Coal Is To Clean As Astroturf Is To Grass

Over the past few months, a new phrase has entered the English language, "clean coal."

Ol' GW mentioned "clean coal" in his most recent State of the Union Address. In a recent speech, Hillary Clinton stated that future energy generation should come from "clean coal and renewables." Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia, has used "clean coal" as a way to "marry his green credentials with his concern for jobs."

With all this talk and publicity, "clean coal" must really be something great, right? It must be the energy source that will save us from global warming. It must be our future.

Well, that is what the coal industry would like you to believe.

"Clean coal" is actually the linchpin of a well orchestrated and well funded public relations campaign sponsored by the coal industry.

In 2000, the coal industry formed a group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). This group's mission is to develop "astroturf" support for mining companies, coal transporters, and coal-based electricity producers. If you are unfamiliar with "astroturfing," it is a widespread public relations practice primarily used by politicians and corporations in which a seemingly "independent" front group is formed to create the appearance of a spontaneous, grassroots citizen action. The group is to real grassroots activism as "astroturf" is to real grass.

In 2001, ABEC ran one television advertisement promoting "clean coal" over 900 times in the Washington, D.C. market. In 2002, ABEC sponsored three television advertisements in that same market which ran over 800 times. Also in 2002, ABEC underwrote a program on National Public Radio (NPR) that promoted coal as America's future.

Recently, ABEC has increased their public relations budget from $8 million in 2007 to $30 million in 2008.

In 2007, ABEC sponsored the CNN/YouTube Republican Presidential Debate. In 2008, ABEC sponsored the CNN Republican AND Democratic Presidential Debates. As of January 2008, ABEC had spent over $1.3 million on "clean coal" advertisements in Iowa, Nevada, and South Carolina. During a 2008 Democratic Presidential Debate in Nevada, ABEC paid 50 people to walk around around as "human billboards" and hand out "leaflets ... with questions for voters to ask the candidates."

So, with all of this "astroturf," where can we find some real grass?

Well, the facts on coal-based energy prove that there is no such thing as "clean coal."

Coal-fired power plants account for 59% of the total sulfur dioxide pollution in the United States, 18% of the total nitrogen oxide pollution, 40% of the carbon dioxide pollution, and 50% of the total particulate pollution.

Coal-fired plants are the largest source of toxic mercury pollution and the largest contributor of hazardous air toxics.

If these just sound like numbers to you, here is how these toxic pollutants affect your health:

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): Gas emitted through burning coal and oil, that converts into acid gases (sulfuric acid) and sulfur particulate matter (pm). Health effects include: airway irritation, heart rhythm destabilization, and asthma attacks.
• Nitrogen Oxide (NOx): General term for NO/O2 hazes formed from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline. It is a main ingredient in acid rain and ozone smog.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Gas layer that blankets the planet and traps heat in the lower atmosphere. Global warming affects every ecosystem on the planet with drastic health, environmental, humanitarian, and economic consequences.
• Particulate Matter (PM): Soil, soot, SO2, and NOx particles from power plants, cars, and factories that are tiny enough to penetrate indoor spaces and deep into the lungs. They can trigger premature death from heart attacks, lung diseases, and cancer in adults; and stunted lung growth, low birth weight, neurological impairment, and SIDS in children.
• Mercury (Hg): Toxic metal particles settle in water, contaminate fish, and move up the food chain. Mercury ingestion can result in premature birth, low birth weight, structural defects, learning disorders, heart and neurological defects.
  

The National Park Service (NPS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and several other federal agencies recently released the results of a six year study focused on pollution in our most pristine lands, our national parks. The study found a significant correlation between the presence of mercury and the location of national parks located downwind from coal-based power plants. The mercury levels of some fish in supposedly "pristine" waters were so high as to pose a health risk to eat. And, keep in mind that this study was conducted on lands that we consider "clean" and "untouched."

In the American Southeast, where we live, over 60% of our power is provided by coal-based power plants. These plants dump 30,000 pounds of toxic mercury into our air and water annually. They are also the single largest source of carbon dioxide pollution with over 590 million tons emitted annually.

In 1997 in our home state of Tennessee, an estimated 1,440 deaths, 910 hospitalizations, and 27,100 asthma attacks were attributed to power plant pollution. Overall, Tennessee ranks as the third highest state for toxins released into the air.

And, these are just the direct impacts of coal-based power plants.

We haven't even started to talk about the negative health, environmental, and human impacts of the immoral coal extraction process known as "mountaintop removal."

Please recognize that "clean coal" is an outright lie. It is a fabrication created by the coal industry. They have the money to make it look green and clean, but, on closer inspection, you will find that it is all just "astroturf." In the case of "clean coal," the grass truly is greener on the other side of the fence.

So, stay informed and stay on the real grass. Tell Congress to place a moratorium on all new coal-based power plants. And, let's shut down the ones that continue to endanger our health and our environment.

If we do not succumb to the propaganda of the coal industry, we can invest in a cleaner and healthier future for ourselves and our children. It is estimated that 69% of electricity needs in the United States could be met with solar by 2050 and we could be a completely solar nation by 2100.

We already have real "clean" technologies available. Let's use them.

(Cross posted at Life has taught us ...)

Cumberland Greens Bioregional Council

For those in the greater Nashville area, I'd like to let you know of a group that has been around for over 20 years, but has just gone online, the "Cumberland Greens Bioregional Council". It's a good group of folks that have been instrumental in several environmental and social issues in the area. Check us out here. It's free to join, hope to see you there.

Doug

Safely disposing of CFLs:

By now most of us have at least heard of CFLs: Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs.

These bulbs are environmentally friendly because they use less energy than a standard light bulb and have a much longer life span. When broken these bulbs do release small amounts of mercury vapor into the air, the same as other fluorescent bulbs. As a result special care should be taken in disposing of both broken and burned out CFLs.

The EPA has issued guidelines for disposing of CFL waste, for more information go here.

Wake County Community Meeting to discuss drought February 23rd

For more information visit Raleigh Eco News.

Raleigh facing water restrictions in face of continuing drought:

According to this press release from the city of Raleigh in North Carolina, the lake that supplies most of the water for that city and 8 surrounding counties is 8.65 feet below full. Water restrictions have been put into place and there has been a 24% reduction in water usage in the area.

In other drought related news, the city of Atlanta has decided to allow public pools to go ahead with regularly scheduled fill-ups and openings even though the city is under level 4 water restrictions. For more information, check out the Atlanta Water Shortage blog.

The Middle Tennessee area hasn't had any water restrictions placed on it to date, but we are still at a level 4 (Exceptional Drought) on the drought monitor in the middle of our "rainy season". Hopefully local government will take the necessary steps to conserve water in our area, too.

What Is Your "Food Print"?

Following on the heels of a new study by Cornell University researchers, a new buzz word has emerged in the English language ... "food print."

A "food print" is measured by calculating the amount of land that it takes to produce the food that you eat.

In the Cornell study, researchers discovered that a low-fat vegetarian diet needed the least amount of land. This diet only used 0.5 acres per person whereas a diet high in meats and fats used over two acres per person. Yet, these same researchers argued that the most "efficient" diet was one that incorporated small amounts of meat and dairy as these diets used low quality pasture lands more productively. A diet with a little meat and dairy, approximately 63 grams per day, would only require 0.6 acres of land per person.

Now, perhaps that doesn't seem like a big difference to you, but, taking the state of New York as an example, the switch to a low-fat vegetarian diet by all New Yorkers would allow the state's agriculture to support 50% more of the population. Additionally, this would mean that 32% of New York's food needs could be met with harvests produced within the state, as opposed to the current amount of 22%.

Jennifer Wilkins, one of the co-authors of the Cornell study, stated their conclusion quite succinctly, "The key to conserving land and other resources with our diets is to limit the amount of meat we eat and for farmers to rely more on grazing and forages to feed their livestock."

Yet, a true conservation ethic includes more than just tabulating how much land is needed to produce your food. It is also crucial to understand how your food was grown, where it was grown, and how it was processed, packaged and transported. Wilkins emphasized this point, "Consumers need to be aware that foods differ not only in their nutrient content but in the amount of resources required to produce, process, package and transport them."

So, a true "food print" should consider the total impact that your diet has on the environment. This total impact would not only include how much land is required to the produce the food, but also how many petrochemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides may have been applied, how much energy was required to raise those crops and create those chemicals, and how much energy was expended in processing, packaging, and transporting the food.

These are only a few of the factors that must be considered in calculating your "food print."

I know that this seems quite overwhelming. In the United States, the majority of our food supply is dependent on industrial agriculture, which creates a tremendously negative impact on the environment and is extremely inefficient in its production. It is difficult to opt out of this system that has taken over our country's food supply thanks to corporate lobbyists and years of misguided agricultural policy.

Yet, I hope that this discussion gets you thinking when you next visit your grocery store or farmer's market. Do not turn off your brain and follow that shopping list blindly. Begin to question your food. Sure, you might get some strange look from folks as you interrogate that apple, "Where did you come from? Chile?," but isn't it important to know more about the items that you are putting into your body? It is your body and it is your right to know.

You can make a great difference not only to your health, but also the health of the planet, if you educate yourself about the food chain, buy local products whenever possible, and really think about what you eat.

The fate of the planet is on your fork!

(Cross-posted at Life has taught us ...)

--

Drought Resistant Plant #2: Black Eyed Susan

Rudbeckia hirta has many common names: Black-eyed Susan, Blackiehead, Brown Betty, Brown Daisy, Brown-eyed Susan, Yellow Ox-eye Daisy and many more. These beautiful flowers grow in most of North America, the ones pictured were photographed by me growing wild on a remote mountaintop in North Carolina.

The plants can reach up to 3 feet in height and depending on what area you are in they are annual, perennial or biennial. In Middle Tennessee where I do my gardening they come back year after year, but if your winters get colder than ours they may not make it through each year without some extra effort (mulching works well).

The USDA classifies it as being "medium" in drought tolerance, but as with the coneflower I find plants native to our area can at the very least live through even extreme drought, even if they don't produce copious amounts of flowers. And at the height of the drought last summer that was good enough for me!

I typically buy Black-eyed Susans in seedling form from a local nursery, they can be divided in a similar manner to other perennials after a few years.

Do you have other drought tolerant plants that work well in the Southeast? I'd love to hear about them!