Reply to comment

by Lester R. Brown

WASHINGTON - The past two years
have witnessed the emergence of a powerful movement opposing the
construction of new coal-fired power plants in the United States.
Initially led by environmental groups, both national and local, it has
since been joined by prominent national political leaders and many
state governors.

Coal
power plant in Datteln, Germany. What began as a few local ripples of
resistance to coal-fired power quickly evolved into a national tidal
wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and
community organisations. Despite a heavily funded ad campaign to
promote so-called clean coal, the U.S. public is turning against coal.
(Wikimedia Creative Commons - Arnold Paul)

The principal reason
for opposing coal plants is that they are changing the earth's climate.
There is also the effect of mercury emissions on health and the 23,600
U.S. deaths each year from power plant air pollution.

Over
the last few years the coal industry has suffered one setback after
another. The Sierra Club, which has kept a tally of proposed coal-fired
power plants and their fates since 2000, reports that 123 plants have
been defeated, with another 51 facing opposition in the courts.

Of
the 231 plants being tracked, only 25 currently have a chance at
gaining the permits necessary to begin construction and eventually come
online. Building a coal plant may soon be impossible.

What
began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power quickly
evolved into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from
environmental, health, farm, and community organisations. Despite a
heavily funded ad campaign to promote so-called clean coal (one
reminiscent of the tobacco industry's earlier efforts to convince
people that cigarettes were not unhealthy), the U.S. public is turning
against coal.

One of the first major industry setbacks came in
early 2007 when a coalition headed by the Environmental Defence Fund
took on Texas-based utility TXU's plans for 11 new coal-fired power
plants. A quick drop in the utility's stock price caused by the media
storm prompted a 45-billion-dollar buyout offer from two private equity
firms.

However, only after negotiating a ceasefire with EDF and
the Natural Resources Defence Council and reducing the number of
proposed plants from 11 to three, thus preserving the value of the
company, did the firms proceed with the purchase. It was a major win
for the environmental community, which mustered the public support
necessary to stop eight plants outright and impose stricter regulations
on the remaining three.

Meanwhile, the energy focus in Texas has
shifted to its vast wind resources, pushing it ahead of California in
wind-generated electricity.

In May 2007, Florida's Public
Service Commission refused to license a huge 5.7-billion-dollar,
1,960-megawatt coal plant because the utility could not prove that
building the plant would be cheaper than investing in conservation,
efficiency, and renewable energy sources. This point, made by
Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental legal group, combined with
strong public opposition to any more coal-fired power plants in
Florida, led to the quiet withdrawal of four other coal plant proposals
in the state.

Coal's future is also suffering as Wall Street turns its back on the industry.

In
July 2007, Citigroup downgraded coal company stocks across the board
and recommended that its clients switch to other energy stocks.

In
January 2008, Merrill Lynch also downgraded coal stocks. In early
February 2008, investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi, and J.P. Morgan
Chase announced that any future lending for coal-fired power would be
contingent on the utilities demonstrating that the plants would be
economically viable with the higher costs associated with future
federal restrictions on carbon emissions.

Later that month, Bank of America announced it would follow suit.

In
August 2007, coal took a heavy political hit when U.S. Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had been opposing three coal-fired
power plants in his own state, announced that he was now against
building coal-fired power plants anywhere in the world.

Former
Vice President Al Gore has also voiced strong opposition to building
any coal-fired power plants. So too have many state governors,
including those in California, Florida, Michigan, Washington, and
Wisconsin.

In her 2009 State of the State address, Governor
Jennifer Granholm of Michigan argued that the state should not be
importing coal from Montana and Wyoming but instead should be investing
in technologies to improve energy efficiency and to tap the renewable
resources within Michigan, including wind and solar. This, she said,
would create thousands of jobs in the state, helping offset those lost
in the automobile industry.

One of the unresolved burdens
haunting the coal sector, in addition to the emissions of CO2, is what
to do with the coal ash - the remnant of burning coal - that is
accumulating in 194 landfills and 161 holding ponds in 47 states. This
ash is not an easy material to dispose of since it is laced with
arsenic, lead, mercury, and many other toxic materials.

The
industry's dirty secret came into full public view just before
Christmas 2008 when the containment wall of a coal ash pond in eastern
Tennessee collapsed, releasing a billion gallons of toxic brew.
Unfortunately, the industry does not have a plan for safely disposing
of the 130 million tonnes of ash produced each year, enough to fill one
million railroad cars.

The dangers are such that the Department
of Homeland Security tried to put 44 of the most vulnerable storage
facilities on a classified list lest they fall into the hands of
terrorists. The spill of toxic coal ash in Tennessee drove another nail
into the lid of the coal industry coffin.

In April 2009, the
chairman of the powerful U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon
Wellinghoff, observed that the United States may no longer need any
additional coal or nuclear power plants. Regulators, investment banks,
and political leaders are now beginning to see what has been obvious
for some time to climate scientists such as NASA's James Hansen, who
says that it makes no sense to build coal-fired power plants when we
will have to bulldoze them in a few years.

In April 2007, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is both authorised and obligated to regulate CO2 emissions under the
Clean Air Act.

This watershed decision prompted the
Environmental Appeals Board of the EPA in November 2008 to conclude
that a regional EPA office must address CO2 emissions before issuing
air pollution permits for a new coal-fired power plant. This not only
put the brakes on the plant in question but also set a precedent,
stalling permits for all other proposed U.S. coal plants.

Acting
on the same Supreme Court decision, in December 2009 the EPA issued a
final endangerment finding confirming that CO2 emissions threaten human
health and welfare and must be regulated, jeopardising new coal plants
everywhere.

The bottom line is that the United States now has,
in effect, a de facto moratorium on the building of new coal-fired
power plants. This has led the Sierra Club, the national leader on this
issue, to expand its campaign to reduce carbon emissions to include the
closing of existing plants.

Given the huge potential for
reducing electricity use in the United States by switching to more
efficient lighting and appliances, for example, this may be much easier
than it appears.

If the efficiency level of the other 49 states
were raised to that of New York, the most energy-efficient state, the
energy saved would be sufficient to close 80 percent of the country's
coal-fired power plants. The few remaining plants could be shut down by
turning to renewable energy - wind farms, solar thermal power plants,
solar cell rooftop arrays, and geothermal power and heat.

The
handwriting is on the wall. With the likelihood that few, if any, new
coal-fired power plants will be approved in the United States, this de
facto moratorium will send a message to the world. Denmark and New
Zealand have already banned new coal-fired power plants. Other
countries are likely to join this effort to cut carbon emissions.

Even
China, which was building one new coal plant a week, is surging ahead
with harnessing renewable energy development and will soon overtake the
United States in wind electric generation.

These and other
developments suggest that the Plan B goal of cutting net carbon
emissions 80 percent by 2020 may be much more attainable than many
would have thought.

Lester R. Brown is founder and president
of the Earth Policy Institute. "Plan B 4.0: Mobilising to Save
Civilisation" can be downloaded for free at
www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/books/pb4.