 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 30, 2008 at 12:53:03
Greenpeace Report Tags True Price of Coal by Cathie Bird Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
1
1
1
For many years, Appalachian coalfield citizens have insisted that coal energy is not cheap. A new Greenpeace report may give us the numbers to prove it. When energy and climate problems burst into fiery dialogue several years ago, grassroots coalfield groups worried that harm to people and nature by mountaintop removal coal mining would be buried in the rumble of greenhouse gas and global warming debates. Networking with climate and green energy activists, making wide use of the Internet, we organized to increase public awareness that the aggregate process of mining coal, burning it and disposing of waste-referred to in the Greenpeace report as coal's chain of custody-is dirty and expensive. These collaborative efforts built a diverse, extended community that continues to have a profound impact on the energy conversation. How do we know this? Type "mountaintop removal" into your favorite search engine. Better yet, consider all of the new coalitions and multimillion-dollar marketing strategies funded by the coal industry to bury the truth in so-called clean, inexpensive coal. If we look only at factors reflected by the market price of coal-currently $133-138 per short ton in Appalachia-it's clear why the coal industry hopes the public will be fooled by their cheap arguments. But who pays for broken mountains, poisoned water, respiratory disease and ruined communities not accounted for on our electric bills? The coal companies?
I don't think so! This is why the Greenpeace report is such an important document for those of us in the coalfields: it outlines external costs not reflected in the market price of coal-damage that coal companies never pay for-and gives it a price tag.
The True Cost of Coal examines three main links in coal's chain of custody, explaining how mining coal, burning coal, and coal's legacy of toxic waste burial, fractured landscapes and fragmented communities causes irreparable damage to people and the planet. Costs of human suffering are not easily assessed except through stories of people who are affected. Greenpeace gives them plenty of space in the report, organized to illustrate impacts to people at each link in the chain, from "gray mountains, black water and yellow smoke" in Xiaoyi, China to a community swimming hole, fed by acid mine drainage and heated by poisonous underground coal fires, near Maguqa, South Africa.
The toxic trashing of Appalachia by mountaintop removal is also featured in first hand accounts of three coalfield residents in eastern Kentucky. Validating concerns of citizens on the front lines of this pernicious practice, the report describes water supplies contaminated by arsenic and mercury, hollows denuded and filled with mine waste, and a once-thriving streams buried alive or killed by lethal doses of acid mine drainage.
To analyze data for their report, Greenpeace engaged CE Delft, a respected thirty-year old independent, non-profit think tank in the Netherlands. Greenpeace cautions that calculations estimate a lower limit of the true cost of coal and do not represent a comprehensive evaluation of all external impacts. Accurate and reliable data at every link in the chain, they say, either does not exist on a global scale or is virtually impossible to quantify.
With these limitations in mind, check out the numbers. Damage from coal combustion, coal extraction and mining accidents in 2007 roughly totaled 360-billion Euros (457-billion USD). Coal combustion in power plants accounted for about 99% of total external costs. Though coal mining's share of the burden was estimated at only 674-million Euros (855.5-million USD), costs of many known impacts, such as acid mine drainage, stream loss or displacement of entire communities, remain unavailable or essentially inestimable.
Imagine this kind of destruction-which will get even worse if we build new coal plants and open more mines to feed them-continuing for the next ten years, or twenty. How much will the "cheap coal" scam really cost us in land and lives? Gee, it kind of makes the $700-billion dollar Wall Street bailout look like pennies in my old piggy bank.
Online Resources:
Check out the Greenpeace report here.
Read more about the vision and work at CE Delft here.
Learn more about The Alliance for Appalachia here.
Check current coal production and market prices here.
www.tennesseehawk.typepad.com/earthbytes/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 2 comments |
|
I too live in E Tenn, but I grew up near the deepest vein
The deepest vein of coal is often advertised to be the Powder River Basin in NE Wyoming. How I see the coal versus other energy sources is very muddled. In recalling the debate between the coal companies and John L. Lewis in the 30s (with nudging by Eleanor Roosevelt) it's hard to imagine why so little has been changed in the last 75 years. When I came to the Knoxville area in 1977, the question of coalfired plants by TVA (Kingston, for example) was hot stuff. Startup of nuclear plants became a fiasco. And for a time foreign oil was cheap. Sissy Spacek made the picture about a Coalminer's Daughter. Since then it's still a merrygo around of which energy source to make the black sheep. First, please let me say that I appreciate the article here--well documented and useful. What I'm trying to get a handle on is how to prevent political manipulation of energy policy. Currently, oil is the culprit and alternatives--various and contradictory--are each researched and touted for the best outcome. For example, the Powder River Basin is now a source of much methane gas, harvested by flushing it out from between seams of coal. In the opposite corner of the state a bonanza has appeared at Pinedale WY. Already locals there are submerged in toxic air. (High Country News published an article about death and permanent injury in oil patch accidents.) To the East of the Powder River Basin is a strong vein of sweet crude between layers of shale oil in North Dakota. A five-year project to hook up a pipe line from Williston to the Powder River Basin was okayed and considered economically favorable even if the future markets went to $60. However, even before the slump in oil price, oil suppliers were going bankrupt because transportation to the refineries was not available. This which I describe is just a small part of how fluctuations in oil speculations controls public opinion. The environmentalists made their first big pitch for an EPA while the politicians were contemplating what to do about Nixon's devious policies. Things change only to stay the same. So what has to be done, in my view, is political. Energy production is global and always has been. Herbert Hoover is remembered for a depression after humanitarian efforts, but in another sense, he was a mining engineer. I suspect that is the reason Stanford blazes his name. I hope I'm making it clear that globalization of energy is older than the US and a local solution to rape of land and demeaning of life where we live is at the mercy of large corporations who treat real estate as something to dig, drill, and desert. This article examines the plight of Chinese, as well as of those in various parts of the US, Alaska included. Do we citizens have a chance to breathe clean air? It's, I think, a human right. Maybe that is where the UN should put it's efforts. At this time, inhabitants in the Democratic Republic of Congo are being ravaged, and pursuit of energy sources is the motivation. So, Cathie, thank you for the article. I came to TVA land to have a pristine environment. At this stage of my life, I spend many summer days inside, looking up at the Smokies because the ozone alert rules my activities. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2911 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 1860 comments [100 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:37:42 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks for the history
Margaret, your response is a treasure...lots of history bits that really broaden my understanding of the issues around coal energy and energy policy in general. I agree with you that these issues are old and complex. I participate in lots of grassroots activities to bring some sense to coal mining and moving beyond fossil fuels, but I'm with you on trying to get my mind around the best way to have influence on policy. I previously trained as a naturalist and consider myself a citizen scientist who is trying to balance the urgency of threats to the planet with the need for us to respond in a way that does not unknowingly cause more harm down the road that we just didn't anticipate. I plan to keep writing about good ideas I find that need to get out into people's thought realms. Thanks again for your comments... by Cathie Bird (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Nov 30, 2008 at 2:15:12 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
