China and Us
Seven years ago, the lights went out across vast swaths of China. Massive blackouts, like those in California in 2000 and 2001, left residents and businesses without power. Among the regions hardest hit was Jiangsu Province, a growing industrial center north of Shanghai, whose skyrocketing — and inefficient — industrial and residential energy use was overtaxing its power grid. Barbara Finamore, director of NRDC’s China program, recalls Jiangsu’s initial response to the energy conservation measures proposed by NRDC. "Ten years ago, they laughed," she says. But then the blackouts hit, and Jiangsu’s leaders recognized pretty quickly the role that energy efficiency could play in stabilizing the province’s power grid — and its economy. Jiangsu, with a population of 76 million, and California still have much in common. Each is a major economic engine in its country (Jiangsu’s economy accounts for 10 percent of China’s gross domestic product; California represents 11.5 percent of the U.S. GDP), and both are interested in developing cleaner sources of energy. Last October California and Jiangsu signed a formal agreement to promote cooperation between their governments, industries, and universities to boost energy efficiency and renewable energy use and to curb emissions. This is the first time that such a deal has been struck between a Chinese province and a U.S. state with the specific aim of tackling climate change. NRDC’s China program helped design the agreement’s basic framework and will continue to "help ensure that both California and Jiangsu stay on the right track," says Mona Yew, the new director of the China energy-efficiency program.
Read the rest here:
China and Us
Ohio Decides Coal Is a Bad Deal
On September 17, 2007, Andrew Wetzler walked into city hall in Oberlin, Ohio, to attend a meeting of the city council, fact sheets and presentation materials in hand. Earlier that year, Wetzler, an NRDC attorney, and other staff members from the newly formed Midwest office had fanned out to attend council meetings in nearly a dozen cities and towns across the state — from Oberlin to Westerville to Yellow Springs — to oppose the building of a new coal plant in Meigs County, in southeastern Ohio. The 960-megawatt coal-fired plant, proposed by American Municipal Power (AMP), would emit seven million tons of carbon dioxide each year. It would also pollute the air and water by releasing particulate matter, which can contribute to asthma and other respiratory problems, and sulfur dioxide, which can lead to acid rain. "It was a bad deal — environmentally and economically," says Shannon Fisk, an attorney in the Midwest office. AMP, an energy cooperative owned by its members — in this case, cities and towns across Ohio and neighboring states — wanted to finance the construction of the plant by locking member municipalities into long-term "take or pay" contracts. These contracts would require members not only to foot the bill for construction but also to commit to paying for the electricity the plant generated — no matter the cost. AMP assured its members that the plant would be relatively cheap to build and operate and provide an affordable source of electricity. But in reality, projected construction costs were rapidly rising and the expected operating costs were increasing significantly as well, thanks to the prospect of federal climate change legislation and new coal ash disposal rules, and a hike in the cost of coal. At the city council meetings, NRDC staffers made the case that the economics of building a new coal plant didn’t make as much sense in the long term as other available alternatives, such as wind and solar. Initially it looked like a losing battle, as city after city signed up with AMP despite NRDC’s advocacy efforts. "We knew we were up for a challenge in the heart of coal country," Fisk says. But in the fall of 2009, as AMP was preparing to break ground, its contractors estimated that construction of the new plant would be more than 167 percent higher than the initial projection in 2005, rising from $1.5 billion to nearly $4 billion. At a committee meeting in November 2009, AMP’s Ohio members decided to cancel the plant. Fisk believes that NRDC’s efforts laid the groundwork for community leaders to recognize a bad deal when they saw one. "Our message all along was that the plant would cost too much and that there were better alternatives," he says. "We were really the first ones to make this argument in Ohio." AMP’s plan for a new coal-fired power plant was one of 150 such proposals made during the Bush administration. As of today, 110 of them have been canceled. "People are realizing that the economic future of energy is in efficiency and renewables, not dirty nineteenth-century coal," says Fisk. NRDC is currently challenging another new coal-fired plant proposal in Ohio. Wetzler, who was living in Columbus in 2007, believes that having a presence in the Midwest helped NRDC achieve its goals. "I think we would have received a far chillier reception if we had flown in from Los Angeles or New York and tried telling these folks what to do," he says. The decision to cancel the plant could ultimately prove a boon to AMP’s Ohio members on several fronts. "There’s a great opportunity to make better choices here," says Thom Cmar, an NRDC staff attorney in Chicago. The plant was supposed to reduce members’ reliance on electricity from the wholesale market. But "saving energy through energy-efficiency programs is by far the cheapest option," says Dylan Sullivan, an NRDC energy advocate in Chicago. Ohioans will not only save money by not building the plant; they will also have one less source of pollution and carbon emissions fouling their air and water. "This is one more small step toward a sustainable energy future," says Cmar. "If it wasn’t for our willingness to really jump in and fight this thing on the ground, it wouldn’t have happened." Fisk believes that the decision to cancel the new plant sends a message far beyond Ohio. "It’s one thing when a state like California decides not to build a coal plant," he says. "But when a state in the heart of coal country decides not to do it — that’s a pretty strong statement."
More here: Ohio Decides Coal Is a Bad Deal
Country’s Vocal Advocate
Mountaintop removal, a destructive form of coal mining that levels entire mountains to expose the seams of coal within, has already destroyed more than one million acres of once-majestic Appalachian landscape and threatens the health of the people living there. Mining companies dump trees, debris, and toxic contaminants from destroyed mountains into nearby streams and valleys, polluting drinking water and devastating natural habitats. Country music legend and longtime NRDC supporter Emmylou Harris, a founding member of NRDC’s Music Saves Mountains campaign, discusses how she and other artists are working to keep the "country" in country music. You can learn more at musicsavesmountains.org . What inspired Music Saves Mountains? Bluegrass, mountain music, and the country music that’s popular today — you can really trace it all back to the Appalachians, the people who settled there, and the instruments they used. In a sense, this is the mother ground from which this music came. It’s really important that these artists — musicians from different areas of music, but above all country music — understand the terrible desecration that’s happening in the Appalachians, especially in West Virginia and Kentucky. Beyond destroying the environment and the wildlife, mountaintop removal is devastating the people who live on the land. It’s something that should be stopped — stopped yesterday. Once people realize that this is going on in their backyards, I do think there’s a good possibility that things will change. But we need to mobilize. Which of the songs that you perform best expresses your feelings about this place? There’s a song called "The Green Rolling Hills of West Virginia" [by Utah Phillips], which is a poignant story about people who had to leave that area. It was written a long time ago, before mountaintop removal mining, but I hope that when I perform it, it will give me an opening to raise awareness. What inspires your personal passion for the environment? It’s where we all live! I saw a great bumper sticker once on a vehicle in Nashville. It said, "We all live downstream." Anything that’s done, anywhere in the world, can have negative consequences for everyone. We need to be aware that we’re caretakers of this extraordinary world that we live in.
Read the rest here:
Country’s Vocal Advocate
Keeping Us Safe from Toxic Chemicals
Of the nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market today, only 200 have been tested for harmful effects. On September 29, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson released a set of principles that will guide the much-needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and increase public confidence in the safety of chemicals that are produced and used in the United States. Principle #1: Chemicals should be reviewed against safety standards that are based on sound science and reflect risk-based criteria protective of human health and the environment…. The process of risk assessment has a checkered history. Some chemicals have been bogged down in the process for decades, despite clear evidence that they are dangerous. Meanwhile, people are still being exposed and harmed. We should have a quicker pathway to reduce human exposures to the most hazardous chemicals. Principle #3: Risk management decisions should take into account sensitive subpopulations, cost, availability of substitutes, and other relevant considerations. The requirement to consider costs could be a stumbling block to protecting sensitive groups, such as children. Other health laws, such as the Clean Air Act, explicitly state that health comes first. It’s okay for the EPA to consider costs, but an analysis that pits children’s health against economic interests would be a real mistake. Principle #4: Manufacturers and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner. There are dozens of chemicals we already know are bad for the public, the environment, or both. Think asbestos. For a long time, the EPA has been unable to ban most of its uses because of hurdles in the law. The EPA needs to be able to restrict or eliminate the use of chemicals that a lot of people are exposed to and that we know are dangerous. Principle #5: Green chemistry should be encouraged and provisions assuring transparency and public access to information should be strengthened…. Currently, there are no incentives for chemical manufacturers to develop so-called green chemicals — chemicals that are designed to be nontoxic to our health and to the environment. To create these incentives will be good not only for the economy but also for public health.
Continue here: Keeping Us Safe from Toxic Chemicals