Bloomberg Beyond Coal Donation: New York City Mayor Commits $50 Million Toward Sierra Club's Beyond Coal

As the leader of one of the world's largest cities, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has cultivated visions for how to improve quality of life in urban areas.

On Thursday, Bloomberg dipped into his own deep pockets to give a financial boost toward a green cause, on a national platform.

The Washington Post reports that Bloomberg Philanthropies is donating $50 million to the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. The paper notes that the funding will be spread out over several years, and was marked as a "game-changer" by Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune. Bloomberg agreed.

“If we are going to get serious about reducing our carbon footprint in the United States, we have to get serious about coal," said the mayor via a Sierra Club press release. Ending coal power production is the right thing to do, because while it may seem to be an inexpensive energy source the impact on our environment and the impact on public health is significant."

Grist adds that the money will ramp up several facets of the Sierra Club's outreach, including a larger staff and base of campaigning states. Beyond Coal has been instrumental in halting more than 150 proposed power plants, and will now have unforeseen financial backing to continue its efforts.

Beginning July 12th, the Sierra Club took over all of the ad space inside a Washington, D.C. station, relaying their message that air pollution from coal-fired power plants poses health risks, and in March, the American Lung Association estimated that particle pollution from power plants kills approximately 13,000 people a year.

While the Bloomberg announcement is drawing waves of humanitarian support, The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire captured the reaction from the other side. A National Mining Association Spokeswoman questioned the efforts against the coal industry, advocating for cleaner technologies that still utilize a cost-effective resource like coal.

Comments

[Thomas Frizzensnitchel]

08:59 PM on 08/13/2011

American Lung Association estimated that particle pollution from power plants kills approximately 13,000 people a year.

Ok lets look at the big picture.
Tobacco kills more than that per year, lets outlaw cigarettes.
Alcohol kills more than that per year, lets outlaw drinking.
Hell, automotive travel kills lots more than that per year, lets outlaw cars.
This is nothing more than a lobbyist ploy. He will want something in return. I would say the Sierra club just bought him. And for the record I am for green clean energy sources, But why cut off our noses to spite our face. We want to eliminate energy sources before useful and plentiful alternatives are found and or used to the fullest.

[Ricky Beck]

03:20 PM on 08/12/2011

Also he would'nt spend $50.000.000.00 if there was someting in it for him give me a break he's lobbying Congress for somthing you can bet. we need to have an anti lobby bill so our elected members of Congress answer only to the voter's and not rich snakes like him.

[Edward Wilkes]

11:57 PM on 07/27/2011

This is just a cover for Bloomberg to disguise his real intentions of becoming more Rich and powerful by investing strongly in Hydro Fracking

[Imago]

10:22 PM on 07/26/2011

How about 50 mill for 'beyond fracking,' Mayor Bloomberg? Please?

[willvn]

06:13 PM on 07/25/2011

Green energy could possibly be the best investment to make. Not only are fossil fuels destroying the world right in front of our eyes, but they are running out! Without more visionaries like Bloomberg, the United States of America is in for a bumpy ride.

[srooge]

12:41 PM on 07/25/2011

Money printed by goldmansucksFed

[D-Driller]

10:55 PM on 07/24/2011

A couple of interesting things come to mind here. 1. I wonder what Bloombergs portfolio looks like - any guesses on the percentage of natural gas stocks? 2. Funny how the coal mining companies fight tooth and nail to reduce the amount/type of scrubbers put on their gen systems until something like this happens, then they change their tune: "A National Mining Association Spokeswoman questioned the efforts against the coal industry, advocating for cleaner technologies that still utilize a cost-effective resource like coal."

[DanSc]

12:36 AM on 07/24/2011

Why not donate the $50 million to energy research? It would have a much greater impact there.

[LastStar]

09:17 AM on 07/25/2011

Green energy research is going on at a rapid pace all over the world and there likely is no shortage of venture capital.

Halting already approved coal plants is the other side of the going green energy coin. From the article:
" Beyond Coal has been instrumental in halting more than 150 proposed power plants, and will now have unforeseen financial backing to continue its efforts."

[LastStar]

09:19 AM on 07/25/2011

"proposed coal plants" not approved coal plants" They need to be stopped at the pre-approval stage.

[DanSc]

10:11 PM on 07/25/2011

I agree. We need large scale renewable plants. Some more hydroelectric dams would be an excellent place to start.

[Bill Duckworth]

10:56 PM on 07/23/2011

Clean Air is needed but not at the cost of Open Space. Nature consists of the elements of fire, earth, air, and water they all must clean and in Harmony with Nature

[FreeHat]

07:23 PM on 07/23/2011

Lol. How is the Sierra Club going to give us coal alternatives? Not too many scientists in that organization. They exist because of coal and would be poorer with out it.

[anelder]

07:29 PM on 07/24/2011

I imagine it's part of the effort to force coal and oil industries to have to invest in other technologies to assure their continued power.

What is needed is a equal effort to create jobs for those workers who are displaced.

[julbar]

01:14 PM on 07/23/2011

He is such a good hearted lib at his core.. Good work, Mr B

[Frank J Savel III]

10:19 AM on 07/23/2011

Excellent method to motivate a Coal corp to invest in clean coal R&D! Motivate them with fear and money :) Their own language

[rjhuntington]

06:49 AM on 07/23/2011

Thank you, Mr Bloomberg!

[MrBIgp]

09:39 PM on 07/22/2011

France went from 5% nuclear to 80% nuclear in 23 years. If we had continued building nuclear plants at the rate we built them in the 70s, we wouldn't need to burn coal. It is foolish to give money to an organization which opposes the only energy source which can replace coal.

[NWBrunette]

11:09 AM on 07/23/2011

Too bad you didn't get that toxic waste dump in your backyard ready in time.

[MrBIgp]

11:32 PM on 07/23/2011

A rather childish response don't you think?

[alvdh1]

04:01 PM on 07/23/2011

The tragedy of the French Nuclear Experiment is contained in the below link. After you read it, hopefully you will have second thoughts about France's nuclear energy disaster.

http://www.alternet.org/story/132852/

[MrBIgp]

11:31 PM on 07/23/2011

Say the article - same old anti nuclear dribble. There is no "disaster", just clean, safe energy. Thousands of people are alive today because of France's nuclear program.

[Brer Orabbit]

06:14 PM on 07/22/2011

How about $50 Million to clean up the Hudson River, Harlem River, part of East River not fit for recreational activity after sewage spill. Just in time for the heat wave.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/07/22/2011-07-22_oh_pooh_we_cant_canoe.html#ixzz1SsIgt8jS