end of this year, and the fourth by 2019. The Sierra Club has worked for years with the Moapa Band of Paiutes to retire heavily polluting Reid Gardner, which sits next door to the Moapa Paiute reservation. Soon the tribe will build a 200-megawatt solar array -- the first commercial solar project on Native American lands -- from which the city of Los Angeles will be purchasing enough energy to power over 110,000 homes. </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; color: rgb(103, 133, 178); line-height: 19.2px; outline: none;"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=gYyA3q_lhrlUjToXnWd6oA" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; color: rgb(103, 133, 178); line-height: 19.2px; outline: none;" /><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=gYyA3q_lhrlUjToXnWd6oA" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; color: rgb(103, 133, 178); line-height: 19.2px; outline: none;">Read about this major victory for the climate, clean air, and renewable energy.</a> </div>Falling on the 100th anniversary of theLudlow coal miners' massacre, a growing movement of citizens groups will gather on Saturday afternoon in St. Louis to join the greatWashington University sit-in against Peabody Energy.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The pillars of Big Coal are crumbling in St. Louis this week -- according to Wall Street analysts, and as an extraordinary grassroots movement holds Peabody and its university hosts and investors accountable for its legacy of ruin amid climate change, afailed regulatory system, and a proposed strip mine expansion that will effectively destroy the farming community of Rocky Branch, Illinois.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>And for coal mining families across the nation, the Ludlow Massacre of children, women and immigrant union coal miners, is one of the most defining cautionary tales of injustice and rallying cries for action in the American coalfields that still resound today: No one's loss of life, liberty and health for coal industry profits is acceptable collateral damage.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>A century later, the indefatigable students at Washington University have inspired the nation with their nearly 2-week sit-in, now joined by students at Southern Illinois University and across the nation, and are asking the same questions about their university's tieswith Peabody Energy'sclimate change-denying mining operations.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In a line: No one's loss of life, liberty and health in Rocky Branch, Illinois -- on Black Mesa, in Arizona, or the Bear Run strip mine in Indiana, or across the globe -- should be acceptable collateral damage for the Attorney General in Illinois or for Washington University trustees or anyone in the United States, in order to pander to Peabody's state-subsidized profit line.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>When the Saline County board voted earlier this week to grant Peabody the right to make potentially disastrous road changes in Rocky Branch to facilitate a proposed strip mine expansion--even though Peabody has yet to receive the proper EPA permits--one commissioner simply dismissed the inevitable destruction as "only at 12 households affected by this."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Only 12 households?<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Memo to Saline County commissioners: We all live in Rocky Branch, if you consider the toxic fallout of the strip mining operations on our water, land and climate.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Rocky Branch is not "only 12 households," but the deeply rooted and historic community of war veterans, retired coal miners, business owners, farmers, preachers, parents and grandparents, and tax-payers who have the same civil rights and constitutional rights to environmental protection as anyone else.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Rocky Branch residents on Rocky Branch road. Photo courtesy of Justice at Rocky Branch.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>This week, in fact, marks the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail," who reminded us in 1963: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In an age of climate change and the need for immediate action, never has that sentiment been more compelling.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In the tradition of King and the civil rights movement, students and community advocates at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale also held protests for divestment from Peabody yesterday.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Carbondale, SIU: Photo courtesy of Chelsea J. Brady<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Mother Jones, the great "Miner's Angel" and immigrant union organizer, who is buried near St. Louis in our southern Illinois Progressive Miners' cemetery, once reminded the nation of the lessons from Ludlow, where coal company guardsman murdered innocent children, women and striking union miners:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"No one listened. No one cared. The tickers in the offices of 26 Broadway sounded louder than the sobs of women and children. Men in the steam-heated luxury of Broadway offices could not feel the stinging cold of Colorado hillsides where families lived in tents. Then came Ludlow and the nation heard. Little children roasted alive make a front page story. Dying by inches of starvation and exposure does not."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Are Washington University trustees, investors, the Illinois Attorney General, and the nation listening to the students and communities about the Peabody crisis today?<a href="http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/jeffbiggers/wash-u-sit-shaking-pillars-big-coal?paging=off&current_page=1">http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/jeffbiggers/wash-u-sit-shaking-pillars-big-coal?paging=off¤t_page=1</a><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>4/14 <div class="field field-type-text field-field-source" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; color: rgb(35, 31, 32); line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item odd">(McClatchy)</div></div></div>Coal, the former king of American energy, is making a comeback after being left for dead in favor of cleaner-burning natural gas.For years coal has been losing market share as the American fracking boom created a flood of cheap and abundant natural gas. But natural gas prices have edged upward, and the frigid winter created unprecedented energy demands. Power plants have increasingly been turning to coal as the solution.There's serious doubt whether the resurgence in coal can last in America with stricter environmental rules coming. But the global outlook for coal is bright, and U.S. coal producers hope to take advantage by increasing exports to other countries hungry for cheap energy. The International Energy Agency believes coal will be the No. 1 fuel for meeting the worldwide increase in energy demand.<div class="field-field-news-source-url" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; color: rgb(35, 31, 32); line-height: normal; text-align: start;"><div class="field-item" style="text-align: left; width: 529.188px; margin-bottom: 10px;"><a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/04/17/224755/old-school-coal-is-making-a-comeback.html" title="Read original story" style="color: rgb(0, 100, 0); text-decoration-line: none; outline: none;">Read original story</a></div></div> =Joining with a coalition of environmental groups, Baykeeper recently helped scuttle proposals by developers for two dangerous new facilities to export dirty coal from the Port of Oakland. Coal breaks apart easily, forming dust that contains mercury, arsenic, uranium, and other toxic substances. Transporting millions of tons of coal in mile-long open car trains to the port, and then loading it onto ships, would send toxic dust into the Bay. It would also further pollute the air of nearby communities already suffering from disproportionate pollution.Baykeeper advocated against these proposals in coalition with the Sierra Club, Earthjustice, the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, and Communities for a Better Environment.On February 27, the Port of Oakland Commissioners voted unanimously to reject the coal export facilities.<a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="http://baykeeper.org/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=1782&qid=391678" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">Learn more about Baykeeper's successful advocacy against the export of dirty coal from Oakland.</a>alpha nat res: <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/todaysnews/20140306/coal-firm-pay-record-penalty-and-spend-millions-water-cleanup-5-states">http://insideclimatenews.org/todaysnews/20140306/coal-firm-pay-record-penalty-and-spend-millions-water-cleanup-5-states</a> 3 water incidents, w va and NC; NC gov worked for 28 years <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/north-carolina-regulators-coal-ash_n_4766062.html?view=print&comm_ref=false">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/north-carolina-regulators-coal-ash_n_4766062.html?view=print&comm_ref=false</a> <p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina's environmental agency sought late Monday to delay its own settlement with Duke Energy a week after a busted pipe at one of the company's coal ash dumps spewed enough toxic sludge into the Dan River to fill 73 Olympic-sized pools.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">Lawyers for the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources asked a judge to disregard their proposed settlement with the nation's largest electricity provider. Under the deal, Duke would have paid fines of $99,111 over groundwater pollution leaking from two coal dumps like the one that ruptured Feb. 2.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">The state's letter came one day after a story by The Associated Press in which environmentalists criticized the arrangement as a sweetheart deal aimed at shielding Duke from far more expensive penalties the $50 billion company might face under the federal Clean Water Act. The settlement would have required Duke to study how to stop the contamination, but included no requirement for the company to actually clean up its dumps near Asheville and Charlotte.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">"DENR asks this court to hold in abeyance any further consideration of the proposed consent order while DENR undertakes a comprehensive review of all North Carolina coal ash facilities in view of the recent coal ash release into the Dan River," said the state's letter to Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway, a copy of which was obtained by the AP. "DENR will advise the court when it has completed this additional review of North Carolina coal ash facilities and the requirements of the proposed consent order."<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">Drew Elliot, a spokesman for the state environmental agency, said late Monday that he had not yet seen the letter and could not comment.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">uke Energy spokeswoman Tammie McGee said it is the company's policy not to comment on pending litigation.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">On the afternoon of Feb. 2, a security guard patrolling the grounds of Duke's Dan River Steam Station discovered that a pipe running under a 27-acre toxic waste pond had collapsed. The company reports that up to 82,000 tons of coal ash mixed with 27 million gallons of contaminated water drained out, turning the river gray and cloudy for miles. The accident ranks as the third-largest such coal ash spill in the nation's history.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">The public was not told about the breach until the following day and initial reports provided by Duke and DENR did not make clear the massive scale of the disaster. It took six days for the company to finally seal the pipe.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">State regulators initially said testing showed levels of arsenic, lead and other toxic contaminates in the river water were at levels low enough to be safe for both fish and humans. On Sunday, however, the state officials admitted they had made an "honest mistake while interpreting the results" and issued an advisory warning people to avoid prolonged contact with the water.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">AP reported Sunday that environmental groups have tried three times in the past year to use provisions under the Clean Water Act to sue in federal court to force Duke to clear out leaky coal ash dumps after North Carolina regulators failed to act on evidence of serious groundwater contamination.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">Each time, the state agency blocked the citizen lawsuits by intervening at the last minute to assert its own authority under the act to take enforcement action in state court. After negotiating with the company behind closed doors, the state proposed settlements many regard as highly favorable to the company.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">Clean water advocates have long complained that state regulators are too cozy with the polluters they regulate. But they say that coordination and cooperation has become even more overt since the January 2013 inauguration of Gov. Pat McCrory, a pro-business Republican who worked at Duke Energy for 28 years.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">Since his unsuccessful first campaign for governor in 2008, campaign finance reports show Duke Energy, its political action committee, executives and their immediate families have donated at least $1.1 million to McCrory's campaign and affiliated groups that spent on TV ads, mailings and events to support him.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">After winning in 2012, McCrory appointed Raleigh businessman John Skvarla to head the state environmental agency charged with policing his former employer. Skvarla has described his agency's role as being a "partner" to those it regulates, whom he refers to as "customers."<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">Lawyers for the environmental groups who had tried to sue Duke in federal court were shut out of the negotiations between state regulators and the company that produced the now scuttled settlement proposal. They had hoped to convince the state judge overseeing the case to reject the deal.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">Frank Holleman, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, worried that Monday's about-face might be just another tactic by the state to help Duke avoid paying for the harm it has done to the North Carolina's rivers and lakes.<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">"Instead of taking action to clean up coal ash pollution and protect the public, DENR is going back to the drawing board and proposing to delay action for who knows how long," Holleman said. "It is time to act, not to delay."<p style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration-line: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-align: start;">------=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>When all the data is in, it looks like carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels will have gone up 2 percent in 2013 from the previous year, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said on Monday.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The main reason, it said, is an uptick in the use of coal for electric power. But it's also a sign of growing economic activity in general.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Ever since the deep recession began in 2008, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide had been going down. CO2 is the principal greenhouse gas that's causing climate change. About 40 percent of emissions from the energy sector come from combustion of coal in power plants. The Obama has proposed rules to control these emissions from newly built plants, and is also drafting rules to govern existing power plants.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In a brief analysis, the DOE's statistical arm said it expected emissions from coal to continue rising from 2013 to 2014, and emissions from gas to fall. ...<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>http://insideclimatenews.org/content/us-carbon-emissions-fossil-fuels-rose-2013-coal-use-ticked<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>alternet: The same is true when irresponsible corporations are able to use our air and water like a free dump for hazardous waste. In India, it is estimated [12] that pollution from coal plants causes 20 million new cases of asthma each year and kills 120,000. Here in the U.S., pollution levels are lower and asthmatics are more likely to get timely treatment. Even so we have data [13] going back to the 1970s showing that coal burning increases asthma attacks and respiratory ailments. Coal companies like Peabody don’t have to pay the cost of harm done, which means their profits are subsidized by the American public who take a hit in terms of both health and healthcare costs. Who really pays? The elderly and children. If coal companies had to step up and take responsibility for the real costs of their dirty products, energy innovators might find themselves on a level playing field.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>grist<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The coal industry has a decades-old friendship with Johns Hopkins University, but now that cozy relationship is being torn apart by the scrutiny of investigative journalists.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>When employees filed for black-lung-related benefits, coal companies paid the Baltimore-based university handsome sums to screen the claimants for the disease. After reviewing chest X-rays, the university’s scientists almost always concluded that the scans did not show black lung — a conclusion which often overwhelmed any other medical opinion in the case.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>(Black lung disease, or coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, kills an estimated 1,500 former coal miners every year. It is a painful and preventable ailment contracted by inhaling coal dust.)<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The racket was exposed by the ABC, working in partnership with the Center for Public Integrity:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>For 40 years, these doctors have been perhaps the most sought-after and prolific readers of chest films on behalf of coal companies seeking to defeat miners’ claims. Their fees flow directly to the university, which supports their work, an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and ABC News has found. According to the university, none of the money goes directly to the doctors.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Their reports — seemingly ubiquitous and almost unwaveringly negative for black lung — have appeared in the cases of thousands of miners, and the doctors’ credentials, combined with the prestigious Johns Hopkins imprimatur, carry great weight. Their opinions often negate or outweigh whatever positive interpretations a miner can produce.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>For the credibility that comes with these readings, which the doctors perform as part of their official duties at Johns Hopkins, coal companies are willing to pay a premium. For an X-ray reading, the university charges up to 10 times the rate miners typically pay their physicians. …<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In the more than 1,500 cases decided since 2000 in which [senior university scientist Paul] Wheeler read at least one X-ray, he never once found the severe form of the disease, complicated coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. Other doctors looking at the same X-rays found this advanced stage of the disease in 390 of these cases.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>After the results of the investigation were broadcast late last week, the university announced on its website that it was suspending the screening program:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Following the news report we are initiating a review of the pneumoconiosis B-reader service. Until the review is completed, we are suspending the program.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>United Mine Workers called on the federal government to take action following the revelations.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>“Whatever penalties or punitive actions that can be taken with respect to Dr. Wheeler should be,” union spokesman Phil Smith said. “But whatever they are, they will pale in comparison to the pain and suffering he has caused thousands of afflicted miners. There is no penalty which will make up for that.”<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Source<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Johns Hopkins medical unit rarely finds black lung, helping coal industry defeat miners' claims, Center for Public IntegrityStatement from Johns Hopkins Medicine Regarding ABC News Report About Our B-Reads for Pneumoconiosis (Black Lung), Johns Hopkins UniversityJohns Hopkins suspends black lung program after Center-ABC investigation, Center for Public Integrity<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>This post is part of the research project: Northwest Coal ExportsThe race for the Whatcom County Council may turn into one of the nation’s most important votes for climate change. That’s because the county is home to Cherry Point, the site of a massive proposed coal terminal—which, if constructed, would be the biggest coal terminal in North America, allowing 48 million tons of coal from the landlocked western US to reach Asian seaborne coal markets.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In Whatcom County, local authorities have a direct say over the land use and permitting decisions that will allow the project to go forward—or not. In other words, the composition of the Whatcom County Council matters a great deal to the future of the US coal industry. And as it happens, four of the seven members of the Council are up for re-election, which means that the races have become a virtual referendum on the highly controversial coal port.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As KUOW’s Ashley Ahearn reported last week, the candidates thought to be opposed to the port were handily out-fundraising their opponents. Then, just after Ahearn’s story and other similar coverage was published—and just days before a key fundraising deadline—a tsunami of coal money flooded into a two-month-old local PAC, Save Whatcom.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Here’s how suddenly the cash arrived:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>timeline coal PAC<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>And here’s where Save Whatcom’s money comes from:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Whatcom coal money_pie<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Only a small fraction of the pro-coal money comes from Whatcom County, or anywhere in the Northwest for that matter. Almost all of it can be directly linked to firms or people with a strong financial interest in Northwest coal exports. And much of the coal money seems to originate from sources that tilt heavily toward Republican politics.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Here’s a closer look at who’s behind coal money in Whatcom County.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Cloud Peak Energy: $50,000Based in Wyoming, Cloud Peak is a “pure play” Powder River Basin coal company. For several reasons, it is probably the best-situated US company to compete in the Pacific Rim export market. In fact, it currently claims almost all of the relatively small volumes of coal exported from the West Coast. Even so, times are tough for would-be coal exporters. So tough, in fact, that an analysis by Sightline showed that last quarter Cloud Peak made roughly 10 times as much money shorting coal as by actually selling it.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The firm has already inked a deal to move 16 million tons of coal through the Gateway Pacific terminal in Whatcom County, giving Cloud Peak a direct financial stake in the outcome of local elections there.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Global Coal Sales: $50,000Ohio-based Global Coal Sales is a privately held firm that appears to be primarily a marketer for coal mining companies. It was formed as a joint venture between an Ohio utility and Boich Companies.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Boich Co. may be best known for its 38-year-old heir, billionaire playboy Wayne Boich Jr., whoonce dated Tara Reid and whose activities make him sound like a comic book villain. According to the Miami Herald, for example, he bought three North Bay properties for $19.6 million in 2012 planning “to knock down all three homes and build one big billionaire bachelor pad.” (Photos of Boich, who appears to have chronic difficulties buttoning his shirt, are here and here.) His father, Wayne Boich, is one of the biggest financial backers of US Speaker of the House, John Boehner.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Do you find this article interesting? Please consider making a gift to support our work.Global Coal Sales is part owner of the Signal Peak Mine in Montana. It hopes to become a playerin US coal exports to Asia—and Westshore Terminals in British Columbia has claimed to ship Signal Peak coal—but it is probably best known for being plagued with problems. As Derf Johnson has ably documented, the company has avoided paying taxes even as it has been fined repeatedly for sins such as failing to properly ventilate its mines, failing to prevent cave-ins, and failing to report workplace accidents.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Global Coal Sales is also linked to Cloud Peak. According to reporting by Ralph Schwartz, (andother sources), the former head of export sales at Cloud Peak, Steve Read, took a job as executive VP of Global Coal Sales in May 2013.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Corbin and Barbara Robertson: $32,000With each of them throwing in $16,000, Corbin and Barbara Robertson of Houston, Texas are easily the largest pro-coal individual donors in Whatcom County. As the Whatcom County Democrats have pointed out, the Robertsons are major league coal barons through their company, Quintana Minerals. In fact, according to a 2003 article in Forbes, “Robertson sits atop the largest private hoard in the nation—21 billion tons of reserves he has quietly amassed over three decades.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>They are also major league Republican donors. Individually and through Quintana, they havefunneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to top Republican candidates like John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, and even groups you wouldn’t think would need outside money, such as the Idaho Republican Party.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The Robertsons are linked to the Northwest coal export debate. Corbin is CEO of Natural Resource Partners (NRP), a Houston-based investment firm that owns coal, oil, and gas reserves. According to its website, 40 percent of NRP’s holdings are made up by Arch Coal properties, and Arch Coal badly wants into the Northwest export business. Arch has a 38 percent stake in the Millennium Bulk Terminals proposal in Longview, Washington, and it is actively lobbying for new coal export capacity in Washington. (In fact, it was a conversation with a senior Arch Coal executive that recently landed PR flak Lauri Hennessey in hot water.)<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>SSA Marine: $12,000SSA Marine’s contribution is the biggest by any Northwest interest. Based in Seattle, SSA Marineis a port terminal company that is the lead proponent of the Gateway Pacific coal port.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Richard Donahue: $5,000Donahue made his donation in late August, making him the first contributor on record for Whatcom County’s pro-coal PAC. He is a financial planner who lives in Bellingham. He runs Asset Advisers LLC from an office in the Fairhaven neighborhood, and he hosts a weekend talk radio program in town, “Wealth Wake Up with Dick Donahue.” Donahue appears to be affiliated with the Tea Party as well as with an anti-Indian movement that aims to reduce the autonomy of tribes.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Saturna Capital Corporation: $3,500Occupying a nondescript building in downtown Bellingham, Saturna Capital is an investment firm that manages several billion dollars worth of mutual funds. The firm has carved out a niche inIslamic investing, which requires abstaining from investing in banks, liquor, gambling, and other verboten enterprises.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The Saturna contribution is odd looking. According to the Washington Public Disclosure Commission, Saturna has only once before made any type of political contribution. That was in 2003, and it was merely a few hundred bucks of “in-kind” contributions in the form of office space for an employee, Brett Bonner. And the firm itself is a member of Sustainable Connections, a network of local Whatcom County businesses that aim to “model an economy built on sustainable practices.”<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>On the other hand, Saturna CEO Nicholas Kaiser is a major donor to Republican campaigns, including an August 2013 gift of $6,400 to the Whatcom County GOP—the largest donation to the party by far—as well as smaller contributions to unsuccessful gubernatorial candidates Rob McKenna and Dino Rossi. Other employees also show up as smaller donors to Republican candidates, including to the bete noir of state climate policy, Senator Doug Ericksen.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>If the $3,500 contribution to Save Whatcom comes from Saturna Capital itself, as it appears, that makes it ripe for a local divestment campaign of some sort. If, on the other hand, the contribution actually originates from Kaiser or some other Saturna employee, then it is in clear violation of state election law and should be corrected immediately.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>What’s next?The Whatcom County Democrats have filed a formal complaint with the state attorney general,alleging numerous illegalities by the pro-coal PAC. Yet with a vote-by-mail system in Washingtonand ballots already arriving at voter’s homes, time is exceedingly short for both sides.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>We are a community-supported resource and we can’t do this work without you!Please make a donation today and help keep us running.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>john upton  beg of end?<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>From a failed coal auction in Wyoming to slowing demand in China, times are tough for the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel. And that’s before we even get to EPA’s new proposed power-plant rules.The U.S. Bureau of Land Management held an auction Thursday for the right to mine 167 million tons of coal from the 1,254-acre Hay Creek II coal tract in Campbell County, Wyo. The highest bid of $35 million, by Kiewit Mining Properties, was so low that the bureau rejected it. From Bloomberg:The company’s offer was less than one-fifth what mining companies paid for similar deposits last year, and the lowest amount per ton since 1998. It didn’t meet the government’s estimate of fair value, the bureau said in a statement.“The bottom has just dropped out of the market,” Mark Northam, director of the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources, said by telephone. “This represents a high degree of uncertainty about whether coal will stay robust in the future.”The remarkably low bid followed a similar auction last month, held by the same BLM office in Wyoming, in which not a single company bid on the right to mine a 316-million-ton coal reserve.Meanwhile, controversial plans to build new coal export terminals on America’s West Coast are flailing. From a New York Times report last week:United States coal exports this year are expected to decline by roughly 5 percent from last year’s record exports of 125 million tons, and many experts predict the decline will quicken next year.At the beginning of 2012, the coal industry had plans to expand port capacity by an additional 185 million tons. But those hopes have faded this year.“Global coal prices right now are not supportive of large-scale U.S. coal exports,” said Anthony Yuen, a Citigroup energy analyst.The AP has more on coal’s troubles around the world:Economic forces, pollution concerns and competition from cleaner fuels are slowly nudging nations around the globe away from the fuel that made the industrial revolution possible.The U.S. will burn 943 million tons of coal this year, only about as much as it did in 1993. Now it’s on the verge of adopting pollution rules that may all but prohibit the construction of new coal plants. And China, which burns 4 billion tons of coal a year — as much as the rest of the world combined — is taking steps to slow the staggering growth of its coal consumption and may even be approaching a peak.Michael Parker, a commodities analyst at Bernstein Research, calls the shift in China “the beginning of the end of coal.” While global coal use is almost certain to grow over the next few years — and remain an important fuel for decades after that — coal may soon begin a long slow decline.With coal on the downslide, who do we need to talk to about getting our mountains back?<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>10 worst power plants<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/worst-10-power-plants.png<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>luminant, duke, salt river, NRG 1stenergy<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>www.globalpossibilities.org/lets-fight-the-1-percent-of-power-plants/<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Duke Energy has agreed to retire five coal-fired power plants in western Indiana by June 2018 under a settlement announced Friday with environmental and citizens groups that also calls for the company to increase its investments in renewable energy.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>A state administrative law judge oversaw the settlement, which was signed Wednesday by Duke Energy, the Sierra Club, Citizens Action Coalition, Valley Watch and Save the Valley.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The settlement ends the activist groups' challenge of Duke Energy's state air permit for its new $3.5 billion, coal-gasification plant that went online this summer. That southwestern Indiana plant was the subject of an ethical flap after Duke officials and regulators were found to be discussing the project's rising costs.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The 618-megawatt plant's original 2007 cost estimate was $1.9 billion, but that eventually ballooned to about $3.5 billion. Duke Energy has said ratepayers can expect to see a 14 percent to 16 percent increase in their monthly bills by early 2014 as a result of the higher costs of the plant near Edwardsport, about 60 miles north of Evansville....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/duke-energy-coal-fired-plants_n_3844645.html<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> =<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Coal Interests Aim To Defeat Obama's Nominee To Key Energy PostPosted: 08/22/2013 2:42 pm EDT  |  Updated: 08/22/2013 3:57 pm EDTWASHINGTON -- The coal industry is working to defeat a key energy nominee in a battle that has fractured the fossil fuel coalition and threatens to derail the president's climate action plan. Oil and gas interests have formed an unusual alliance with environmentalists who are rallying to back Ron Binz to head the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>But even an alliance of oil, gas and green groups might not be enough for Binz. The chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), warned the White House that Binz would face an uphill climb in his committee, according to a person familiar with the exchange. The administration went ahead with the nomination. (A Wyden spokesman denied that the chairman had cautioned the White House against Binz.)<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Democrats hold a 12-10 membership advantage on the panel, but coal has one key ally: Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat from the coal state of West Virginia. An 11-11 tie would block Binz. Sources inside the debate say that Manchin has made it clear that he is firmly opposed to Binz's nomination, meaning that a united GOP opposition would sink him. A spokesman for Manchin declined to comment.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Manchin's opposition shifts the focus to Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Landrieu hopes to chair the committee should she win reelection in 2014, but would have a tough time winning the gavel if she sinks the president's key nominee. Operatives on both sides said she is expected to vote yes; a Landrieu spokesperson said she has yet to declare a position.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Murkowski, the ranking minority member of the committee, is a "wild card," as one coal advocate put it. She has been outspoken about her climate change concerns, and her home state is already living with the consequences of a fast-warming planet. And while fossil fuels are king in Alaska, oil and gas are the major players, rather than coal. Robert Dillon, a Murkowski spokesman, said that her staff is still reviewing Binz's record and the senator is undecided at this point.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Murkowski has signaled that she'll be tough on Binz during his confirmation hearing, said a K Street source working on the issue. Murkowski, though, owes little to party leaders, having won as a write-in candidate in 2010 against a GOP-backed insurgent.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Longtime K Street operatives, Hill staffers and regulators say they have never seen a fight of such intensity over as obscure a position as head of FERC. The battle, in short, is over the administration's plans to address climate change.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"It's a microcosm of the larger ideological conflict between Congress, and specifically House Republicans, and the president's climate plan," Ben Cole, a spokesman for the Koch-funded American Energy Alliance, told The Huffington Post. "It's a perfect storm right now for the administration, one they didn't see in their political meteorology," he added of the intensity of the opposition.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The stage for the fight was set when The Wall Street Journal ran a scathing editorial headlined "Ron Binz's Rules for Radicals," a reference to community organizer Saul Alinsky, whom the right believes is Obama's ideological mentor. Such WSJ editorials don't typically generate themselves and suggest that at least one major industry group has a vested interest in the outcome of the fight.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As the top energy regulator in Colorado, Binz made enemies in the coal industry by pushing utilities to switch to natural gas, which emits far less of the greenhouse gases associated with climate change. Several Binz allies in Colorado assume the coal campaign against Binz is payback, but Cole said that opponents of the president's climate change plan see the FERC panel as an increasingly important link.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>FERC regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil -- including interstate power lines, wholesale prices and pipelines -- which means it plays a fairly important role in shaping the country's overall energy policy. Among the biggest expenses for solar and wind is transmission, as the energy must be transported from the desert or plains to populated areas. The coal industry worries that FERC could tip the balance in favor of renewable energy transmission.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"In order to deal with the transmission issues related to renewables, the president must have a FERC commission that will buy into the plan. He has to have those three votes, and he has to have a FERC chairman who sets the agenda," Cole said.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Several industry groups representing the coal industry declined to comment on the record on the Binz nomination, but neither are they keeping their position a secret. "I certainly get the impression that a number of companies are concerned that [Binz] might use his position at FERC to disadvantage coal-fired generation, given the role he played in Colorado," said Jeff Holmstead, a partner at the law firm and lobbying group Bracewell & Giuliani, which represents coal and other energy interests. "I think envisioning somebody like that at FERC makes people nervous."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"If Binz was nominated to the FERC chairmanship to raise electricity rates and advocate for one-sided, pro-renewable policies, then yes, he does appear to be uniquely qualified to do that," wrote Travis Fisher, a policy associate at the fossil fuel-backed research organization Institute for Energy Research, last month.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>But the oil and gas lobby has issued more tepid public statements. "As senators consider Mr. Binz's nomination, we hope they keep in mind the game-changing impact America's oil and natural gas renaissance is having on our economy and energy security," said Brian Straessle, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The Green Tech Action Fund is backing a PR effort to get Binz confirmed, working with the consulting firm Venn Squared to rebut attacks on Binz and help shape his public image, a rarity for a relatively obscure position. GTAF is a project of the Energy Foundation, a California-based philanthropy that supports clean energy advocacy groups. One of the Energy Foundation's biggest supporters is Tom Steyer, the billionaire clean-tech investor (the group said Steyer is not personally involved in this particular effort). "GTAF is very committed to fostering clean energy markets and clean energy policy," said a GTAF spokesperson. "[Binz] is a candidate they feel furthers that goal, so that's why they've gotten involved."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Renewable advocates are enthusiastic about Binz. "He's being mislabeled as an extremist," said John Jimison, managing director of the Energy Future Coalition. "He's a very reasonable, consensus building kind ... he was that way as a regulator, and I'm sure he'd be the same as a commissioner."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Venn Squared put HuffPost in touch with a number of Colorado energy players who had warm things to say about Binz, including Skip Arnold, an executive at a utility that was acquired by Xcel Energy. "My experience with him is he's balanced. He looks at the views of the constituencies he's charged with looking at. He doesn't pay attention to one over the other," said Arnold.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>That there's even a fight over FERC has surprised many observers in Washington. A bipartisan group of 12 former FERC commissioners wrote to The Wall Street Journal in support of Binz in the wake of the paper's editorial opposing his nomination. The former commissioners say that FERC has traditionally worked across party lines to find consensus on regulatory issues and should not be the subject of partisan squabbles in the Senate.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"I'm frankly outraged by the process that these appointments have become," said Nora Mead Brownell, a George W. Bush appointee who served as a FERC commissioner from 2001 to 2006. "They've become political battlegrounds where good people are torn apart because someone doesn't agree with their policies. The role of the Senate is to approve based on whether they're qualified or not, not whether they agree with that appointee."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"The president gets to appoint," said Brownell. "Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way the rules work."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/senate-obama-ferc-coal-binz_n_3796736.html?ir=Green<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>For The First Time Ever, No One Bids On Wyoming Coal Lease<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Mining interests want to mine near streams<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>By Nancy Watzman Aug 01 2013 5:15 p.m. <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>When a House subcommittee takes up a mining industry-backed bill at a hearing Friday, it will mark another episode in a highly partisan saga dating back at least to the George W. Bush Administration involving the dumping of waste from coal mines near streams. The bill, H.R. 2824, is sponsored by Reps. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, and Douglas Lamborn, R-Colo., both of whom count the mining industry among their top contributors, according to Influence Explorer.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Environmentalists charge the Bush-era rule repealed decades-old, though not well enforced, prohibitions on mining activities within 100 feet of streams. The mining industry backs the new legislation that would enforce the old rule. "This bill accomplishes the important task sometimes lacking in public policy," said National Mining Association president Hal Quinn in an official statement last week. "[I]t balances the needs of the economy with the needs of the environment."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The legislation would require the Interior Department to implement a rule that the agency issued in December 2008, in the waning days of Bush's administration. <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Soon after President Barack Obama took office in 2009, his Interior secretary, Ken Salazar, attempted to reverse the Bush rule through the courts. While this effort failed, the Interior Department entered a consent decree with environmental groups who had filed lawsuits challenging the Bush rule, promising to start a new rulemaking process and finalize an updated rule by 2012. In 2010, the agency issued a notice of intent to publish a new rule.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>But after the Republicans took over the House in 2010, the House Natural Resources Committee focused on the stream buffer rule as a job-killing measure and began conducting extensive oversight of the Interior Department's management of the rule writing. In January 2011, the Associated Press published a story story based on a leaked internal document that said a more protective new rule would cost 7,000 jobs and decrease or stop growth in coal production in 22 states. The estimate was based an economic analysis commissioned by the Interior Department. Interior Department officials, unhappy with the estimate, which they believed was based on erroneous reasoning, had taken issue with the contractor who did the report.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The House committee followed up with a series of document requests and subpoenas for information about the Interior Department's dealings with the contractor. There were also several hearings about the contracting issue in particular and the stream buffer rule in general, culminating in a 15-page investigative report, titled "President Obama's Covert and Unorthodox Efforts to Impose New Regulation on Coal Mining and Destroy American Jobs," published by the committee in September 2012 as the election season heated up. Among the report's charges: that the Interior Department had resisted turning over documents and had redacted important information when it did.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In one embarrassing example, the committee showed that Interior made different redactions on two different copies of the same document.(See picture at left.) In a conversation between agency officials and the contractor in February 2010, the following selection was provided in one version of the document, but redacted in the second: "Now what you're saying makes more sense, I've got to tell you. But you have to understand, [the Office of Surface Mining] has to understand, we have done an analysis based on what we were instructed to do."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In September 2012, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a television advertisement blasting Obama for his "war on coal," and signs popped up on rallies saying, "Stop the war on coal, fire Obama." The committee ultimately made the stream buffer rule a featured item on a long list of criticisms against the Obama administration's energy policy, posted by the committee in October 2012 and also titled "War on Coal."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The committee has kept up the heat on the issue following the election with more hearings, including Friday's, and with a rider attached to the Interior Appropriations bill that would prohibit the Department of Interior from working on a new version of the rule. Similar riders have been attached to earlier versions of appropriations bills. <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Meanwhile, in the face of inaction by the Interior Department to promulgate a new rule, environmental groups this year renewed their lawsuit against the agency. Legal briefs are in the process of being filed. Pointing out that the Interior Department has not even published a draft, Earthjustice attorney Jennifer Chavez says, "Because we don't know the substance of the rule we can't say that we're in favor of a new rule or not. But from the bigger picture perspective, tying the agency's hands is not a good idea. We'd like the opportuntity to see a proposed rule and to advocate to strengthen it if necessary."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The agency also faces another renewed environmental lawsuit concerning the rule, filed by Southern Environmental Law Center and the National Parks Conservations Association. The National Mining Association did not respond to Sunlight's request for a comment on this story. <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Contents   [hide] 1 20122 2011-20123 2010 spending3.1 European corporations support coal-friendly candidates3.2 Financial analyst calls coal big winner in 2010 elections3.3 2011: House Republicans vote to limit numerous EPA coal regulations4 Coal Advocacy Groups5 Mining Industry Donations5.1 Mining Industry Invests in Politicians to Stop Mining Safety Law5.1.1 Contributions (2003-2008) from Interest Groups that Supported and Opposed the S-MINER Act to Members of the Senate HELP Committee in the 110th Congress5.2 References5.3 Related SourceWatch articles5.4 External resources2012<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As of September 2012, total fossil fuel spending on campaign spending has exceeded $153 million. Republicans received 89 percent of the coal industry’s campaign contributions. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chair of the Energy and Commerce committee, has received $60,000 from both major utilities and the coal industry. Another sponsor, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), is the top recipient of coal cash for 2012, receiving over $200,000. The coal industry has also funded a “public awareness” campaign on pro-coal TV ads, arguing the Obama Administration is waging a "war on coal." The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricityhas so spent $12 million of its promised $40 million election-year budget on ads this cycle.[1]2011-2012<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Here is the ranking of the top coal mining company contributors in the 2011-2012 campaign cycle, as of July 2011:[2]Alpha Natural Resources $127,451Murray Energy - $111,796Mepco - $72,700CONSOL Energy - $59,400Arch Coal - $58,860 - (plus an additional $13,700 through merger with International Coal Group, for $72,560 total)Peabody Coal - $57,000Patriot Coal - $49,200The coal industry made a total of $8 million in campaign donations from January to June 2011, according to the Wall Street Journal.[3]2010 spending<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In October 2010, the New York Times reported that the coal industry, facing a host of new EPA health and safety regulations, is spending millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign donations for the November 2 election to influence the makeup of the next Congress in hopes of derailing what one industry official called an Obama administration “regulatory jihad.” The article found that political spending by the coal industry is on track to exceed that of the 2008 cycle, when the presidency was at stake and Congress was debating climate change regulation.[4]As of the beginning of October 2010, coal mining companies had collectively contributed nearly $3 million to federal candidates, with three-quarters of the money going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign spending. The companies spent about $3.5 million to influence the 2008 elections and it appeared likely that they would surpass that figure in 2010. In addition, the industry has spent more than $24 million on lobbying since the beginning of 2009, nearly as much as it spent in 2007-8. Coal companies, in partnership with utilities and manufacturers under thefront group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, have spent more than $15 million on advertisements extolling the virtues of coal and seeking support for federal money for research into "cleaner" methods of burning it. The industry’s main Washington lobby, the National Mining Association, is likewise on pace to set records for political spending in 2010.[4]Among the largest recipients of coal money are Republican and Democratic members who have sponsored or voted for measures to block new EPA regulations on climate change pollution from the burning of coal and oil and who are most likely to support efforts to block other new rules. These members include Representatives Roy Blunt of Missouri and Joe Barton of Texas, both Republicans, as well as Nick Rahall of West Virginia and Rick Boucher of Virginia, both Democrats. Each had received more than $25,000 in contributions as of early October 2010, according to CRP. Two Senate candidates, Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, and Gov. Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, have also received sizable industry donations. The political action committee of Representative John Boehner of Ohio, who is in line to become speaker if Republicans capture the House, has received more than $300,000 from mining interests, most of it from coal companies. The industry is counting on Mr. Boehner to reverse the current Democratic leadership’s refusal to allow a vote on the measure blocking EPA greenhouse gas regulation.[4]The article noted that coal company spending is still dwarfed by the far better-financed oil and gas, electric utility, financial services and health care lobbies.[4]European corporations support coal-friendly candidatesIn 2010, an analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe), Thinking Globally, Sabotage Locally, found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms --and large greenhouse gas emitters -- were directed towards US senators who blocked action onclimate change.[5][6]The report used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe's biggest polluters to influence the US midterms: "The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people."The CAN Europe report said the companies, including BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay, which are some of Europe's biggest emitters, had collectively donated $240,200 to senators who blocked action on global warming – more than the $217,000 the oil billionaires and Tea Party Patriots bankrollers, David Koch andCharles Koch, have donated to Senate campaigns. The biggest single donor was the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, which gave $108,100 to senators. BP made $25,000 in campaign donations, of which $18,000 went to senators who opposed action on climate change. Recipients of the European campaign donations included some of the biggest climate skeptics in the Senate, such as James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has called global warming a hoax.[6]The following contributions were reported by CAN Europe:[5]Bayer (Germany)Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $43,200Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $78,200BASF (Germany)Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $25,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $50,500Lafarge (France) - operator of Lafarge Alpena Power PlantSupport to climate deniers in US Senate: $15,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $28,500BP (UK)Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $6,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $18,000GDF SUEZ (France) - operator of Red Hills Generation Facility and Mount Tom StationSupport to climate deniers in US Senate: $2,500Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $15,500Solvay (Belgium)Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $10,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $40,000E.ON (Germany) - owner via Kentucky Utilities Company of E.W. Brown Generating Station, Green River Generating Station, Tyrone Generating Station, andGhent Generating Station, and owner via Louisville Gas and Electric of Cane Run Station, Mill Creek Station, Trimble County Generating Station, andRoanoke Valley Energy FacilitySupport to climate deniers in US Senate: $2,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $4,000Arcelor-Mittal (Luxembourg) - owner of ArcelorMittal Highwall Mine 1Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $3,500Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $5,500Interest by foreign corporations in United States midterm elections is not restricted to Europe. A report by the Center for American Progress tracked donations to the Chamber of Commerce from a number of Indian and Middle Eastern companies.[7] The Guardian also reported earlier in 2010 that a Belgian-based chemical company, Solvay, was behind a front group called Coalition for Responsible Regulation that is suing to strip the Obama administration of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.[6]Obama and Democrats have accused corporate interests and anonymous donors of trying to hijack the midterms by funnelling money to the Chamber of Commerce and to conservative Tea Party groups. On October 7, 2010, Obama told a rally in Maryland, "Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won't tell you where the money fro their ads comes from."[8] R. Bruce Josten of the Chamber of Commerce denied Obama's allegations, stating that the group "has never and will never" use dues collected from overseas business councils for U.S. political activities.[8] The Chamber of Commerce reportedly has raised $75m (£47m) for pro-business, mainly Republican candidates. Much of the speculation has focused on Karl Rove, the strategist of George Bush's victories, who has raised $15m for Republican candidates since September through a new organisation, American Crossroads. According to an NBC report, Rove was spearheading an effort to inject $250 million in television advertising for Republican candidates in the final days before the November 2 elections.[6]Financial analyst calls coal big winner in 2010 electionsAfter the November 2010 mid-term elections, financial analyst Jim Cramer wrote: "I know who the biggest winner was last night: coal. Coal put its money on the right candidates. It made some solid investments in people like Roy Blunt of Missouri, Joe Barton of Texas, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Ohio's Rob Portman and West Virginia's Joe Manchin. All received sizable donations from the industry. All won big. That's on top of the $300,000 the mining 'interests' gave the political action committee of John Boehner, the speaker-elect from Ohio. (All according to The New York Times.)"[9]Kramer continued: "So go buy Peabody (BTU). Here's why: Gridlock may be a recipe for getting nothing big done, but the people coal put its money behind have a simple to-do list, a simple favor list, and that's to get the Environmental Protection Agency to back down so the coal companies can make more money. Oops, wait a second. I didn't mean to tell the truth so starkly. There's always a way you can justify taking coal's money while being thoughtful. In this case, the pols always say the EPA will cost us jobs and hurt our domestic security if it cracks down on coal. Unfortunately, any rigorous analysis would tell you that isn't true." Regardless, Kramer said this means the EPA and Congress will end up doing a compromise where the EPA only goes after the most egregious coal mining practices, likemountaintop removal, which Peabody is not engaged in as heavily as other companies.[9]2011: House Republicans vote to limit numerous EPA coal regulationsOn Feb. 19, 2011, House Republicans - with zero Democratic support, and only three Republican dissenters (Jones (NC), Flake (AZ), Campbell (CA)) - approved a number of amendments to the budget bill (H.R. 1) that would prevent the EPA from updating rules on mountaintop removal permitting, coal ash storage, emissions of particulate matter, and a variety of other Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act safeguards. They also voted to block the EPA from regulatinggreenhouse gas emissions.[10]Coal Advocacy Groups<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>According to CQ Politics, between 2002 and 2007, the coal advocacy group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, the predecessor of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, spent an average of $93,000 each year on federal lobbying. In 2008, ACCCE spent $9.9 million on federal lobbying in addition to $38 million for an ad campaign promoting "clean coal."[11]The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) estimated ACCCE's lobbying expenses at a somewhat higher amount: $10,465,276 in 2008.[12]. CPI's "The Climate change Lobby" database lists ACCE's 2008 lobbyists, based on public records, as:ACCE staff spent $9,945,276 on in-house lobbying costs. The listed lobbyist was Stephen Miller[13];Quinn Gillespie & Associates who were paid $480,000 for lobbying services of Christopher McCannell, Jeff Connaughton, Manuel Ortiz, Mike Hussey, Patrick Von Bargen, Dave Hoppe.[14]The Keelen Group, LLC which was paid $40,000 for the lobbying services of Paul Bailey.[15]According to CPI:PACs and individuals employed by the 48 mining, manufacturing, rail and utility companies that are a part of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) contributed $15.6 million to federal candidates in the 2008 election cycle.87 percent of all members of Congress collected money from ACCCE members.Neither House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), nor his Global Warming Subcommittee chair, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), received money from PACs or employees of the coalition's members, though both ascended to their committee posts after the election.Also, CPI reports that "the draft climate legislation by Waxman and Markey who only a year ago pushed for a moratorium on new coal plants offers the industry a pathway forward and provides billions for clean coal research."[16]Mining Industry Donations<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Generally speaking, Republicans receive far more campaign contributions than Democrats in Congress from the mining industry as a whole (this includes coal, copper and all natural resources related to hard rock mining). From 1990 to 2010, of the total money donated to each party, 76 percent went to Republicans and 23 percent went to Democrats. In all, $32,055,558 went to Republicans and $9,852,438 went to Democrats.[17]For the coal mining specifically, totals are similar. Republican receive on average 79 percent of total contributions from the coal mining industry. From 1990 to 2010, Republicans received $17,817,662 from the coal mining industry. Democrats during that same time period received $4,659,565. However, the percentage of contributions to Democrats since 2000 has increased by 20 percent. 2000 and 2002 were peak years for coal mining campaign contributions.[18]In the coal mining lobby donated $10,423,347 to members of Congress. Of that, the top three major contributors included Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy andPeabody Energy.[19]Mining Industry Invests in Politicians to Stop Mining Safety LawIn April 2010 MapLight.org released data on the United States Mining Industry's donations to politicians. As MapLight explained:In June of 2007, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) introduced the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act (S-MINER) Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, would have supplemented existing mining provisions in the Federal Mine Act to require: "(1) emergency response plans to incorporate new technology; (2) the Secretary of Labor to require the installation of rescue chambers in underground coal mines; and (3) accident response plans to provide for the maintenance of refuges." Miller chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor, which issued a report stating: "The S-MINER Act aims to prevent disasters and, in cases where disasters do occur, to improve emergency response. It also aims to reduce long-term health risks facing miners, such as black lung." Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) explained the bill was necessary because the 2006 MINER Act provisions had not been effectively enforced. “So far, I am concerned that the slow pace of reform is leaving America's miners at risk. We've made progress. But [the Mine Safety & Health Administration (MSHA)] has not moved aggressively to implement all of the provisions of the MINER Act.”[20]After a series of amendments the bill ended up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. There, HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, chaired by Sen. Murray, met to consider the bill but no action was ever taken. The bill in the House also did not pass, reports MapLight.org:For the House vote, 25 House Democrats and nearly all House Republicans voted against the bill. On average, House opponents received 103 percent more money from mining interests than House members voting Yes (an average of $12,526 to each member voting No, $6,174 to each voting Yes). Democrats voting No received 197 percent more money from mining interests than their colleagues voting Yes (an average of $16,314 to each Democrat voting No, $5,489 to each voting Yes).Seven House Republicans, including West Virginia's Shelley Capito, supported passage of the bill, although they received little campaign funding from unions, the primary special interest MAPLight.org found to be supporting the bill.[20]Below is a table that shows the contributions (2003-2008) from Interest Groups that supported and opposed the S-MINER Act to members of the Senate HELP Committee in the 110th Congress.[20]Critics argued that the passage of the bill may have prevented the April 2010 Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster in West Virgina.[21]Contributions (2003-2008) from Interest Groups that Supported and Opposed the S-MINER Act to Members of the Senate HELP Committee in the 110th CongressSenate HELP Committee Member Party State State Rank in Mining Production $ From Supporting Interest Groups $ From Opposing Interest GroupsIsakson, John Republican GA 20th $0 $97,500Murray, Patty Democrat WA 32nd $42,000 $74,141Hatch, Orrin Republican UT 6th $0 $73,350Murkowski, Lisa Republican AK 10th $0 $72,850Enzi, Michael Republican WY 3rd $0 $68,600Burr, Richard Republican NC 26th $0 $63,449Alexander, Lamar Republican TN 28th $0 $45,800Roberts, Pat Republican KS 25th $0 $40,300Bingaman, Jeff Democrat NM 16th $10,000 $33,400Clinton, Hillary Democrat NY 24th $24,500 $22,700Coburn, Thomas Republican OK 31st $0 $22,299Gregg, Judd Republican NH 47th $0 $11,800Dodd, Christopher Democrat CT 44th $18,500 $9,000Allard, Wayne Republican CO 12th $0 $7,500Obama, Barack Democrat IL 19th $29,500 $7,000Brown, Sherrod Democrat OH 21st $65,250 $6,000Harkin, Thomas Democrat IA 33rd $23,850 $5,550Mikulski, Barbara Democrat MD 29th $26,000 $4,500Reed, John Democrat RI 49th $11,000 $4,000Kennedy, Edward Democrat MA 39th $4,500 $0Sanders, Bernard Independent VT 48th $46,800 $0Total    $301,900 $669,739References? Rebecca Leber, [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/20/873851/the-gops-war-on-coal-myth-brought-to-you-by-millions-in-coal-cash/ "The GOP’s ‘War On Coal’ Myth, Brought To You By Millions In Coal Cash," Climate Progress, Sep 20, 2012.? "Coal Mining" opensecrets.org, accessed July 25, 2011.? Brody Mullins, "Coal Industry Backs Boehner" Wall Street Journal, Sep. 13, 2011.? 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 John Broeder, "Coal Industry Spending to Sway Next Congress" NY Times, Oct. 29, 2010.? 5.0 5.1 Thinking Globally, Sabotage Locally, Climate Action Network Europe, October 2010? 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Suzanne Goldberg, "Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters" BBC, Oct. 24, 2010.? Lee Fang, "Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads," ThinkProgress, October 5, 2010? 8.0 8.1 [Dan Eggen, "Chamber and Democrats battle over the midterms and election spending," Real Clear, October 8, 2010? 9.0 9.1 Jim Cramer, "Coal is election's big winner" MSN, Nov. 3, 2010.? "House Passes Dangerous Budget In The Dark Of Night" Appalachian Voices, Feb. 21, 2011.? Coral Davenport, "Coal Industry Digs in with Lobbying Campaign" CQ Weekly - Politics, 3/21/09? "Mining and Coal", Center for Public Integrity, accessed March 2009.? "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity", Center for Public Integrity, accessed March 2009.? "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: Quinn Gillespie & Associates ", Center for Public Integrity, accessed March 2009.? "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity:The Keelen Group", Center for Public Integrity, accessed March 2009.? "CPI: Coal Industry Launched "Unprecedented Corporate Campaign" OpenSecrets.org, accessed January 27, 2010.? "Long-term Mining Contribution Trends" OpenSecrets.org, accessed January 27, 2010.? "Coal Mining: Long-Term Contribution Trends" OpenSecrets.org, accessed January 27, 2010.? "Coal Mining: Long-Term Contribution Trends" OpenSecrets.org, accessed January 27, 2010.? 20.0 20.1 20.2 "Mining Industry Invests in Politicians; Stopped Mine Safety Law" MapLight.org, accessed April 14, 2010.? Emily Calhoun,"Mining Industry Invested in Politicians - Stopped Safety Laws" Progressive Democrats of America, accessed April 14, 2010.Related SourceWatch articlesAmerican Coalition for Clean Coal ElectricityAmericans for Balanced Energy ChoicesCapitol Power PlantJames HarlessU.S. coal industry lobbyists 2008U.S. power company and utility lobbyists 2008 and 2009U.S. coal politicsExternal resourcesUnfluenceFollow the Coal Money"Corporations and Unions," Federal Election Commission Campaign Guide, January 2007"Coal mining," Center for Responsive Politics industry profile"Mining and Coal", Center for Public Integrity database on lobbyists working on climate change<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Lynne Peeples<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>lynne.peeples@huffingtonpost.com<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Coal Exports Contradict Obama's Climate Pledge, Critics Say<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Posted: 07/25/2013 7:36 am EDT  |  Updated: 07/26/2013 11:48 am EDT<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Environmental experts who remain unimpressed with President Barack Obama's war-on-carbon rhetoric point to one key reason for concern that's off most Americans' radar: U.S. coal exports.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>A push to expand coal mining operations in the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, and to build three ports in Oregon and Washington to ship the fuel to Asia, could create more national and global environmental impact than a Canadian company's proposal to ferry Albertan tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast via the Keystone XL pipeline. Yet these remote projects are not getting the attention they deserve, critics suggest, and they fear Obama may be overlooking, apathetic to, or even supportive of them.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"If we were serious about doing something about global warming, the federal government certainly wouldn't be talking about controlling the burning of coal in the U.S. on the one hand while encouraging the export of coal to the rest of the world to be burned," said Thomas M. Power, research professor and professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montana in Missoula.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"There's certainly a contradiction there," he added, "where the left hand doesn't know, or pretends it doesn't know, what the right hand is doing."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The centerpiece of the climate plan Obama unveiled in June was a pledge to reign in the global-warming emissions of U.S. coal-fired power plants. Experts predict tightening controls will end up closing more plants and further troubling the U.S. coal industry, which experienced significant declines during Obama's first term.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>However, U.S. coal exports during that same time more than doubled, according to a June report from the Department of Energy.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"Companies are investing in this Hail Mary pass, trying to get their coal onto ships and over to Asian markets," said Ross Macfarlane of the non-profit Climate Solutions. "They see nothing but declining demand and usage here in the U.S."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>China reportedly plans to double its coal imports over the next three years, and efforts on the part of Korea and Japan are expected to follow close behind.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Experts argue that coal burned in Asia contributes just as much to global climate change as coal burned in Alabama. And it's the same climate change that scientists suggest may spur more frequent Sandy-like storms and heat waves here in the U.S.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Moreover, residents of other countries also suffer from the air pollution created by coal-fired power plants. China's toxic predicament, for example, is now particularly notorious.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Pollution from China can even travel by wind back to the Pacific Northwest, contaminating the region's air and water with toxins such as mercury.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Environmental and public health advocates further warn of the risks to local air and water quality from the mining and transport of coal. On Wednesday, the Natural Resources Defense Council joined other environmental groups in a lawsuit against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company over what they say is coal dust found in local waterways from the trains already shuttling the fossil fuel across the West.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Proponents of the coal ports proposed for the Pacific Northwest have a different take on the economic and environmental impacts. They suggest the coal dust concerns are overblown and argue that exports mean needed jobs and tax revenues for struggling U.S. towns. They also say that the projects' climate-change effects are little to none -- even going so far as to suggest that coal exports may benefit the environment.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"If all three projects happen, it would account for just over 1 percent of the coal China burns on an annual basis," said Lauri Hennessey, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports, an industry-backed group that supports coal terminals.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"They're going to be getting coal somehow, somewhere," she added, suggesting that coal from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming is of a "higher quality with less adverse effects" than the coal China uses now.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"There's plenty you can say about how this is, in the end, better for the environment," she said. "I have found a way to feel good about these projects from the very beginning."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Climate Solutions' Macfarlane said the industry's aggressive offense still faces a hard-hitting defense: a "perfect storm" of public outcry, significant legal challenges and collapsing global markets. Three other Pacific Northwest coal port proposals have already been withdrawn, in part due to the rush of several countries to feed coal-hungry China and the resulting price-sashing glut.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Overall, residents of the Pacific Northwest have remained fairly evenly split on the issue of coal exports since HuffPost first reported on it in 2011. An Oregon-based poll in June found opponents in the slight majority, while a poll released on Wednesday gave supporters an edge in Washington State.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The region's politicians and tribal leaders also have offered strong opinions on coal exports.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"Unless we can stop these coal terminals from being built and keep our coal in the ground where it belongs, Washington state coal exports will be responsible for hastening the advance of climate change here at home and around the world," Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn said in testimony before a House subcommittee hearing on fossil fuel exports in June.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The race for four seats on Whatcom County Council this November could make-or-break the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point, in Northwest Washington state. That particular port is sited on the historic gathering ground and adjacent to critical fishing waters of the Lummi Tribe.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The Lummi and most other native tribes to have taken a public stance are opposed to the project -- similar to the resistance among Native Americans in the path of the Keystone XL. But the Crow Tribe of Montana is an exception. The tribe agreed in June to lease the rights to mine 1.4 billion tons of coal to Cloud Peak Energy, the coal company pushing for increased exports. That's more coal than the entire U.S. burns each year.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Eric de Place, policy director for the Seattle-based Sightline Institute, has been closely tracking the ongoing debate in the Pacific Northwest, and the array of potential local, regional and global impacts of the projects.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>If Cherry Point is approved, he estimates that eight streets in downtown Seattle would have to be shut down for between one and three hours every day due to the additional mile-and-a-half-long coal trains traveling between the mine and the port. "And that's if nothing goes wrong," he said. "These streets carry tens of thousands of cars. And they're near a seaport."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As for concerns about climate change, de Place's calculations suggest that "Northwest coal exports would actually contain more carbon than the tar sands in the Keystone XL."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"We can do small-caliber meaningful things to reduce climate emissions. But if we become a carbon-export hub, that doesn't mean anything," he said, noting the additional push for greater U.S. exports of oil and gas.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"I continue to be frustrated," he added. "It's clear to me that we don't have a coherent energy policy -- and we have nothing even approaching a coherent climate policy."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Published on Monday, March 28, 2011 by CommonDreams.orgAll the President's (Coal) MenBill Gates, Warren Buffett and Obama's Wyoming Giveawayby Jeff BiggersWhat really happened in Wyoming last week?<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Perhaps we should ask billionaire coal hauler Warren Buffett, the "Oracle of Omaha."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Energy and climate analysts and Big Green organizations are still staggering around for an answer to the Obama administration's blockbuster news in Wyoming's coalfields last week to green-light the mining of an estimated 750 million-2.4 billion tons of coal on public lands. According to environmental analysts, "when burned, the coal threatens to release more than 3.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from 300 coal-fired power plants."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar scrambles to explain his wildly exaggerated claims of the coal lease sales from his announcement, the truth is that this mind-boggling announcement comes on the heels of EPA administrator's proposed new rules to crack down on mercury emissions from coal-fired plants--that will, in effect, continue the move away from coal-fired energy.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>It would be easy to point an accusing finger at Salazar, the former cowboy Senator from neighboring coal-rich Colorado who accepted massive amounts of contributions from dirty energy companies, and whose Bureau of Land Management quietly gave the green light for another 430 million tons of coal at the Antelope strip mine in Wyoming last year (within hours of the EPA's crackdown on mountaintop removal mining operations in central Appalachia).<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>But I don't think Salazar is the culprit on this Wyoming spring sale: President Obama needs to be called out for his less than transparent catering to his long-time billionaire and coal-profiteering friends.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Consider this: One month after jointly visiting Arch Coal's mammoth Black Thunder strip mine in Wyoming with a fleet of nine private jets, billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffett sat in President Obama's Oval Office on December 14th and discussed ways to improve the economy.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett understands the economics of coal better than anyone: He owns the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad that transports most of Wyoming's vast coal supply around the country, along with the utility company, MidAmerican Energy, which operates 11 coal-fired power plants, including four in Wyoming. To be fair, MidAmerican Energy also generates an estimated 2.9 MW of wind energy.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>(Little secret: While central Appalachia tends to make the news for its horrific mountaintop removal operations and underground mine disasters, Wyoming is truly King Coal, and provides 40 percent of our nation's coal production.)<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Plains Justice, a citizens group on the mining frontlines in Power River Basin, has long called the federal land leasing program "the biggest corporate bail-out of all." Clean Energy Action in Colorado has also questioned the growing and largely overlooked costs of coal mining in the Power River Basin.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Everyone in the coal biz also knows that last week's spring sale giveaway in Wyoming has as much to do with a controversial and impending coal export terminal proposed in the state of Washington--and geared toward Asian markets---as much as US markets.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Only days before their December meeting with the President, market analysts were abuzz with Buffett's and Gate's interest in the coal industry. One headline blurted out: Billionaires want coal for Christmas.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Well, looks like the billionaire's coal Christmas came in March.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Let's look at the timeline:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Nov. 10: Gates and Buffett visit Arch Coal's mine in Wyoming, and Buffett hails the trip as "fascinating."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Dec. 10: Wall Street is already certain that Buffett will continue this gamble on coal.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Dec. 14th. Gates and Buffett meet with Obama at the White House to discuss the economy.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Jan 6th: Wall Street analysts now say Buffett is betting BIG on COAL.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Feb. 15th: President Obama awards Buffett the Medal of Freedom at the White House.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Feb. 26th: In Buffet's annual Berkshire Hathaway Shareholder Letter, he reminds all listeners that his coal-transporting railroads (nearly 300 million tons of coal a year) "will increase Berkshire's "normal" earning power by nearly 40% pre-tax and by well over 30% after-tax."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>March 23rd: Citing the nuclear tragedy in Japan and world energy needs, Salazar opens 750 million-2.4 billions tons of coal on public lands in Wyoming, only days after EPA administrator Lisa Jackson cracks down on coal-fired plants.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Ah, the great game of capitalism and Big Coal machinations.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>And the great dirty coal ship moves on.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Jeff Biggers is the author of The United States of Appalachia, and more recently, Reckoning at Eagle Creek: The Secret Legacy of Coal in the Heartland (The Nation/Basic Books). Follow him on twitter: @JeffRBiggers<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>more Jeff BiggersPosted in   coal=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>2012 but started 2000ish conrad burns?<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>S. 3512--A bill to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Baucus, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Portman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Warner, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Moran, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Graham, Mr. Casey, Mr. Thune, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Hatch), S5977 [2AU]Cosponsors added, S6457 [19SE], S6948 [27NO]= <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>war on coal, ahed of BO announcement http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/25/2210101/twimc-its-a-war-on-climate-change-conservatives-launched-a-war-on-coal-when-they-killed-the-climate-bill/<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>http://grist.org/news/a-setback-in-the-fight-against-coal-exports/ army corps not consider<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>rove turned coal states gop (penn, w va, va, so ohio)<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>oct 2000 250 mil gal coal sludge spill (total of 2.2b) 20x exxon v spill, after election ruled an act of god (neglience 5 yrs old, thus stat of limit) 209  Mine and health safe wantesd to sue massey, but fired, 26 yrs of great job<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>coal mine bonds don't need to prove solvency  strat<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>MJ.com: What's the worst example of how that collaboration between industry and government has played out?<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>RFK: One of the worst examples is the rewriting of New Source Review. I have three sons with asthma; one out of every four black kids in New York City now has asthma. Asthma attacks are triggered primarily by ozone and particulates, and the major sources of those materials in our atmosphere are 1,100 coal-burning power plants that are burning coal illegally. The Clinton administration had initiated investigations and prosecutions against 70 of the worst of those. But this is an industry that donated $48 million to President Bush and the Republican Party in the 2000 cycle and has given $58 million since. One of the first things that Bush did when he came into office was to order the Justice Department to drop those lawsuits. The Justice Department lawyer said that this had never happened before in American history, where a president accepts money from industries targeted for investigation and prosecution, and then orders the Justice Department to drop those investigations once he gets into office. There were 70 utilities involved here and, according to EPA, just the criminal exceedences from those 70 plants killed 5,500 Americans every year. Then the administration went and rewrote the Clean Air Act, gutting the New Source rule, which means those plants will be able to discharge ozone and particulates forever.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>--<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Coal companies get sweetheart deals on federal leases, shortchange taxpayers<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>By Claire Thompson<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As if climate disruption, air pollution, health problems, and landscape destruction weren’t bad enough, here's another reason to hate the coal industry: Coal companies are shortchanging U.S. taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars they should be paying for the rights to mine federal land.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>A new report [PDF] from the inspector general of the Interior Department reveals that the Bureau of Land Management routinely underestimates the value of coal, letting companies like Peabody and Arch Coal snap up federal mining rights for a song, often with little or no competition. More than 80 percent of coal leases up for auction in the past 20 years received only one bid, the report found.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The New York Times reports:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The report said that the process by which the value of the leases is computed is faulty, costing the government millions. At the current rate of coal leasing, the inspector general found, every penny-a-ton undervaluation costs the taxpayers $3 million. <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>http://grist.org/news/coal-companies-have-gotten-good-at-wrangling-their-way-out-of-federal-fines/ <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>his article provides an overview of both the political and the marketing dimensions of clean coal, and the technologies for using coal that have variously been touted as "clean." Each topic is explored in greater depth in separate articles, as are several related topics:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Clean Coal Technology - This article assesses progress to date in creating technologies that aimed at eliminating various environmental and health impacts of coal.Clean Coal Marketing Campaign - This article describes the public relations efforts of the coal industry to promote the concept that future coal usage will be safe to the environment and harmless to human health.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy. See here for help on adding material to CoalSwarm.Bob Henrie is a Principal of R&R Partners, a Las Vegas-based public relations and advertising firm.Contents<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> [hide] 1 Background2 Helping Save Coal3 Articles and Resources3.1 Sources3.2 Related SourceWatch Articles3.3 External ArticlesBackground<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>A biographical note states that "Bob has an extensive 30-year background in both the public and private sectors as a professional communications and marketing strategist — specializing in positioning, image enhancement and crisis communications. Currently, Bob acts as lead strategic counsel for Intermountain Health Care (IHC), a group of integrated hospitals and physician groups based in Salt Lake City, Utah. Also a specialist in labor relations, Bob has also advised many of R&R Partners' clients on various labor issues and initiatives. Bob has spent many years in Washington, D.C., Nevada and Utah directing the administrative, advertising and communications efforts of several senatorial and congressional staffs and committees. Among them, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), whose 2006 re-election campaign he spearheads."[1]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"During his tenure in Washington, D.C., he was the chief of staff of the House Mines and Mining Subcommittee. He worked closely with the American Mining Congress, the U.S. Bureau of Mines and mining companies throughout the world to promote a national awareness of strategic minerals, and to protect vital mining legislation," his biographical note states.[1]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In March 2008 the Salt Lake Tribune reported that in 1984 Henrie was the spokesman for Emery Mining Corp. "when the Wilberg mine caught fire, killing 27 people. His name, face and thoughts were constantly in the news for more than a year, the length of time it took rescuers to extinguish the flames, then dig their way back into the smoldering Emery County mine to retrieve the victims' bodies."[2]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Workers involved in the Wilberg mine rescue and relief efforts charged that on the day of the fire the company had been attempting to break the 24-hour world production record for longwall mining.[3] Henrie responded, “It is totally unwarranted to suggest that an attempt for a record led to this tragedy.”[4]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Henrie's expertise was again called upon again last fall after four coal mine disasters in 18 months, the last of which occurred just a few miles north of Wilberg - last August's dual wall collapses in the Crandall Canyon mine, where six miners were fatally buried Aug. 6 and three would-be rescuers were killed 10 days later."[2]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"Before joining Emery Mining's parent company, Savage Industries, which had a contract to operate Utah Power & Light's coal mines, Henrie was an aide to Rep. James Santini, D-Nev.," the Tribune reported.[2]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Helping Save Coal<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In March 2008 the Salt Lake Tribune reported that in September 2007 R&R had won a contract from the National Mining Association and that Henrie "figures prominently" in the effort to develop "national advertising and paid media campaigns to boost coal's image." "The advocates of coal haven't had a lot to advocate for. People have a mindset to build a case against coal, rather than for coal," said Henrie.[2]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"It's our job to keep coal at the table. It's not there now," he said.[2]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Articles and Resources<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Sources<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>? 1.0 1.1 "Bob Henrie: Principal", R&R Partners, accessed March 2008.? 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Mike Gorrell, "Keeping coal in the spotlight: High-powered P.R. firm goes to work polishing the image", Salt Lake Tribune, March 1, 2008.? Joe Geiser and Cecelia Moriarity, "Company greed killed coal miners in Utah: 20 years since the Wilberg mine disaster; how Emery Mining Corp. tried to hide the facts," The Militant, December 28, 2004.? Joe Geiser and Cecelia Moriarity, "Company greed killed coal miners in Utah: 20 years since the Wilberg mine disaster; how Emery Mining Corp. tried to hide the facts," The Militant, December 28, 2004.Related SourceWatch Articles<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Clean Coal Marketing CampaignAmerica's PowerAmericans for Balanced Energy ChoicesExternal Articles<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it. Categories:Coal IssuesEnergyPublic relations professionalsCoal lobbyStubs <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Clean Coal Subsidies describes federal research and development programs aimed at advancing new coal technologies, as well as subsidies provided to commercial coal operations that meet certain official "clean" criteria even though they may continue to generate major pollution streams.America's Power, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Families Organized to Represent the Coal Economy, and Kansans for Affordable Energy describe coal industry front groups that have advanced in the marketing of "clean coal." The article Bob Henrie describes one of the leading public relations strategists behind the coal industry's "clean coal" campaign.Fly Ash, Coal Waste, and Bottom Ash - These articles describe the kinds of secondary waste streams produced by attempts to create "clean coal."Contents<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> [hide] 1 Introduction2 Shifting terminology2.1 Early 20th century: "clean coal" meant "smokeless coal"2.2 Late 20th century: "clean coal" meant "coal with lower regulated emissions"2.3 After 2000: "clean coal" starts to mean "zero-emissions coal"3 Gap between old plants, new plants, and next-generation plants3.1 Older coal plants: highly polluting3.2 New plants: cleaner but no carbon controls3.3 Next-generation plants: debating claims of "near-zero-emissions" or "zero-emissions coal"4 Increased mountaintop removal4.1 Carbon capture and storage makes coal more expensive than wind and solar5 Support for development of CCS6 Problems with CCS7 Opposition to "clean coal"8 Front group launches "Clean Coal Information Campaign"9 Clean coal in Australian Politics9.1 WWF Australia on clean coal9.2 HRL Limited challenged over "clean coal" claims10 Clean coal project in China10.1 Peabody and Chinese companies to pursue clean coal project11 Articles and resources11.1 Related SourceWatch articles11.2 References11.3 External resourcesIntroduction<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The term "clean coal" is both controversial and complex. Controversy arises out of the coal industry's use of the term in its high-profile marketing campaign aimed at convincing the public and politicians that the goal of using coal without damaging the environment and public health is either a current or a foreseeable reality. Coal opponents assert that such usage is not factually based and that its main purpose is to provide public support and political cover for continued expansion of coal use.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Three factors combine to cause additional complexity in the debate:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>A history of shifting terminology: Over time, the meaning of the term "clean coal" has repeatedly changed, leading to frequent confusion. A hundred years ago the term appeared in newspapers as a synonym for "smokeless" anthracite coal. Today it is frequently used as a shorthand for processes that could allow coal to be used with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. In the interim it has referred to measures that would reduce various pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and particulates.Gap between old plants, new plants, and next-generation plants: By any measure, the bulk of existing coal plants remain highly polluting. Recently built plants include equipment that reduces most of the sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions, but they continue to emit large amounts mercury and other toxins, and they do not capture any carbon dioxide. The timeframe for commercial implementation of carbon capture and storage is hotly debated, with estimates ranging from 10 to 30 years in the future.The "whack-a-mole" problem: While the term "clean coal" focuses attention on efforts to reduce to coal's atmospheric impacts, measures to tap down the air impacts of coal often cause other environmental impacts of coal to actually worsen. One example of this perverse phenomenon is the large quantity of toxin-laden sludge produced by sulfur scrubbers. Another is the fact that carbon capture and storage, if implemented, will increase mountaintop removal and other surface mining techniques due to the fact that the energy required by such processes will consume approximately 20-25% of a plant's output.Shifting terminology<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Click here for an archive of clean coal industry advertisements (1921-2012).<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Early 20th century: "clean coal" meant "smokeless coal"<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Prior to World War II, "clean coal" or "smokeless coal" was a marketing term used to describe anthracite and high-grade bituminous coal used for cooking and home heating.[1]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Late 20th century: "clean coal" meant "coal with lower regulated emissions"<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>With the arrival of the environmental movement in the late 1960s, the coal industry came under increasing pressure to clean up the myriad of pollutants produced by its mines and plants. Visibility (particulates and nitrous oxides) and acid rain (sulfur dioxide) dominated in the formation of policy established via the 1970 Clean Air Act and subsequent Clean Air Act Amendments in 1977 and 1990, while global warming gases remained unregulated. In response to the new legislation, the coal industry responded with a wide spectrum of technology fixes aimed at lowering "criteria emissions." These included replacement of high-sulfur coal with low-sulfur coal, scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, coal cleaning techniques, and development of higher efficiency combustion techniques that allowed more electricity to be generated per ton of emissions. By the 1980s, these technologies came to be referred to under the rubric of "clean coal technology," and the term received official recognition in the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program (1986-1993).[2]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>After 2000: "clean coal" starts to mean "zero-emissions coal"<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>With the arrival of the new millenium and the heightened attention to global warming, the previous usage of "clean coal" to refer to coal with lower regulated emissions was joined by a futuristic new vision, that of "zero-emissions" or "near-zero-emissions coal use. In 2007, President George W. Bush explained the vision as follows:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"One promising solution is advanced clean coal technology. The future of this technology will allow us to trap and store carbon emissions and air pollutants produced by burning coal. Since 2001 the United States has invested more than $2.5 billion to research and develop clean coal. And in partnership with other nations and the private sector we're moving closer to a historic achievement -- producing energy from the world's first zero-emissions coal-fired plant."[3]Gap between old plants, new plants, and next-generation plants<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Older coal plants: highly polluting<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Fine particles: The fleet of existing coal plants produces large quanitities of fine particles, also known as PM2.5, formed from soot, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and metals. These fine particles are estimated to result in 24,000 premature deaths in the United States, averaging 14 lost life-years per person.[4]Sulfur dioxide: Because most existing coal plants pre-date current air pollution laws, current plants emit about 13 million tons per year of sulfur dioxide, approximately a 40% reduction from 1990 levels.[5]Mercury: Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury in the United States, accounting for about 41 percent (48 tons in 1999) of industrial releases.[6][7] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, eight percent of American women of childbearing age had unsafe levels of mercury in their blood, putting approximately 322,000 newborns at risk of neurological deficits.[7] Mercury exposure also can lead to increase cardiovascular risk in adults.[7]New plants: cleaner but no carbon controls<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As the gas most heavily implicated in global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal plants are a particular concern. Coal is a much more intensive emitter of CO2 than other fossil fuels. Although coal produces about half of U.S. electricity, it produces about 80 percent of CO2 emissions in the electricity sector and about of overall U.S. CO2 emissions, about the same amount as all transportation sources -- cars, SUVs, trucks, buses, planes, ships, and trains -- combined.[8][9] A 1000 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant produces approximately the same amount of global warming as 1.2 million cars.[10] Although new power plants, when equipped with state-of-the-art pollution controls, have significantly less of the type of pollutants that cause acid rain, fine particulate pollution, and mercury toxicity, no currently proposed plants include any equipment to capture emissions of carbon dioxide. Coal-to-liquids technology will have particularly intensive climate effects. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, using liquefied coal as a fuel source would produce 119 percent greater greenhouse gas emissions than using petroleum-based fuel.[11]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Next-generation plants: debating claims of "near-zero-emissions" or "zero-emissions coal"<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Climate scientists and environmentalists have criticized carbon capture and storage (CCS), the main enabling technology for zero-emissions coal, as a "pipe dream" that distracted attention and resources from already existing solutions. Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program, argues that the term clean coal is misleading: "There is no such thing as 'clean coal' and there never will be. It's an oxymoron".[12] The most comprehensive set of arguments in opposition to CCS was advanced by the study "False Hopes: Why Carbon Capture and Storage Won't Save the Climate, published by Greenpeace in May, 2008. "False Hopes" argued as follows:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at utility scale is not expected before 2030. To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global greehouse gas emissions have to start falling after 2015, just seven years away.CCS wastes energy. The technology uses between 10 and 40% of the energy produced by a power station. Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumpton by one third.Storing carbon undedrground is risky. Safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed. Even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation efforts.CCS is expensive. It could lead to a doubling of plant costs, and an electricity price increase of 21-91%. Money spent on CCS will divert investments away from sustainable solutions to climate change.CCS carries significant liability risks. It poses a threat to health, ecosystems and the climate. It is unclear how severe these risks will be.Other objections to the notion of "zero-emissions" or "near-zero emissions" coal include the following:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Slow penetration. Because CCS cannot be economically retrofitted onto existing power plants, the technology will only be adopted as new power plants are built and old power plants retired. Since coal plants typically last for about 50 years, only about 2% of the fleet is ready for retirement in a given year. Even if CCS did become commercially available between 2020 (Electric Power Research Institute estimate) and 2030 (Greenpeace estimate), it would take several more decades--after 2050--for even half the coal fleet to capture its carbon. But James Hansen and other scientists have said that a phase-out of coal plants that do not sequester their carbon needs to take place by 2030, a full generation earlier.[13]Geographic limitations. The actual degree of penetration of the technology will be further restricted by geographic limitations, since not all power station locations are close enough to geologically suitable storage locations. For example, power producing regions of New South Wales and South Australia that produce about 39% of Australia's CO2 emissions are over 500 km from identified storage locations.[14]CCS fails a life-cycle analysis. Because of their high energy requirements, CCS requires large amounts of additional coal to be mined, and the mining, transport, and usage of the additional coal increases emissions of global warming gases, thereby undermine the benefit of CCS. One study estimated a CCS system that removed 85% to 98% of carbon emissions would actually only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 67% to 78% due to these additional emissions.[15]Fig leaf. By providing an illusion of safe use, CCS creates an excuse for allowing continued expansion of coal.Diversion of resources. By diverting scare R&D resources, CCS holds up development of cleaner energy sources.Increased mountaintop removal<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The concept of "clean coal" focuses on reducing air pollution. But the increased energy requirements of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) mean more mining to provide the 10% to 40% energy penalty created by the carbon capture and sequestration process.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Carbon capture and storage makes coal more expensive than wind and solar<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Adding carbon and capture technology to new coal plants makes electricity from coal more expensive than energy from solar thermal and wind power, even when "firming costs" are included for alternatives (see table).<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy, significantly raising the running costs of CCS-equipped power plants. In addition there are added investment or capital costs. The process would increase the energy needs of a plant with CCS by about 10 to 40 percent. The costs of storage and other system costs are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30 to 60 percent, depending on the specific circumstances.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The following table shows cost comparisons published by the California Energy Commission in 2008 for various power-generation technologies, including integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with CCS.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Costs of electricity with and without carbon capture and storage (US cents per kWh - 2008)<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>  Pulverized coal Integrated gasification combined cycle Nuclear Solar thermal WindWithout capture 10.6 11.5 15.3 12.7 8.9With capture and storage N/A 17.3 15.3 12.7 8.9Figures prepared for California Energy Commission by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[16] These estimates include firming resource costs. Further information can be found at Comparative electrical generation costs.The cost of CCS depends on the cost of capture and storage which vary according to the method used. Geological storage in saline formations or depleted oil or gas fields typically cost US$0.50–8.00 per tonne of CO2 injected, plus an additional US$0.10–0.30 for monitoring costs. When storage is combined with enhanced oil recovery to extract extra oil from an oil field, the storage could yield net benefits of US$10–16 per tonne of CO2 injected (based on 2003 oil prices). However, as the table above shows, the benefits do not outweigh the extra costs of capture.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Support for development of CCS<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The main argument in favor of CCS is the "critical path" argument. Ceding that CCS is not currently able to achieve the "zero-emissions" objective, some environmentalists argue that the emitting plants should be built if they provide partial steps toward enabling CCS technology to move toward commercial maturity. A prominent exponent of this position is John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Program for the Clean Air Task Force, which has intervened in favor of at least one power plant even though that plant would only capture and store only a fraction of its carbon dioxide emissions. Thompson said,<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>"Look, we need to move forward and get the infrastructure for carbon capture and sequestration in place now. And we can't look at this from a U.S. perspective only. The largest coal company in the world isn't Peabody Coal any longer; by the end of next year [China's] Shenhua will probably be the world's largest coal producer. We have to get CCS working in this country so that we have a technology that we can provide to China and India. If environmentalists at the grassroots simply want to fight and stop every single coal plant, then IGCC technology will never develop to a workable level."[17]Clean Coal has been mentioned by George W. Bush on several occasions, including his 2007 State of the Union Address. Bush's position is that clean coal technologies should be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. Senator Hillary Clinton has also recently said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables."[18]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In Australia, clean coal is often referred to by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as a possible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[19] However, in 2009 a government adviser anonymously told a journalist that "Clean coal has become an invitation for ridicule."[20] The previous Prime Minister, John Howard, stated that nuclear power is a better alternative, as clean coal technology may not prove to be economically favorable.[21]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>This usage was featured in the literature for such projects as the now defunct FutureGen in the U.S. and the ongoing GreenGen project in China. Zero-emission technology most typically involved the vision of coal gasification, in which pollutants would be separated out of the emissions stream prior to combustion, together with carbon capture and sequestration, in which carbon dioxide would be liquified and stored permanently underground. Although the coal industry employed advertising that focused on this new of clean coal in support of current-generation plants, the Department of Energy's timeline for its Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap indicated that even under optimistic assumptions, carbon sequestration would remain primarily in the demonstration stage for at least the coming decade.[22]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Problems with CCS<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal of Society of Petroleum Engineers, titled "Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in a Close Underground Volume" the authors argue that past calculations of CCS were widely off, rendering the technology impractical. Writing for Casper, Wyoming's Star-Tribune, report author Prof. Michael Economides explains,<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Earlier published reports on the potential for sequestration fail to address the necessity of storing CO2 in a closed system. Our calculations suggest that the volume of liquid or supercritical CO2 to be disposed cannot exceed more than about 1 percent of pore space. This will require from 5 to 20 times more underground reservoir volume than has been envisioned by many, including federal government laboratories, and it renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions.Injection rates, based on displacement mechanisms from enhanced oil recovery experiences, assuming open aquifer conditions, are totally erroneous because they fail to reconcile the fundamental difference between steady state, where the injection rate is constant, and pseudo-steady state, where the injection rate will undergo exponential decline if the injection pressure exceeds an allowable value.The implications of our work are profound. They show that models that assume a constant pressure outer boundary for reservoirs intended for CO2 sequestration are missing the critical point that the reservoir pressure will build up under injection at constant rate. Instead of the 1-4 percent of bulk volume storability factor indicated prominently in the literature, which is based on erroneous steady-state modeling, our finding is that CO2 can occupy no more than 1 percent of the pore volume and likely as much as 100 times less.We related the volume of the reservoir that would be adequate to store CO2 with the need to sustain injectivity. The two are intimately connected. The United States has installed over 800 gigawatts (GW) of CO2 emitting coal and natural gas power plants. In applying this to a commercial power plant of just 500 MW, which by the way produces about 3 million tons per year relentlessly, the findings suggest that for a small number of wells the areal extent of the reservoir would be enormous, the size of a small U.S. state. Conversely, for more moderate size reservoirs, still the size of the U.S.'s largest, Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay reservoir, and with moderate permeability there would be a need for hundreds of wells. Neither of these bode well for geological CO2 sequestration and the work clearly suggests that it is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions.[23]Opposition to "clean coal"<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining, the projected high costs of carbon capture and storage, the human health dangers of large, rapid releases of carbon dioxide, the global warming risk posed by small levels leakage over long periods, increases in coal mining needed to run scrubbers as well as carbon capture and storage systems.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Critics of "clean coal" contend that there is no such thing as "clean coal," since even technology projected by 2020 will still release large amounts of pollutants compared to renewable energy sources such as wind, concentrated solar power, photovoltaic power, hydropower, and geothermal power. They also point out that there can be a large amount of energy required and pollution emitted in transporting the coal to the power plants. Opponents note that carbon capture and storage technology has yet to be used or proven on such a large scale and that it may not be successful. There are also concerns that pumping sequestered CO2 into oil and gas wells to help make the fuels easier to pump out of the ground will lead to further consumption of fossil fuels, and CO2 emissions, thus adding to global warming.[24]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Front group launches "Clean Coal Information Campaign"<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In 2010, the front group America's Power Army launched a Clean Coal Technology. It Works. campaign aimed at "educating people" at state fairs, festivals, baseball and football games, college campuses, diner and town squares about "clean coal." In September 2010, as part of the campaign, the group announced that mobile classrooms will be added as well. Called “classrooms on wheels,” the goal is to "help educate the public about clean coal technology and its role in providing affordable, reliable electricity, well-paying jobs and a cleaner environment. In the each classroom, visitors will see interactive displays explaining the history and future of clean coal technology. They will learn how clean coal technology has reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter, how utility mercury emissions will be cut, and how carbon capture and storage will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Clean coal in Australian Politics<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>WWF Australia on clean coal<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne accused the Climate Institute Australia and WWF Australia of abandoning "any remaining pretence of being part of the mainstream environment movement", by supporting "clean coal" in an alliance with mining companies and unions.[25] [26]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>HRL Limited challenged over "clean coal" claims<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In July, 2007, the Australian Climate Justice Program, with the support of Greenpeace, lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) over HRL Limited’s use of the term "clean coal" in relation to its proposed new brown coal-fired power plant in Victoria.[27]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Clean coal project in China<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Peabody and Chinese companies to pursue clean coal project<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In January 2011 it was announced the U.S. based Peabody Coal, China Huaneng Group and Calera Corporation agreed to pursue the development of a clean coal project in the Xilinguole Region of Mongolia. The energy project would include a 1200 MW coal-fired power plant. The proposed plant would seek to capture a portion of carbon dioxide (CO2) and convert it into green building materials, advancing carbon capture technology. The plant would be fueled by a 12 million tonne per year surface mine operated by Peabody Coal.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>It was stated that China Huaneng would serve as the power plant operator. Calera would use its technology to convert CO2 into solids that can be used as cement building materials. As of 2011, engineering plans were underway, with more announcements to come later in the year.[28]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Articles and resources<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Related SourceWatch articles<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>CoalClean coal - quotable quotesAmerican Coalition for Clean Coal ElectricityAmerica's PowerFamilies Organized to Represent the Coal EconomyKansans for Affordable Energy <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>----<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Coal money in politics<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Jump to: navigation, search<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy. See here for help on adding material to CoalSwarm.Contents<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> [hide] 1 20122 2011-20123 2010 spending3.1 European corporations support coal-friendly candidates3.2 Financial analyst calls coal big winner in 2010 elections3.3 2011: House Republicans vote to limit numerous EPA coal regulations4 Coal Advocacy Groups5 Mining Industry Donations5.1 Mining Industry Invests in Politicians to Stop Mining Safety Law5.1.1 Contributions (2003-2008) from Interest Groups that Supported and Opposed the S-MINER Act to Members of the Senate HELP Committee in the 110th Congress5.2 References5.3 Related SourceWatch articles5.4 External resources2012<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As of September 2012, total fossil fuel spending on campaign spending has exceeded $153 million. Republicans received 89 percent of the coal industry’s campaign contributions. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chair of the Energy and Commerce committee, has received $60,000 from both major utilities and the coal industry. Another sponsor, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), is the top recipient of coal cash for 2012, receiving over $200,000. The coal industry has also funded a “public awareness” campaign on pro-coal TV ads, arguing the Obama Administration is waging a "war on coal." The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity has so spent $12 million of its promised $40 million election-year budget on ads this cycle.[1]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>2011-2012<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Here is the ranking of the top coal mining company contributors in the 2011-2012 campaign cycle, as of July 2011:[2]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Alpha Natural Resources $127,451Murray Energy - $111,796Mepco - $72,700CONSOL Energy - $59,400Arch Coal - $58,860 - (plus an additional $13,700 through merger with International Coal Group, for $72,560 total)Peabody Coal - $57,000Patriot Coal - $49,200The coal industry made a total of $8 million in campaign donations from January to June 2011, according to the Wall Street Journal.[3]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>2010 spending<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In October 2010, the New York Times reported that the coal industry, facing a host of new EPA health and safety regulations, is spending millions of dollars in lobbying and campaign donations for the November 2 election to influence the makeup of the next Congress in hopes of derailing what one industry official called an Obama administration “regulatory jihad.” The article found that political spending by the coal industry is on track to exceed that of the 2008 cycle, when the presidency was at stake and Congress was debating climate change regulation.[4]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>As of the beginning of October 2010, coal mining companies had collectively contributed nearly $3 million to federal candidates, with three-quarters of the money going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign spending. The companies spent about $3.5 million to influence the 2008 elections and it appeared likely that they would surpass that figure in 2010. In addition, the industry has spent more than $24 million on lobbying since the beginning of 2009, nearly as much as it spent in 2007-8. Coal companies, in partnership with utilities and manufacturers under the front group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, have spent more than $15 million on advertisements extolling the virtues of coal and seeking support for federal money for research into "cleaner" methods of burning it. The industry’s main Washington lobby, the National Mining Association, is likewise on pace to set records for political spending in 2010.[4]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Among the largest recipients of coal money are Republican and Democratic members who have sponsored or voted for measures to block new EPA regulations on climate change pollution from the burning of coal and oil and who are most likely to support efforts to block other new rules. These members include Representatives Roy Blunt of Missouri and Joe Barton of Texas, both Republicans, as well as Nick Rahall of West Virginia and Rick Boucher of Virginia, both Democrats. Each had received more than $25,000 in contributions as of early October 2010, according to CRP. Two Senate candidates, Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, and Gov. Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, have also received sizable industry donations. The political action committee of Representative John Boehner of Ohio, who is in line to become speaker if Republicans capture the House, has received more than $300,000 from mining interests, most of it from coal companies. The industry is counting on Mr. Boehner to reverse the current Democratic leadership’s refusal to allow a vote on the measure blocking EPA greenhouse gas regulation.[4]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The article noted that coal company spending is still dwarfed by the far better-financed oil and gas, electric utility, financial services and health care lobbies.[4]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>European corporations support coal-friendly candidates<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In 2010, an analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe), Thinking Globally, Sabotage Locally, found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms --and large greenhouse gas emitters -- were directed towards US senators who blocked action on climate change.[5][6]The report used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe's biggest polluters to influence the US midterms: "The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The CAN Europe report said the companies, including BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay, which are some of Europe's biggest emitters, had collectively donated $240,200 to senators who blocked action on global warming – more than the $217,000 the oil billionaires and Tea Party Patriots bankrollers, David Koch and Charles Koch, have donated to Senate campaigns. The biggest single donor was the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, which gave $108,100 to senators. BP made $25,000 in campaign donations, of which $18,000 went to senators who opposed action on climate change. Recipients of the European campaign donations included some of the biggest climate skeptics in the Senate, such as James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has called global warming a hoax.[6]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The following contributions were reported by CAN Europe:[5]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Bayer (Germany)Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $43,200Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $78,200BASF (Germany)Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $25,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $50,500Lafarge (France) - operator of Lafarge Alpena Power PlantSupport to climate deniers in US Senate: $15,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $28,500BP (UK)Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $6,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $18,000GDF SUEZ (France) - operator of Red Hills Generation Facility and Mount Tom StationSupport to climate deniers in US Senate: $2,500Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $15,500Solvay (Belgium)Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $10,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $40,000E.ON (Germany) - owner via Kentucky Utilities Company of E.W. Brown Generating Station, Green River Generating Station, Tyrone Generating Station, and Ghent Generating Station, and owner via Louisville Gas and Electric of Cane Run Station, Mill Creek Station, Trimble County Generating Station, and Roanoke Valley Energy FacilitySupport to climate deniers in US Senate: $2,000Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $4,000Arcelor-Mittal (Luxembourg) - owner of ArcelorMittal Highwall Mine 1Support to climate deniers in US Senate: $3,500Support to Senators blocking cap and trade: $5,500Interest by foreign corporations in United States midterm elections is not restricted to Europe. A report by the Center for American Progress tracked donations to the Chamber of Commerce from a number of Indian and Middle Eastern companies.[7] The Guardian also reported earlier in 2010 that a Belgian-based chemical company, Solvay, was behind a front group called Coalition for Responsible Regulation that is suing to strip the Obama administration of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.[6]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Obama and Democrats have accused corporate interests and anonymous donors of trying to hijack the midterms by funnelling money to the Chamber of Commerce and to conservative Tea Party groups. On October 7, 2010, Obama told a rally in Maryland, "Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won't tell you where the money fro their ads comes from."[8] R. Bruce Josten of the Chamber of Commerce denied Obama's allegations, stating that the group "has never and will never" use dues collected from overseas business councils for U.S. political activities.[8] The Chamber of Commerce reportedly has raised $75m (£47m) for pro-business, mainly Republican candidates. Much of the speculation has focused on Karl Rove, the strategist of George Bush's victories, who has raised $15m for Republican candidates since September through a new organisation, American Crossroads. According to an NBC report, Rove was spearheading an effort to inject $250 million in television advertising for Republican candidates in the final days before the November 2 elections.[6]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Financial analyst calls coal big winner in 2010 elections<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>After the November 2010 mid-term elections, financial analyst Jim Cramer wrote: "I know who the biggest winner was last night: coal. Coal put its money on the right candidates. It made some solid investments in people like Roy Blunt of Missouri, Joe Barton of Texas, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Ohio's Rob Portman and West Virginia's Joe Manchin. All received sizable donations from the industry. All won big. That's on top of the $300,000 the mining 'interests' gave the political action committee of John Boehner, the speaker-elect from Ohio. (All according to The New York Times.)"[9]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Kramer continued: "So go buy Peabody (BTU). Here's why: Gridlock may be a recipe for getting nothing big done, but the people coal put its money behind have a simple to-do list, a simple favor list, and that's to get the Environmental Protection Agency to back down so the coal companies can make more money. Oops, wait a second. I didn't mean to tell the truth so starkly. There's always a way you can justify taking coal's money while being thoughtful. In this case, the pols always say the EPA will cost us jobs and hurt our domestic security if it cracks down on coal. Unfortunately, any rigorous analysis would tell you that isn't true." Regardless, Kramer said this means the EPA and Congress will end up doing a compromise where the EPA only goes after the most egregious coal mining practices, like mountaintop removal, which Peabody is not engaged in as heavily as other companies.[9]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>2011: House Republicans vote to limit numerous EPA coal regulations<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>On Feb. 19, 2011, House Republicans - with zero Democratic support, and only three Republican dissenters (Jones (NC), Flake (AZ), Campbell (CA)) - approved a number of amendments to the budget bill (H.R. 1) that would prevent the EPA from updating rules on mountaintop removal permitting, coal ash storage, emissions of particulate matter, and a variety of other Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act safeguards. They also voted to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.[10]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Coal Advocacy Groups<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>According to CQ Politics, between 2002 and 2007, the coal advocacy group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, the predecessor of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, spent an average of $93,000 each year on federal lobbying. In 2008, ACCCE spent $9.9 million on federal lobbying in addition to $38 million for an ad campaign promoting "clean coal."[11]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) estimated ACCCE's lobbying expenses at a somewhat higher amount: $10,465,276 in 2008.[12]. CPI's "The Climate change Lobby" database lists ACCE's 2008 lobbyists, based on public records, as:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>ACCE staff spent $9,945,276 on in-house lobbying costs. The listed lobbyist was Stephen Miller[13];Quinn Gillespie & Associates who were paid $480,000 for lobbying services of Christopher McCannell, Jeff Connaughton, Manuel Ortiz, Mike Hussey, Patrick Von Bargen, Dave Hoppe.[14]The Keelen Group, LLC which was paid $40,000 for the lobbying services of Paul Bailey.[15]According to CPI:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>PACs and individuals employed by the 48 mining, manufacturing, rail and utility companies that are a part of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) contributed $15.6 million to federal candidates in the 2008 election cycle.87 percent of all members of Congress collected money from ACCCE members.Neither House Energy and Commerce Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), nor his Global Warming Subcommittee chair, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), received money from PACs or employees of the coalition's members, though both ascended to their committee posts after the election.Also, CPI reports that "the draft climate legislation by Waxman and Markey who only a year ago pushed for a moratorium on new coal plants offers the industry a pathway forward and provides billions for clean coal research."[16]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Mining Industry Donations<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Generally speaking, Republicans receive far more campaign contributions than Democrats in Congress from the mining industry as a whole (this includes coal, copper and all natural resources related to hard rock mining). From 1990 to 2010, of the total money donated to each party, 76 percent went to Republicans and 23 percent went to Democrats. In all, $32,055,558 went to Republicans and $9,852,438 went to Democrats.[17]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>For the coal mining specifically, totals are similar. Republican receive on average 79 percent of total contributions from the coal mining industry. From 1990 to 2010, Republicans received $17,817,662 from the coal mining industry. Democrats during that same time period received $4,659,565. However, the percentage of contributions to Democrats since 2000 has increased by 20 percent. 2000 and 2002 were peak years for coal mining campaign contributions.[18]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In the coal mining lobby donated $10,423,347 to members of Congress. Of that, the top three major contributors included Arch Coal, CONSOL Energy and Peabody Energy.[19]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Mining Industry Invests in Politicians to Stop Mining Safety Law<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In April 2010 MapLight.org released data on the United States Mining Industry's donations to politicians. As MapLight explained:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In June of 2007, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) introduced the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act (S-MINER) Act, which, according to the Congressional Research Service, would have supplemented existing mining provisions in the Federal Mine Act to require: "(1) emergency response plans to incorporate new technology; (2) the Secretary of Labor to require the installation of rescue chambers in underground coal mines; and (3) accident response plans to provide for the maintenance of refuges." Miller chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor, which issued a report stating: "The S-MINER Act aims to prevent disasters and, in cases where disasters do occur, to improve emergency response. It also aims to reduce long-term health risks facing miners, such as black lung." Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) explained the bill was necessary because the 2006 MINER Act provisions had not been effectively enforced. “So far, I am concerned that the slow pace of reform is leaving America's miners at risk. We've made progress. But [the Mine Safety & Health Administration (MSHA)] has not moved aggressively to implement all of the provisions of the MINER Act.”[20]After a series of amendments the bill ended up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. There, HELP Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, chaired by Sen. Murray, met to consider the bill but no action was ever taken. The bill in the House also did not pass, reports MapLight.org:<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>For the House vote, 25 House Democrats and nearly all House Republicans voted against the bill. On average, House opponents received 103 percent more money from mining interests than House members voting Yes (an average of $12,526 to each member voting No, $6,174 to each voting Yes). Democrats voting No received 197 percent more money from mining interests than their colleagues voting Yes (an average of $16,314 to each Democrat voting No, $5,489 to each voting Yes).Seven House Republicans, including West Virginia's Shelley Capito, supported passage of the bill, although they received little campaign funding from unions, the primary special interest MAPLight.org found to be supporting the bill.[20]Below is a table that shows the contributions (2003-2008) from Interest Groups that supported and opposed the S-MINER Act to members of the Senate HELP Committee in the 110th Congress.[20]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Critics argued that the passage of the bill may have prevented the April 2010 Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster in West Virgina.[21]<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Contributions (2003-2008) from Interest Groups that Supported and Opposed the S-MINER Act to Members of the Senate HELP Committee in the 110th Congress<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Senate HELP Committee Member Party State State Rank in Mining Production $ From Supporting Interest Groups $ From Opposing Interest GroupsIsakson, John Republican GA 20th $0 $97,500Murray, Patty Democrat WA 32nd $42,000 $74,141Hatch, Orrin Republican UT 6th $0 $73,350Murkowski, Lisa Republican AK 10th $0 $72,850Enzi, Michael Republican WY 3rd $0 $68,600Burr, Richard Republican NC 26th $0 $63,449Alexander, Lamar Republican TN 28th $0 $45,800Roberts, Pat Republican KS 25th $0 $40,300Bingaman, Jeff Democrat NM 16th $10,000 $33,400Clinton, Hillary Democrat NY 24th $24,500 $22,700Coburn, Thomas Republican OK 31st $0 $22,299Gregg, Judd Republican NH 47th $0 $11,800Dodd, Christopher Democrat CT 44th $18,500 $9,000Allard, Wayne Republican CO 12th $0 $7,500Obama, Barack Democrat IL 19th $29,500 $7,000Brown, Sherrod Democrat OH 21st $65,250 $6,000Harkin, Thomas Democrat IA 33rd $23,850 $5,550Mikulski, Barbara Democrat MD 29th $26,000 $4,500Reed, John Democrat RI 49th $11,000 $4,000Kennedy, Edward Democrat MA 39th $4,500 $0Sanders, Bernard Independent VT 48th $46,800 $0Total    <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>WASHINGTON -- Facing budget cuts under congressional sequestration, the federal agency overseeing mine safety is planning to severely cut back its efforts to litigate cases against companies that have been charged with breaking mine safety laws.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>A backlog of fines issued by the Labor Department's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has persisted for years, with coal and mineral companies still owing the feds some $70 million for health and safety violations on their properties. MSHA has made strides toward clearing out that backlog recently, in large part because of millions of dollars in funding used to bring in more government lawyers to handle the cases.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>But faced with the same across-the-board cuts now hitting federal agencies, the Labor Department plans to shut down or downsize three offices devoted expressly to litigating some 10,700 mine safety cases involving fines that companies are contesting, according to a letter sent from concerned Democrats to Labor Department officials earlier this month. Thirty out of 74 attorneys handling cases in those offices would be laid off, and others would be subject to furloughs, states the letter, signed by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.), as well as Reps. George Miller (Calif.) and Nick Rahall (W.Va.).<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>They noted that the cuts to the backlog efforts are more severe than most other cuts under sequestration.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>huffpo<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>— The governors of Washington and Oregon are urging the White House to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gasses that would be emitted elsewhere if the nation's coal is exported.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In a joint letter sent Monday to the President's Council on Environmental Quality, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber called on the federal government to examine the consequences on global air quality if five coal export terminals proposed in Washington and Oregon ship up to 140 million tons of coal a year from Montana and Wyoming's Powder River basin to hungry markets in Asia.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Given that coal exports from the Northwest could result in 240 million tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions, the Democratic governors wrote, "it is hard to conceive that the federal government would ignore the inevitable consequences of coal leasing and coal export."<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>RAN<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Banks and Coal: The Carbon Principles<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In 2008, three leading banks, Citi, JP Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, announced a common coal power financing policy, known as the Carbon Principles. Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Credit Swiss later joined them. According to the bank proponents, The Carbon Principles represented the first time “that financial institutions, advised by their clients and environmental advocacy groups, have jointly committed to advance a consistent approach to the issue of climate change in the US electric power industry.”<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In hindsight, the Principles don’t stand for much at all. The banks comprise six of the top seven ranked banks in Bloomberg League Tables for underwriting and loans in the electric utility sector in the U.S. They also accounted for more than 55% of the $125 billion in loan and bond underwriting in the United States to the coal sector from the beginning of the Carbon Principles implementation date of August 4, 2008 through June 30, 2010.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>In 2011, RAN evaluated the Carbon Principles and discovered that they have had almost no effect on the banking sector.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>=<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Coal foes suffer setback in fight against exportsBy John Upton<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>Bad news for climate hawks, coal haters, and Northwesterners who don't like breathing coal dust: The Army Corps of Engineers says it won't consider climate change or other big-picture issues when it reviews the environmental impacts of proposed coal export terminals....http://grist.org/news/a-setback-in-the-fight-against-coal-exports/<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> ===<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>http://grist.org/climate-energy/more-coal-fired-idiocy-and-mendacity-in-nevada/<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div> <div style="text-align: left;">
</div>  
http://grist.org/news/los-angeles-to-ditch-coal-by-2025/</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>