Showing posts with label Coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coal. Show all posts

The End of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Providing handouts to the wealthiest corporations on earth does not make much sense, particularly when their activities are the leading driver of climate change. Ending fossil fuel subsidies is the most obvious next step in our efforts to tackle the climate crisis. In the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement forged at COP21, continuing fossil fuel subsidies is an oxymoron.

These subsidies take many forms including, tax breaks, cheap loans, price controls, purchase requirements, purchasing equipment, royalty breaks and direct spending. According to some reports there are over 800 ways that taxpayers support the fossil fuel industry.

According to the IMF, global energy subsidies amount to 5.3 trillion dollars, or $10 million a minute. This translates to 6.5 percent of global GDP, in 2015 alone. This is more than the entire health spending of all the world’s governments. The IMF suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies could reduce greenhouse gas emission by 20 percent. Everybody from Prince Charles to the IMF have called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies.

Nicholas Stern, climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate change chief commented: “The IMF provides five trillion reasons for acting on fossil fuel subsidies. Protecting the poor and the vulnerable is crucial to the phasing down of these subsidies, but the multiple economic, social and environmental benefits are long and legion.”

The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, succinctly stated: “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now.”

Shelagh Whitley, a subsidies expert at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “governments around the world are propping up a century-old energy model. Compounding the issue, our research shows that many of the energy subsidies highlighted by the IMF go toward finding new reserves of oil, gas and coal, which we know must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate change.”

The world's biggest providers of fossil fuel subsidies are China, ($2.3tn) US ($700bn), Russia ($335bn), India ($277bn) and Japan ($157bn), and the European Union ($330bn).

By making fossil fuels cheaper, subsidies increase the use of dirty energy resulting in more emissions. A new report shows how subsidies are increasing our emissions. According to the report's author Radek Stefansk from The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary:
“The resultant 170-country, 30-year database finds that the financial and the environmental costs of such subsidies are enormous- and steadily increasing. The overwhelming majority of the world’s fossil fuel subsidies stem from China, the US, and the ex-USSR; as of 2010, this figure was $712 billion or nearly 80% of the total world value of subsidies. For its part, Canada has been subsidizing rather than taxing fossil fuels since 1998. By 2010, Canadian subsidies sat at $13 billion, or 1.4% of GDP. In that same year, the total direct and indirect financial costs of all such subsidies amounted to $1.82 trillion, or 3.8% of global GDP.”
Perhaps the most noteworthy statistic contained in the report show that in the absence of subsidies emissions would have been cut in half in 2010.

IMF

Numerous other studies including IMF research have come to similar conclusion as the Policy School study. The IMF called these subsidies "unsustainable"." The IMF described these subsidies as "perverse" saying "they are using public funds to create a problem the world has agreed to fix in Paris. And they leave us all to pay the societal costs that fossil-fuel pollution causes."

Ending the subsidies would also reduce the number of premature deaths from air pollution by half translating to about 1.6 million lives a year.

In 2014, IMF leader Christine Lagarde said reducing subsidies for fossil fuels and pricing carbon pollution should be priorities for governments around the world.

“We are subsidizing the very behaviour that is destroying our planet, and on an enormous scale. Both direct subsidies and the loss of tax revenue from fossil fuels ate up almost $2 trillion in 2011—this is about the same as the total GDP of countries like Italy or Russia,” Lagarde said.

G7

In 2009 the G7 (composed of UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the European Union) announced that it would end fossil fuel subsidies but no timelines were given. At a recent meeting of the G7 in Japan, the world's wealthiest economies have agreed to end fossil fuel subsidies in the next decade.

“Given the fact that energy production and use account for around two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, we recognise the crucial role that the energy sector has to play in combating climate change,” said the leaders’ declaration, issued at the end their summit in Japan.

G20

In 2009, G20 countries promised to phase out "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies. According to a report titled "Empty Promises: G20 subsidies to oil, gas and coal production," G20 countries are spending $452 billion US a year in direct subsidies to their respective fossil fuel industries. The study's co-author Alex Doukas, who is senior campaigner with Oil Change International, said,

"We're subsidizing companies to search for new fossil fuel reserves at time when we know that three-quarters of the proven reserves have to stay in the ground if we hope to avoid the worst impacts of climate change...So paying companies to find more fossil fuels is folly."

The report was produced jointly by Oil Change International, an advocacy group focused on moving the world away from fossil fuels, and the Overseas Development Institute, the U.K.'s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues.

US

Despite numerous attempts to remove these subsidies in the US Congress (primarily the Republicans) have thwarted these efforts. The fossil fuel industry owns the Republican party who have consistently shown their loyalty to an industry that is rife with corruption and subterfuge. Internationally, the leaders from over 50 countries have made public commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium term.” However there has not been much concrete action to date.

Canada

Canada's total federal and provincial support for the petroleum industry was close to $2.7 billion US ($3.6 billion Cdn at current exchange rates) in the 2013-14 fiscal year, with federal subsidies accounting for roughly $1.6 billion. In his election platform, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged his government would end fossil fuel subsidies.

COP21

During the COP21 conference at the end of 2015, the UNFCCC released a statement which read: “An unprecedented coalition of close to 40 governments, hundreds of businesses and influential international organisations has called today for accelerated action to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, a move that would help bridge the gap to keep global temperature rise below 2°C.”

John Key, the New Zealand Prime Minister, presented the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué to Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Key said:
“Fossil fuel subsidy reform is the missing piece of the climate change puzzle. It’s estimated that more than a third of global carbon emissions, between 1980 and 2010, were driven by fossil fuel subsidies.
Figueres said in accepting the Communiqué: “These subsidies contribute to the inefficient use of fossil fuels, undermine the development of energy efficient technologies, act as a drag on clean, green energy deployment and in many developing countries do little to assist the poorest of the poor in the first place...low oil prices are a good opportunity to really get going on this issue.”

Stefan Löfven, Prime Minister of Sweden, said: “History will prove fossil fuel to be a dead end. Sweden will be amongst the first fossil free welfare nations of the world. And eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is an important step on this path.”

Hakima El Haite, Environment Minister of Morocco, candidate for the presidency of COP22, said: “Not only do fossil fuel subsidies put a strain on government coffers but they also don’t help the poorest of society.”

Solutions

The end of fossil fuel subsidies is coming and there are ways that we can expedite this transition. As reviewed by Price of Oil here are four major ways we can address the problem of subsidies:
  • Increased transparency – governments must stop hiding the handouts they give to fossil fuel companies!
  • Support for the poor and vulnerable – we need to be sure that poor countries and communities are supported to ensure access to energy while removing these subsidies.
  • Global coordination – without a way for the world to coordinate on this effort, countries will continue to drag their heels.
  • Phase-out Deadline – we all know that unless you have a deadline, you’re apt to procrastinate. It’s time to set one for fossil fuel subsidy elimination!

Related
Curbing Fossil Fuels - Carbon Pricing and an End to Subsidies (WEF Summaries)
Problems and Solutions to the Climate Crisis from the World Economic Forum in Davos
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies Totaling One Trillion Per Year
Success of the #EndFossilFuelSubsidies Campaign
Rio+20: 350.org Campaign to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama's Call for an End to Oil Subsidies
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Infographic - Climate Finance vs Fossil Fuel Subsidies: National Comparisons
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies and the US Congress

Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Renewable Energy Post COP21 (Infographic)

One of the most important things we can do to curb climate change is to end fossil fuel subsidies.  This would reduce the amount of fossil fuels burned and it would level the playing field for clean renewable sources of energy. Event thought 60 percent of all new investment is going into renewable energy fossil fuels still get the lions share of subsidies. The International Energy Agency (IEA) say that government subsidies for fossil fuels are 12 times greater than those for renewable energy.

It is estimated that removing fossil fuel subsidies would reduce greenhouse gas emission by 10 per cent by 2050.

As reported in the New Yorker, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said that there are $5.3 trillion worth of fossil fuel subsidies in 2015 or six and a half percent of global G.D.P.. This breaks down to $10 million a minute or more than the entire health spending of all the world’s governments.

According to Reuters fossil fuel subsidies exceed climate aid by a ratio of 40 to 1.

Jake Schmidt, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: "Given tight budget times and the need to address global warming, subsidising activities that are heating the planet just doesn't make sense. The only beneficiaries of fossil fuel subsidies are oil, gas and coal companies that are raking in record profits at the expense of the rest of us."

Prince Charles said the governments must end fossil fuel subsidies. Realizing the dream of ending fossil fuel subsidies was brought one step closer at the recent COP21 climate meetings in Paris.

Almost 40 countries have endorsed the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué, including: Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Samoa, the U.S., Uganda and Uruguay.

According to the UNFCCC statement: “An unprecedented coalition of close to 40 governments, hundreds of businesses and influential international organisations has called today for accelerated action to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, a move that would help bridge the gap to keep global temperature rise below 2°C.”

John Key, the New Zealand Prime Minister, presented the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué at the Paris Conference said: “Fossil fuel subsidy reform is the missing piece of the climate change puzzle. It’s estimated that more than a third of global carbon emissions, between 1980 and 2010, were driven by fossil fuel subsidies...Their elimination would represent one seventh of the effort needed to achieve our target of ensuring global temperatures do not rise by more than 2°C. As with any subsidy reform, change will take courage and strong political will, but with oil prices at record lows and the global focus on a low carbon future—the timing for this reform has never been better.”

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said in accepting the Communiqué: “These subsidies contribute to the inefficient use of fossil fuels, undermine the development of energy efficient technologies, act as a drag on clean, green energy deployment and in many developing countries do little to assist the poorest of the poor in the first place.

Some wrongly argue that fossil fuel subsidies help the poorest members of society. According to the IEA said. Just 8 percent of aid reached the poorest 20 percent of each country’s population last year. Most of the benefits—85% to 90%—typically accrue to those on middle incomes and the wealthy

Hakima El Haite, Environment Minister of Morocco, candidate for the presidency of COP22, said: “Not only do fossil fuel subsidies put a strain on government coffers but they also don’t help the poorest of society.”

In 2011 President Obama's attempts to eliminate $4 billion in oil and gas subsidies from the U.S. budget was denied by Congress. However in the US and around the world pressure is growing to definitively end subsidies that are wrecking the climate and imperiling life on earth.

Here is an infographic that does a good job of visually illustrating the issue of fossil fuel subsidies:




Related
Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Renewable Energy Post COP21
Time to Reduce the Subsidy Gap Between Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Curbing Fossil Fuels - Carbon Pricing and an End to Subsidies (WEF Summaries)
Infographic - Climate Finance vs Fossil Fuel Subsidies: National Comparisons
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies and the US Congress
Problems and Solutions to the Climate Crisis from the World Economic Forum in Davos
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies
Fossil Fuels are the Most Hated Industry in the US
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies Totaling One Trillion Per Year
Rio+20: 350.org Campaign to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
GOP Fights Removal of Oil Subsidies
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama's Call for an End to Oil Subsidies

Beijing's Coal Plant Closures are Cause for Australia to Think Twice about Investing in Dirty Energy Projects

Concerns about air pollution and poor viability have pushed Beijing to announce the closure of all of its coal plants. As a major coal supplier to China Australia is watching with interest and more than a little bit of concern. The move to shut Beijing's remaining coal plants comes in response increasingly vocal protests that are making government officials nervous. Pollution is one of the major sources of friction between the government and citizens. There are also a very real productivity issue at stake. The move to close the plants is intended to reduce the incidence of death and disease associated with the chronic air pollution.

Beijing's last coal fired electricity plants will be switched off in 2016. Beijing has air pollution rates that are almost twice the national standard. However, Beijing is not the most polluted city in China. Nine out of ten Chinese cities exceed the government's own minimum air quality standards.

The closures will reduce China's consumption of coal by 9.2 million metric tons annually and prevent 30 million tons of climate change causing carbon from being released into the atmosphere each year. The Beijing coal plant closures are in addition to the closure of more than 2,000 smaller plants which are slated to occur by the end of this year. 

At present almost two thirds of China's energy is derived from coal. However, people in China are concerned about air pollution and these concerns are a contributing factor pushing the central government's world leading climate mitigation efforts. China's energy equation is rapidly changing due to massive investments in cleaner energy including hydroelectric, solar, wind and nuclear.

As the world's largest emitter of carbon, China is under pressure from within and without to reduce its emissions. China has already signed a major emissions reduction deal with the US and further cuts can be expected at the COP 21 climate talks later this year in Paris.

All of this calls into question Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's efforts to supply more coal to China. He is working to significantly expand the nation's coal extraction and he is investing billions of dollars to expand Australia's coal export infrastructure.

These Australian coal projects, not only imperil the Great Barrier Reef, they may end up being worthless if the Chinese coal market dries up. At the very least the reduction in Chinese coal consumption will drive down the already low price of coal. To make matters worse last fall China announced that it will reintroduce import tariffs of 6 percent a tonne on thermal coal used to generate electricity.

Like Canada's tar sands, coal is a dirty source of energy and a major contributor to climate change. At a time when the data clearly shows that the world is moving away from coal, Abbott's massive coal investments make little sense. There is already a glut of coal as markets are rapidly declining.

Indian mining giant Adani is developing the Carmichael coal mine in central Queensland and Australia's largest coal terminal at Abbot Point. In January, the Mackay Conservation Group launched a legal challenge to the project. They allege that the Abbott government's environmental assessment was flawed because it did not take into account projected greenhouse gas emissions from the project. The same criticisms have been leveled at the Keystone XL pipeline which would ferry 800,000 barrels of tar sands crude each day from Alberta to the the Gulf of Mexico.

The indigenous people of Australia are challenging the coal project. In a similar fashion Canada's indigenous people have challenged the tar sands.

Abbott and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper have a lot in common when it comes to fossil fuels. The Canadian situation may serve as a cautionary tale for Australia. Just as Canadians are reaping the economic repercussions of Harper's misguided energy efforts, Australians will end up footing the bill for Abbott's energy miscalculations.

Abbott and Harper are united in the love for fossil fuels and they also share a belligerent disregard for climate science. Their common obsession with fossil fuels wastes tax payer's money on doomed energy investments and it would appear they are both destined to preside over vast quantities of stranded assets.

In addition to epic energy mismanagement, the defining legacy of these two men will likely be their wanton disregard for future generations.

Related
Australia Can Dump Coal and Adopt Renewables
Australia's Dirty Coal Development Projects to Move Forward
Beijing Passes New Air Pollution Law
China is Using Drones to Combat Air Pollution
China's New Year: Pollution and Drought Underscore the Contradiction of Pollution and Mitigation 
Chinese Smog Crisis is Driving the Transition to a Greener Economy
The Beginning of the End for Coal
World Bank to Stop Funding Coal
Study Shows Coal is a Bad Investment
Sustainable Growth Excludes Coal

World Bank to Stop Funding Coal

The World Bank has indicated that due to the impacts of climate change on poverty, it will cease its funding of coal projects and increase its support for renewable sources of energy. The announcement came from World Bank President Jim Yong Kim in an address ahead of COP 20, the UN climate summit scheduled to take place in Lima, Peru next month.

Kim related the decision to a report that his organization commissioned which showed how the world's poorest people will be impacted by extreme weather, declining agricultural yields, water instability, communicable diseases and flooding from higher sea levels.

Kim explained that even if we act soon to reduce emissions, warming of at least 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre­-industrial levels is locked in and this will cause more warming alongside a host of other deleterious effects.

"The stakes have never been higher. We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise," he said.

The report also clearly stated that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth

The move to reject coal is an important step given that the bank is one of world's largest supporters of fossil fuels. In addition to ending support for coal projects Kim also advocated on behalf of renewables and cleaner forms of energy.

"The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That’s the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we’re invested in every dimension of renewable energy."

However, if the Bank is to be consistent it must also withdraw all its support for fossil fuels which according to Oil Change International amounts to $21 billion since 2008. Last year alone the Bank poured $1 billion into oil and gas exploration.

Scientists have repeatedly warned that if we are to have a hope of keeping temperature increases under the internationally agreed upon upper threshold limit of 2 degrees Celsius below pre-industrial times, we must keep more than two thirds of known global oil reserves in the ground.

In light of this information supporting the search for more fossil fuels in incompatible with attempts to curtail climate change.

Related
The Beginning of the End for Coal
The Failure of Clean Coal
Video - Ontario to be the First Place in North America to End Coal Power
Study Shows Coal is a Bad Investment
Fossil Fuel Powered Carbon Bombs
Obama Reigning in Emissions from Existing Coal Power Plants
US Energy: Coal Declining While Renewables Increasing
Renewables vs Coal: Energy Emissions Comparisons
Sustainable Growth Excludes Coal

Duke Energy Does it Again: More Coal Ash in Public Water

Coal ash spills came into the popular consciousness with the widely reported Dan River Disaster. However, this is far from the only spill of coal ash. Less than two months after Duke energy spilled 30,000 tons of coal ash which decimated 70 miles of the Dan River, there was a repeat. However, this time was different, this time it was clearly intentional.

Duke energy was photographed deliberately dumping wastewater from toxic coal ash into public waterways. The Waterkeeper Alliance released aerial surveillance photos that caught Duke Energy red handed. The images show workers pumping wastewater from two of Duke Energy’s toxic coal ash lagoons into a canal that drains into the Cape Fear River, a source of public drinking water.

The wanton arrogance of this action is underscored by the fact that the incident occurred just days before a federal grand jury convened in Raleigh to hear evidence in a criminal investigation of Duke Energy.

Duke Energy responded by describing the action as part of “routine maintenance.” Contrary to Duke Energy's contention, they did not contact the appropriate regulatory authorities. Further, it is unlawful to discharge any pollutant into a waterway without a proper permit.

In light of these startling photos and Duke Energy's response, Waterkeeper Alliance and Cape Fear Riverkeeper are demanding answers from Duke Energy and North Carolina DENR.

Related Posts
Another Water Contaminating Spill Courtesy of the Coal Industry
Duke Energy Spills Tons of Coal Ash into the Dan River
West Virginia Chemical Spill: Water Contamination from Coal and Regulatory Insufficiency
Bankruptcy Protection for the Company the Poisoned Drinking Water in Virginia
Video - Ongoing West Virginia Water Crisis

Environmental Impacts of Duke Energy's Coal Ash Spill

In addition to contaminating the Dan River, Duke energy coal ash spill has contaminated groundwater with unsafe levels of arsenic. The February 2 spill from the Eden power plant has coated the bottom of the Dan River with toxic ash as far as 70 miles downstream. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that a massive pile of coal ash about 75 feet long and as much as 5 feet deep has been detected in the river. The toxic sludge is flowing down the Dan river across the state lines into Virginia and to Kerr Lake, a major reservoir. The water coming out of that pipe contains poisonous arsenic which is 14 times the level considered safe for human contact. In addition to arsenic, unsafe levels of lead and selenium have also been detected. People are being advised to avoid contact with the river water and not eat the fish.

Federal authorities have expressed concerns about the long term impacts on fish, turtles, mussels and other aquatic life. The impacts on endangered species in the Dan river are of particular concern. Specifically the Roanoke logperch fish and the James spinymussel. The river also has another freshwater mussel, the green floater, which is currently being evaluated for protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

More than two weeks after the spill Duke spokeswoman Paige Sheehan indicated that, "no immediate action was necessary," it said.

© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related
Duke Energy's Environmental Destruction May be at the Taxpayers Expense
Duke Energy Spills Tons of Coal Ash into the Dan River
Video - Ontario to be the First Place in North America to End Coal Power
Study Shows Coal is a Bad InvestmentNew Study Shows Natural Gas Worse than Coal
Fossil Fuel Powered Carbon Bombs
Obama Reigning in Emissions from Existing Coal Power Plants
US Energy: Coal Declining While Renewables Increasing
Renewables vs Coal: Energy Emissions Comparisons
Sustainable Growth Excludes Coal
World Resources Institute Warning About New Coal Plants
Warning about Coal from the International Energy Association
EPA's Carbon Pollution Standard
EPA Limits GHGs from Power Plants
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies Including Coal

Duke Energy's Environmental Destruction May be at the Taxpayers Expense

Duke Energy spilled tens of thousands of tons of arsenic infested coal ash into the Dan River. This is the third-largest disaster of its kind in US history has contaminated the river and prevents people from safely swimming and fishing. People are not the only life forms impacted, clams, mussels, crustaceans as well as birds, fish and turtles are also being suffocated by the toxic sludge.

Although the company’s CEO, Lynn Good, told The Charlotte Observer that Duke would pay for for the spill, Greenpeace is unconvinced. The environmental organization reports that Duke Energy will not be paying for the cleanup, instead they are expecting taxpayers to foot the bill. This is not the first time that Duke's malfeasance has cost the taxpayer. When they shut a nuclear reactor in Florida that they broke during a botched repair job, they charged their Florida customers over $3 billion.

"...given Duke’s history of dishonesty around this spill — and, quite frankly, most everything else — Ms. Good hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt," Greenpeace said. "More likely, Duke is trying to appease the public with some vague promises of accountability, wait until the scandal passes, then ask regulators at the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) to let Duke charge customers for its mess once national media interest has cooled and fewer people are paying attention."

Greenpeace goes on to point out that the head of the NCUC is "appointed by Gov. Pat McCrory, former Duke employee of 28 years. The other McCrory’s Administration agency charged with regulating Duke, the Department of Natural Resources (DENR), helped Duke sweep its coal ash problem under the rug. That agency is now under federal investigation."

Duke's irresponsible conduct is all the more unconscionable in light of reported profit increases of 58 percent in the last quarter of 2013.

© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related
Duke Energy Spills Tons of Coal Ash into the Dan River
Video - Ontario to be the First Place in North America to End Coal Power
Study Shows Coal is a Bad Investment
New Study Shows Natural Gas Worse than Coal
Fossil Fuel Powered Carbon Bombs
Obama Reigning in Emissions from Existing Coal Power Plants
US Energy: Coal Declining While Renewables Increasing
Renewables vs Coal: Energy Emissions Comparisons
Sustainable Growth Excludes Coal
World Resources Institute Warning About New Coal Plants
Warning about Coal from the International Energy Association
Documentary: On Coal River
EPA's Carbon Pollution Standard
EPA Limits GHGs from Power Plants
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies Including Coal
Report on Global Emissions

Coal Fire Burns Out of Control in Australia Impacting Air Quality

An immense coal fire has been spewing smoke and ash in Australia since February 9. Australia's Hazelwood open cut mine fire has adversely impacted air quality and the situation continues to deteriorate in eastern Victoria. According to Australia's Environment Protection Agency (EPA) air quality index reading above 150 is very poor, recent readings climbed to 702 at Morwell. Local communities are not the only ones being impacted. Thick smoke from the fire is impacting communities as far as Sale which is 65 kilometers away.

The poor air quality has forced the closure of some schools and children are being forced to relocate. The water being used to fight the blaze threatens mine infrastructure and may disrupt energy generation at Hazelwood power station.

Fire officials and the military are onsite to combat the blaze. However the fire is expected to burn for weeks. Fire authorities have warned citizens about the danger of falling trees on roads in the burnt areas.

This fire is yet another indication that the current Australian government's fixation on its dirty coal resources may not be in the best interest of the nation.

© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related
Video - Ontario to be the First Place in North America to End Coal Power
Study Shows Coal is a Bad InvestmentNew Study Shows Natural Gas Worse than Coal
Fossil Fuel Powered Carbon Bombs
Obama Reigning in Emissions from Existing Coal Power Plants
US Energy: Coal Declining While Renewables Increasing
Renewables vs Coal: Energy Emissions Comparisons
Sustainable Growth Excludes Coal
World Resources Institute Warning About New Coal Plants
Warning about Coal from the International Energy Association
Documentary: On Coal River
EPA's Carbon Pollution Standard
EPA Limits GHGs from Power Plants
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies Including Coal

Independence Day 2013: Declaration of Freedom from Fossil Fuels

Two hundred and thirty seven years ago, US colonies freed themselves from the injustice of British rule, now America needs to free itself from the injustice of fossil fuels. The United States' Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. On that day, thirteen American colonies proclaimed their freedom from Great Britain. On the fourth of July 2013, America needs to start thinking seriously about a declaration of freedom from fossil fuels.

A few years after the American revolution, the industrial revolution dawned, beginning America's meteoric rise to global dominance. However, fossil fuels are the engine that drove this growth and they are also the leading cause of climate change.
Americans have some important choices to make.  Ending fossil fuel subsidies is an important first step. But this cannot be accomplished as long as Americans vote for Republicans who continue their unyielding support for dirty energy.

We must rethink some of the basic notions of the old economy. We need to move towards more efficient and sustainable visions of the future. It is time for Americans to declare their independence and begin working towards a future free of fossil fuels.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Video - Bill McKibben on Faith & Fossil Fuel Divestment
Pursuing a Moratorium on New Fossil Fuel Development
Fossil Fuel Action Day Divestment Strategy
Students Advocating Divestment from Fossil Fuels
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies Totaling One Trillion Per Year
Success of the #EndFossilFuelSubsidies Campaign
Rio+20: 350.org Campaign to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
GOP Fights Removal of Oil Subsidies
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama's Call for an End to Oil Subsidies
Tell the G20 to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies Now
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies
Video - A Debate about the 350.org Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign
Video - Bill McKibben Makes the Case for Fossil Fuel Divestment at Middlebury College
Video - Do the Math: The Movie
Video - Bill McKibben and NEI President Bob Massie: "Divestment And The New Economy" 
Debate: McKibben vs. Epstein—Are Fossil Fuels a Risk to the Planet? (Video)
350.org's Connect the Dots End Fossil Fuel (2012)
350.org's Bill McKibben on Connect the Dots (2012)
Success of the End Fossil Fuels Campaign (2012)
The #EndFossilFuelSubsidies Campaign
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the GOP
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies
4 Principles for Climate and Energy Legislation

World Resources Institute Warning About New Coal Plants

Proposed coal projects around the world will quadruple the current capacity of all coal-fired plants in the US. The World Resources Institute  (WRI) released a report in November titled, Global Coal Risk Assessment. The report found that there are 1,199 new coal power plants in the works, totaling more than 1.4 million megawatts of capacity worldwide.

To put this in perspective, 1.4 million megawatts is four times the capacity of all the coal-fired power plants in the US. The world's leading coal powered nations going forward are China, Germany and India, all of which are increasingly active in transnational coal-fired project development.

China is the world largest coal consumer and they are expected to increase their usage until 2020, when demand is finally expected to level off. India continues to rely on coal and by 2025 that country is expected to overtake the U.S. as the number two consumer of coal. Coal demand has shifted from the Atlantic market to the Pacific market.

Although coal projects are planned in 59 countries, seventy-six percent of the coal plants are proposed for India and China. The US ranks seventh in coal power plant development.

Although there have been significant increases in natural gas extraction, coal continues to be used in the US and around the world. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates, the global coal trade rose by 13.4 percent in 2010, reaching 1,083 million tonnes.

According to the IEA, coal supplied nearly half of the increase in global energy consumption over the last decade, growing faster than renewables. And the agency predicts that coal will continue its rise in the decades ahead.

To view the locations of proposed coal-fired power plants by country in an interactive map click here.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Warning from the International Energy Agency: The World's Ongoing Reliance on Fossil Fuels Crushes Hopes of Averting Climate Change

PricewaterhouseCoopers Climate Change Warning
International Renewable Energy Institute Climate Warning

World Meteorological Organization Climate Warning
Scientist Warn Time is Running Out to Avert a Climate Catastrophe
World Banks Warning: We Need to Act Now on Climate Change (Video)
World Bank Climate Change Warning
UNEP Warning: We are on The Brink of a Climate Catastrophe
World Bank Report Warns of A 4°C World
Comprehensive Review of the Science on Anthropogenic Climate Change
10 Charts on Climate Change
September 2012 was the Warmest in Recorded History (NOAA)
Strong Body of Evidence for a Changing Climate
American Meteorological Society Corroborates Anthropogenic Climate Change
More Scientific Support for Anthropogenic Climate Change
Science and Pernicious Ignorance of Climate Change Denial
The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report
A New Study Indicates We Are Reaching a Tipping Points
Environmental Tipping Points
Climate Change Science
Top Four Climate Studies of 2011
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Interactive Map Reveals Warmer Spring 2012
2012 is but the Latest Year Marked by Heat and Drought
Heat in the US Northeast and Drought Around the World IN 2012
Temperature Data: 1880 - 2011 (Video)
New NASA Video Graphically Illustrates that the Earth is Warming
Popular Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Debunking CO2 Myths and The Science of Climate Change
Primer on CO2 and other GHGs
Video: Why People are Confused about the Scientific Veracity of Climate Change
Bill McKibben: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
The Effects of Global Warming

Warning from the International Energy Agency: The World's Ongoing Reliance on Fossil Fuels Crushes Hopes of Averting Climate Change

At its annual World Energy Outlook, the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) suggested that even if we factor the policy commitments already made or contemplated by world governments, energy-related emissions are will keep rising over the next 20 years. The key finding in the International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2012 edition of its World Energy Outlook is that ongoing reliance on fossil fuels will make it impossible to curtail climate change. The report indicates that Renewable energy is being neglected in favor of coal, oil, and natural gas.

“Taking all new developments and policies into account,” the IEA reported, “the world is still failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path.” Rather than move aggressively towards the development of renewable energy we appear to be increasing our consumption of fossil fuels.

The new oil and gas being extracted from shale formations has had a very negative impact on the political will of government to invest in renewables. Sadly, even with the significant increases in natural gas extraction, coal continues to be used in the US and around the world.

According to the IEA, coal supplied nearly half of the increase in global energy consumption over the last decade, growing faster than renewables. And the agency predicts that coal will continue its rise in the decades ahead.

China is the world largest coal consumer and they are expected to increase their usage until 2020, when demand is finally expected to level off. India continues to rely on coal and by 2025 that country is expected to overtake the U.S. as the number two consumer of coal.

The most dire warning in the report indicates that even if governments take vigorous steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the continuing increase in fossil fuel consumption will result in “a long-term average global temperature increase of 3.6 degrees C.”

As noted by the IEA report, fossil fuels continue to dominate government policies. Government energy subsidies in the developing world cause many national governments to seek out the least expensive energy options possible.

A total of six times more government money is spent on fossil fuel based energy subsidies than is spent on subsidies for renewable energy.

Globally, over half a trillion dollars went towards energy subsidies In 2011. This represents and increase of almost 30 percent from 2010.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles

UNEP Warning: We are on The Brink of a Climate Catastrophe

World Resources Institute Warning About New Coal Plants
PricewaterhouseCoopers Climate Change Warning
International Renewable Energy Institute Climate Warning
Scientist Warn Time is Running Out to Avert a Climate Catastrophe
World Banks Warning: We Need to Act Now on Climate Change (Video)
World Bank Climate Change Warning
World Meteorological Organization Climate Warning
World Bank Report Warns of A 4°C World
Comprehensive Review of the Science on Anthropogenic Climate Change
10 Charts on Climate Change
September 2012 was the Warmest in Recorded History (NOAA)
Strong Body of Evidence for a Changing Climate
American Meteorological Society Corroborates Anthropogenic Climate Change
More Scientific Support for Anthropogenic Climate Change
Science and Pernicious Ignorance of Climate Change Denial
The Fifth Global Environmental Outlook Report
A New Study Indicates We Are Reaching a Tipping Points
Environmental Tipping Points
Climate Change Science
Top Four Climate Studies of 2011
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Interactive Map Reveals Warmer Spring 2012
2012 is but the Latest Year Marked by Heat and Drought
Heat in the US Northeast and Drought Around the World IN 2012
Temperature Data: 1880 - 2011 (Video)
New NASA Video Graphically Illustrates that the Earth is Warming
Popular Media is Distorting the Facts about Climate
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Debunking CO2 Myths and The Science of Climate Change
Primer on CO2 and other GHGs
Video: Why People are Confused about the Scientific Veracity of Climate Change
Bill McKibben: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
The Effects of Global Warming

Students Advocating Divestment from Fossil Fuels

American higher education endowments represent $400 billion worth of investments and there is a movement afoot to divest these funds from fossil fuels. The EPA, the IPCC, and many others have stated that fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change. However, rather than moving away from fossil fuels, the US is intensifying its exploration efforts. Right now ExxonMobil spends $100 million a day trying to find more hydrocarbons. For companies like ExxonMobile who are stalwart supporters of dirty energy, divestment is a powerful instrument to induce change.

In finance and economics, a divestment is the reduction of an asset (the opposite of an investment). Historically, a good example of ethical divestment was the withdrawal of support from companies doing business with the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Throughout the 1980s, 155 colleges and universities divested themselves of the portions of their endowments that did business with the apartheid regime. This movement gained national attention and inspired others to do the same. Divestment helped to bring an end to apartheid, now students are advocating divestment from fossil fuels to combat climate change.

One of the schools the took the lead in divestment from the South Africa in the 80s was Hampshire College. Hampshire and other colleges are now leading the charge to divest from fossil fuels. Amhurst College, Lewis & Clark, Cornell, Tufts, Harvard, Boston University and Mt. Holyoke, are amongst the schools that are seeking to push administrators to divest from hydrocarbon investments.

These student campaigns have already proven successful. On October 15, 2012, Hampshire College made history by announcing that its endowment is now free of investments in fossil fuels.

Alli Welton, an undergraduate student at Harvard College and Ben Thompson, a graduate student at Boston University are amongst the students working to push their schools to divest from fossil fuels. They are members of Students for a Just and Stable Future, a student-led organization partnering with Better Future Project and 350.org on university divestment campaigns. They have written an article entitled "Its Getting Hot in Here."

Another similar article by Tufts students Nick Ryder, Jeremy Goldman and Dan Jubelirer is titled "The Case for Divestment." Bill Mckibben, the leader of 350.org works closely with students, he offered his take in an article titled "Divest from Fossil Fuels. Now." In this article he states "you can have a healthy fossil-fuel industry or a healthy planet, but you can't have both."

Campuses across the country are joining a national student divestment movement that is fighting against the environmental catastrophe being perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry. A national day of action for fossil fuel divestment is planned for October 24, 2012. To learn more about starting a divestment campaign at your school go to www.divestforourfuture.org or contact media@justandstable.org.

American students who are advocating divestment are at the forefront of a movement that may snowball into an international initiative. Divestment sends a powerful message to the financial community, perhaps most importantly it impacts amoral investors who in turn may withdraw their own investments due to concerns about stock devaluation.

Divestment is a powerful reminder that irresponsible industries face serious risks that they cannot control. Divestment is an effective way to use financial instruments to put pressure on the fossil fuel industry.

Just as students led a divestment movement that helped to topple Apartheid, a similar movement can combat the climate crisis by diminishing our reliance on fossil fuels.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Burning Fossil Fuels and Staying Within the 2 Degree Limit
President Clinton on What People Need to Know about Renewable Energy
Fossil Fuels are the Most Hated Industry in the US
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies Totaling One Trillion Per Year
Success of the #EndFossilFuelSubsidies Campaign
Rio+20: 350.org Campaign to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the GOP
GOP Fights Removal of Oil Subsidies
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama's Call for an End to Oil Subsidies
Tell the G20 to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies Now
The G20 and the Transition to a Greener Economy
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants Chevron
Canadians Disappointed with Conservatives
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies
4 Principles for Climate and Energy Legislation
Air and Water in the OECD Report
Independence Day: Declaration of Freedom from Fossil Fuels

Obama Versus Romney on Energy

Here is an excerpt from a September 28, 2012 Climate Progress article titled "Obama Versus Romney: Everything You Need to Know About Where the Candidates Stand on Energy Policy." The article was written by Daniel J. Weiss and and Jackie Weidman

The United States is in the midst of significant changes in our energy outlook. We are producing and burning more natural gas for electricity, while reducing coal use. Domestic oil production is at a 15-year high while oil imports are at a 15-year low. Renewable electricity doubled over the past four years, while worldwide carbon pollution and the impacts of climate change grow. The next president will face these and other serious challenges posed by a changing energy world.

President Barack Obama’s first term featured the adoption of essential toxic and carbon pollution reduction measures to protect public health. In addition, he modernized fuel-economy standards for the first time in two decades, which also helped the auto industry; invested in energy efficiency and renewable electricity; and created tens of thousands of jobs.

Gov. Mitt Romney’s energy agenda couldn’t be more different. He would undo new safeguards from mercury, carcinogens, soot, and smog from industrial sources. He opposes the improved fuel-economy standards, and would continue and expand tax breaks for big oil companies, while openly disparaging clean energy and investments in wind power.

In short, there are stark differences between the two presidential candidates that must be discussed on October 3 so Americans have a clear view of the energy path each candidate would lead us down.

Below is a more detailed direct comparison of their positions on the most visible energy challenges facing the nation. Following this chart is documentation on the candidates’ positions:

Oil and gas production

Obama:

Oil imports lowest since 1997; dropped by 15 percent during term to 42 percent; vowed to cut current oil imports in half by 2020. [[Energy Information Administration, 6/12] Domestic oil production is the highest in 15 years. The United States has more drilling rigs at work than the rest of the world combined. [Center for American Progress Action Fund,9/13/12; Energy Information Administration, 9/11/12] Crude oil production from federal lands and waters was higher in 2009, 2010 and 2011 than in any of the last three years of the Bush administration. [EIA, 3/14/12] Raised worker and environmental safety standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, strengthening well design, testing, control equipment, and workplace safety. The Gulf Coast region was not hurt economically by a temporary moratorium, which has the same unemployment as two years ago and had rising personal income in 2011. [White House, 3/30/12, NOLA, 4/15/12]

Romney

Would open the Florida portion of the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, public lands, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to new drilling. Would accelerate drilling permits, short circuiting health and environmental reviews. [MittRomney.com, 2011] Defense Department concerned about Florida and Virginia drilling expansion since it could interfere with military training. [Panama City News Herald, 4/4/12] Called the temporary moratorium on drilling in the Gulf following the Deepwater Horizon disaster “illegal.” [CBS News, 3/9/12] See “Public lands protection”

Big Oil tax breaks

Obama:

Calls on Congress to end $4 billion in oil tax breaks and to invest in clean energy instead. [White House, 3/28/2012] Pledged to cut subsidies for oil, coal, and natural gas internationally, along with G20 nations. [Economist,10/1/09]

Romney:

Romney supports the House Republican budget, authored by his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which preserves $40 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry over a decade. [CAP, 3/20/12] Romney’s economic plan would give the big five oil companies–BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell–an additional $2.3 billion annual tax cut on top of existing tax breaks they currently receive. [CAPAF, 7/26/12] Romney’s plan cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, but does not make specific mention of oil and gas loopholes which let oil companies pay much lower effective federal rates. [MittRomney.com, 2012] Asked directly in an interview about whether he is for or against subsidizing Big Oil, Romney responded: “I’m not sure precisely what big tax breaks we’re talking about.” [Fox News, 4/3/2012]

Clean energy

Obama:

Federal government invested billions of dollars in renewable energy projects, creating tens of thousands of jobs; doubled generation of (non-hydropower) renewable electricity to 6 percent. [EIA, 7/1/12] Supports extension of the production tax credit for wind generated electricity. [White House, 5/22/12] “Governor Romney calls [renewable sources of energy] ‘imaginary.’ Congressman Ryan calls them a ‘fad.’ I think they’re the future. I think they’re worth fighting for.” [Climate Progress, 8/28/12] “I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.” [State of the Union, 1/24/12] Transforming the Pentagon energy use by reducing the military’s dependence on fossil fuels that cost the Pentagon up to $20 billion annually. [National Journal, 4/11/12]

Romney:

Opposes the extension of the production tax credit for wind energy, which could cost 37,000 jobs in the industry. [Des Moines Register, 7/30/12] “In place of real energy, Obama has focused on an imaginary world where government-subsidized windmills and solar panels could power the economy. This vision has failed.” [Columbus Dispatch op-ed, 8/8/12] “You can’t drive a car with a windmill on it.” [ThinkProgress, 3/6/2012] Endorses the House passed budget authored by Ryan, which gives a 60 percent funding increase to coal, oil, and natural gas, while it decreases funding for research on vehicle batteries and solar projects, and loans to companies to retool to build fuel-efficient cars. [Politico, 4/17/12]

Reduce oil use and imports with efficient vehicles

Obama:

New modern standards require cars and light trucks to achieve an average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. This, combined with the first round of standards, will save 3.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2030. This is equivalent to the amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf, Colombia, and Venezuela combined. [CAP, 8/28/12] Invested in fuel-efficient vehicle and advanced battery research and development to spur job growth and increase international competitiveness; increased affordability and reliability of electric vehicles. [CAP, 8/28/12] Proposed a “race to the top” for communities to seek federal investment in public electric vehicle recharging infrastructure. [White House, 3/30/11]

Romney:

“Gov. Romney opposes the extreme standards that President Obama has imposed, which will limit the choices available to American families,” said campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul. [LA Times, 8/28/12] Disparaged the first plug-in hybrid electric Chevrolet Volt as “an idea whose time has not come,” and said, “I’m not sure America was ready for the Chevy Volt.” [Michigan Live, 12/23/11, MSNBC 4/5/12]. EPA says the Volt gets at least 94 miles per gallon. Advocates ending the federal loan program helping companies develop and produce efficient cars. [Orange County Register, 10/24/11] Supports House passed budget authored by Ryan that would slash investment in alternatives to gasoline powered cars. [House Budget Committee, FY 2013]

Gasoline prices

Obama:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission should increase market oversight of Wall Street speculators who have driven up oil prices;, increase penalties for illegal activity. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act includes rules to limit commodities speculation by Wall Street speculators that do not affect commercial end users. [CNN, 4/17/12; Media Matters, 4/18/12] Favors investments in alternatives to gasoline, including electric vehicles and public transportation. [CAP, 8/28/12; American Public Transportation Association, 2/13/12]

Romney

Would repeal Dodd Frank and opposes reining in Wall Street speculators, calling Obama’s move “gimmickry.” [MittRomney.com, 4/17/12] Supports House passed budget authored by Ryan that would cut Commodity Futures Trading Commission funding by nearly $40 million; cuts would hinder the CFTC’s ability to police the oil and other markets that the Commission oversees.. [House Budget Committee FY 2013; White House, 4/17/12]

Green jobs

Obama:

Historic level of investment in green jobs sector now with 3.1 million Americans employed according the Bureau of Labor Statistics. [AP, 3/22/12] Romney:

Repeatedly called green jobs “fake,” such as calling them “illusory” in an op-ed on his energy plan. [Orange County Register, 10/24/11] “[Obama] keeps talking about green jobs, where are they?” [OC Register, 10/24/11; League of Conservation Voters, 9/15/11] The Economic Policy Institute estimates that there were nearly 1 million clean energy jobs created or saved by the Recovery Act. [BlueGreen Alliance, 2/17/11]

Public lands protection

Obama:

Approved 17 major solar energy installation projects on public lands that are generating 6,000 megawatts of power; will expedite permitting process to increase development in Western states. [Department of Energy, 7/24/12] Announced he would “allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power 3 million homes.” [White House, 1/24/12] Signed a sweeping public lands bill in 2009 that designated 2 million acres of wilderness and created three national parks. [AP, 3/31/09] Used the 1906 Antiquities Act to create three national monuments – Fort Monroe, Virginia; Fort Ord, California; and Chimney Rock, Colorado. These monuments will bring tourists and economic development to these places.. [ClimateProgress, 9/20/12] 

Romney:

Romney’s energy plan would give states the authority to allow drilling in National Park Service units and other public lands within state borders. The New York Times noted that “states, as a rule, tend to be interested mainly in resource development.” [NYT, 8/18/12] The Romney plan significantly increases the likelihood that drilling could take place in 30 National Park units, including the Flight 93 Memorial and Everglades National Park. [Center for American Progress, 9/12/12] Romney said “I haven’t studied […] what the purpose is of” public lands. But he finds it unacceptable when conservation is “designed to satisfy, let’s say, the most extreme environmentalists, from keeping a population from developing their coal, their gold, their other resources for the benefit of the state.” [McClatchy, 2/16/12] Fully embraced the House passed budget, authored by Ryan, which would sell off 3.3 millions of acres of national parks and public lands. [ThinkProgress, 3/21/12]

Climate Change

Obama:

“My plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future.” [Climate Progress, 9/6/12] Finalized the first ever carbon pollution reduction rules for motor vehicles, which will cut carbon pollution from vehicles built between 2012 and 2025. The standards will slash billions of tons of carbon pollution. [White House, 8/3/2012] Proposed the first carbon pollution reduction for new coal-fired power plants. [NPR, 3/27/12] State Department is leading a group of countries in a program that cuts global warming pollutants like soot, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons. [NYT, 2/16/2012]

Romney:

Romney made fun of President Obama’s commitment to fighting global warming at the Republican National Convention when he said “I’m not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet.” [Climate Progress, 9/19/12] “There remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.” [NYT,9/5/2012] “I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system.” [Science Debate.org, 9/4/12] Says the Clean Air Act doesn’t apply to carbon emissions: “My view is that the EPA in getting into carbon and regulating carbon has gone beyond the original intent of that legislation, and I would not take it there.” Would overturn Supreme Court decision by blocking EPA from setting carbon pollution reduction standards.[Politico, 7/18/11; MittRomney.com, 2012]

Protect public health from mercury, toxic air pollution

Obama:

Finalized historic standard that limits harmful mercury and air toxic pollution from coal-fired power plants. Proposed rules to reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from industrial boilers, incinerators, and cement manufacturing. Together, these initiatives will result in $187 billion in annual health benefits and would prevent 21,600 premature deaths, 199,000 cases of asthma, and 12,540 hospitalizations annually. [CAPAF, 9/18/12] Proposed Cross-state air pollution rule that would save up to 34,000 lives, and $280 billion in economic benefits, annually; rule was struck down in 2-1 federal appeals court decision, but EPA could appeal. [CAPAF, 9/18/12]

Romney

Would promptly issue an executive order that “directs all agencies to immediately initiate the elimination of Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy or job creation.” [MittRomney.com, 2011] “Aggressively” develop all our coal sources. “Coal is America’s most abundant energy source. We have reserves that—at current rates of uses—will last for the next 200 years of electricity production in an industry that directly employs perhaps 200,000 workers.” [MittRomney.com, 2011] Against new EPA regulations of harmful mercury and air pollutants from coal: “I think the EPA has gotten completely out of control for a very simple reason. It is a tool in the hands of the president to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it’s oil, gas, coal, nuclear.” [The Hill, 12/5/11] Romney’s campaign spokesperson falsely claimed that the mercury pollution-reduction standard “costs more than $1,500 for every one dollar reduction in mercury pollution.” The EPA projects “that for every dollar spent to reduce pollution, Americans get $3 to $9 in health benefits in return.” [Climate Progress, 8/21/12]

Keystone XL pipeline

Obama:

Delayed decision to permit construction of Keystone XL pipeline in November 2011 until a new route was identified and evaluated. The original proposed pathway crossed Nebraska’s Sandhills, the recharge zone for the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies water for nearly one-quarter of American agriculture. Nebraska’s Republican governor Dave Heineman also opposed this route. President Obama noted that the original route could “affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment.” [White House, 11/10/11; NRDC, 7/11/11; Nebraska Government, 8/11/11] Congress forced President Obama to decide whether to approve or deny the Keystone XL in January 2012 before a new route was selected. He denied it because a new route had not been identified or analyzed. The president said that “the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.” [White House, 1/18/12] Approved the Cushing, Oklahoma to Gulf of Mexico leg of Keystone XL in March to address the over stock of oil in Cushing due to lack of transportation capacity; promised to ensure that construction and operation will proceed in an environmentally sensible way. [CAP,5/5/2012] Obama will decide whether to approve TransCanada’s new proposed northern pipeline route in 2013, after the Nebraska state government and the State Department assess the environmental impacts of the new route. [U.S. Department of State, 5/4/2012]

Romney:

“If I’m President, we’ll build it if I have to build it myself.” [Huffington Post, 5/4/12] Used his first TV ad of the general election to say he would approve Keystone XL on “day one” if elected. [The Hill, 5/18/12] Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress; Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.

Source: Climate Progress

Related Articles
The Obama Administration Has Grown Renewable Energy
American Voters Want More Renewable Energy
The Green Elements of the First 2012 Presidential Debate
Obama's Energy Efficiency Executive Order for Industry
Obama Administration's New Vehicle Standards
Romney's Coal Fired Campaign Versus Obama's Wind Power
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
Obama's National Goal of One Million EVs by 2020
Obama's Jobs Plan Emphasizes green employment
Obama 2013 Budget Seeks to Make Renewable Tax Credits Permanent
Clean Energy Excerpts of President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Speech
President Obama's 2013 Budget
President Obama's 2013 Environmental Budget
Excerpts of President Obama's American Jobs Act
Energy Efficiency Partnerships: Obama's American Jobs Act
President Obama's American Jobs Act (Video)
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the GOP
Highlights of Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address
Excerpts of President Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address
Obama Renews His Commitments to Clean Energy and Efficiency
Excerpts from President Obama's 2010 State of the Union Address
President Obama's "HomeStar" Program
Alternative Energy Investments Under Obama
Mitt Romney's Love Affair with Fossil Fuels
Romney's Coal Fired Campaign Versus Obama's Wind Power
What Romney's Energy Policy looks Like on the Ground (Video) 
Mitt Romeny: The Legacy He Will Leave for our Children
Romney Increasingly Uncertain about the Climate Change
Climate Denying Republicans Delay their Convention Due to Extreme Weather
GOP VP Candidate Paul Ryan's Unsustainable Voting Record on Energy and the Environment
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the Republicans
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
The Koch Brother's Ties to GOP Presidential Candidates
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone XL
Video: Conservatives Against Republican Denialism
Video: The Republican War on Climate Science
Video: Republicans Anti-Scientific Stance
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Crisis and Implications for the Environment
Republican Cuts Target Green Jobs
Republican Gubernatorial Gains and Redistricting
Republican's Fail in their Bid to Defund the EPA
Defend Clean Air and Oppose the TRAIN Act
Republican Assault on the Environment
EDF Campaign Opposing US Anti-Environment Bill
Environmental Implications of the Credit Ceiling Agreement
Chu Video: The Worst Anti-Environmental Bill of her Career
Connolly Video: Climate Disasters And GOP Denial
Blumenauer Video: 'The Jihad Against Climate Change Continues'
Republican Obstructionism on the Debt Ceiling Risks Global Environmental Collapse
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
Supreme Court Decision Undermines Climate Change Legislation
Protecting the Planet from Corporate Influence
Green Stimulus Spending and Republican Opposition
What is Wrong with the Right
The Business of Climate Change Deception