EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Tina Gerhardt

Tina Gerhardt

Posted: June 27, 2010 07:33 PM

The Canary in the Coal Mine: Stopping Climate Change - Ted Nace: Climate Hope

What's Your Reaction:

The Canary in the Coal Mine: Stopping Climate Change

By Tina Gerhardt

Climate Hope: On the Front Lines of the Fight against Coal

By Ted Nace

2010-06-27-ClimateHope.jpg

How to address climate change? As time is running out, the question has become of critical concern.

Nace's volume Climate Hope: On the Front Lines of the Fight against Coal (http://climatehopebook.com/) is at once a first-person narrative about a personal journey from concern to growing curiosity to the front lines, but it is also a chronicle of the growing anti-coal movement, particularly between 2007 and 2009.

In May 2007, climate scientist James Hansen argued that ending emissions from coal is "80% of the solution to the global warming crisis." Hansen called for coal to phased out entirely by 2030. (http://stormsofmygrandchildren.com/)

Ted Nace took note of the assertion: "The idea that climate change could be addressed by something as straightforward as phasing out coal intrigued me, since that did not strike me as an impossible goal [...] This is doable, I thought" (13-14).

So Nace started to research what environmental groups were doing in support of Hansen's call for a moratorium on new coal plants and stumbled on a list of 151 proposed coal-fired power plants posted on-line in the spring of 2007 by Department of Energy analyst Erik Schuster. Quickly, this list became a rallying cry for a wave of climate action.

Since none of the established national non-profit organizations dedicated to the environment had taken up Hansen's call for a nationwide freeze on new coal plants, Nace was inspired to act. He set up a web-site with the banner headline "Coal Moratorium Now!" to post information about the status of each proposed plant. The site has since morphed into the CoalSwarm.org (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Coal_Issues) an information clearinghouse about coalmines, plants, companies, impacts and politics, groups and actions, nation-wide and around the world.

Climate Hope's sixteen chapters present an incredible array of actions nation-wide, from sit-ins at coal mines to blockades at big-city banks' ATM machines, and the movement's varied participants, which included activists, organizers, politicians, lawyers and community residents. One appendix tallies up the protests against coal; another lists the coal plants that have been canceled, abandoned or put on hold.

How-to manual and chronicle, the book is hard to put down and inspiring. Nace presents how this period of intense mobilization managed to shut down over 95 of the 151 plants proposed in 2007.

He explains well and in an easy to understand style the science. For example, he demonstrates why coal - rather than oil or gas - is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel and therefore key to the fight against global warming.

And the various success stories presented embody different political approaches. For example, Attorney Carol Overland pinpoints why new coal plants are not economically viable. It's an argument that - in the current ongoing economic recession - has traction with politicians and investors alike. (It's also an argument that could prove useful in the fight against proposed nuclear plants.)

Problems with cost estimates include cost overruns and potential legislation for carbon caps, which would require infrastructure and financial resources be set aside for carbon capture, sequestration and monitoring.

While costs associated with coal plants are increasing, the costs for renewables - like wind, solar and geothermal - Nace argues are dropping. Furthermore, in some areas wind can generate comparable supplies of electricity.

Nace's study covers successes shutting down proposed coal-fired power plants from the Northwest to the Southeast; from California's solar power to Delaware's wind farms; from solar farms in the Southwest to greenhouse gas emissions reductions initiatives in the Northeast. And the volume does not, to its credit, focus solely on the bi-coastal regions: Nace also looks at efforts in key mining states of landlocked regions, such as West Virginia, Illinois, Ohio Kentucky, North Dakota and Wyoming.

Most of all, Nace talks about the range of people who became concerned about coal plants, decided to take action and did so successfully. Nace discusses the actions of governors, judges and regulators to prevent intended coal plants from being built, as well as the withdrawal of proposals for plants by companies.

And he touches on the potential for change vis-a-vis coal-fired power through the decisions of executives responsible for optimizing their shareholders investments: for example, although Warren Buffett was initially supportive of new coal-fired plants, he canceled six plants between 2007 and 2008.

Buffett did not cancel new coal power plants due to a burgeoning environmental consciousness. Rather a combined pummeling of legislative change and rising costs motivated his decision: CA and WA passed new state legislation for carbon dioxide emissions and for renewable energy; potential federal carbon legislation loomed; litigation and the threat of litigation existed; and construction costs continue to rise. Meanwhile, renewables are becomingly increasingly competitive.

Nace discusses how Hopi and Navajo elders organized at Black Mesa. In another case, he presents community residents elsewhere who had grown weary of the health and environmental degradation. In each case, people took action and, in the face of incredible odds, won.

And he mentions organizations, such as Rising Tide and Rain Forest Action Network. He also considers the merits of decentralized organizing, as he participates in and camps out at a climate convergence. And he discusses the benefits of direct action, including street theater and lockdowns.

The volume is timely, documenting how the fight to shut down coal plans is turning from the proposed ones to existing plants.

Ted Nace's Climate Hope complements well previously published books about coal. Jeff Goodell's Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future (2007) (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Coal-Secret-Behind-Americas/dp/0618319409) focuses on the coal industry, its dirty secrets - the deaths, the health risks, the environmental degradation - and the U.S.'s addiction to energy. Jeff Biggers' Reckoning at Eagle Creek: The Secret Legacy of Coal in the Heartland (2010) (http://jeffrbiggers.com/) is at once a memoir or family history, sharing the effects of coal-mining in his family, and also an historical account of coal-mining in southern Illinois. Biggers calls attention to how coal mining affected indigenous populations, drew on slave labor, involved tense labor disputes, health abuses and ecological devastation. Nace's book rounds this selection out by focusing specifically on the success of the recent moment to close down proposed plants. It's an inspirational story, for coal and beyond.

Nace's volume convinces that addressing climate change - despite the failures of the UNFCCC process and the gridlock in passing U.S. legislation - is doable.

Tina Gerhardt's work has appeared in Alternet, Grist, In These Times and The Nation.com.
She has covered climate change summits, including in Copenhagen, Cochabamba and Bonn.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
09:21 PM on 06/28/2010
There is a viable replacemen­t for coal fired electric plants which releases negligible greenhouse gasses, toxins or radiation- Nuclear power plants! Operating plants are safe and the new designs are even safer.
Building 100's of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technologi­cal advancemen­t.
I have been working with nuclear power for 30 yrs, I would be glad to have a new Nuclear power plant or used fuel storage facility in my community. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (Where I work) I understand the risks involved and I’m completely comfortabl­e with a plant "in my backyard". I have confidence that our kids will be smart enough to treat the nuclear "waste" as a valuable resource, or at least handle it safely. If the cavemen thought their children would be too stupid to use fire safely, where would we be?
Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.
Nuclear power has the smallest environmen­tal impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. A fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as burning 1 ton of coal, and if reprocesse­d most of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmen­tally friendly base-load electrical power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bryan Elliott
03:09 PM on 06/28/2010
"It's also an argument that could prove useful in the fight against proposed nuclear plants."

Coal plants are not feasible because the externaliz­ed costs of coal (mining and combustion pollution) jack the price of coal plants up past the cost of solar (~$5/watt)­.

Nuclear can be as cheap as $1.2/watt (that's how much AP1000's are sold to China for). It has no externaliz­ed costs (uranium mining is very low footprint, and spent fuel storage is almost always done on-site, the political stupid surroundin­g Yucca Mountain notwithsta­nding). That makes it the cheapest source of energy on this planet at the moment.

Next gen reactors should prove to be cheaper - but that's another argument.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonmaster
08:28 AM on 06/28/2010
The canary in the coal mine - nice play on words--- coal is the biggest contributo­r to CO2- and finding an alternativ­e that is as cheap- and plentifull­y available is the crux of the problem- there just is not a replacemen­t- and the effort to 'sequester­' it into the ground etc is currently impractica­l as are other methods for cleaning it up.

The 'Canary' is the denial of many in the USA- from politician­s to the Media- and private corporatio­ns who use fossil fuels who fail to see that climate change is now here and likely to become far worse- not in the distant future- but a few years away.

Climate change left ignored will easily become the biggest challenge we will ever face- do we make it to the 22nd century? This is that 'Canary' in that 'Coal Mine' that may alter everything­.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bryan Elliott
03:39 PM on 06/28/2010
"coal is the biggest contributo­r to CO2"

Coal is also the biggest contributo­r to atmospheri­c radiation release, I should mention. Coal is ~3 ppm uranium and ~12ppm thorium. A running 500MW coal plant releases roughly 35 nCi (nanocurie­s) of radioactiv­e material every second.

Every second.

For perspectiv­e:

A banana contains ~3.5 nCi of Potassium-­40

Vermont Yankee nuclear power station nearly got shut down for a small leak of water with a tritium concentrat­ion of just under 20 nCi/l.

Over a year, the coal industry releases about 400 Ci - equivalent to 20 billion liters of VY water or 114 billion bananas.
03:17 AM on 06/28/2010
Right idea on coal but really really dumb idea on its replacemen­t.

Not so renewables like solar and wind are many times the cost of nuclear power. In fact due their need for low efficiency gas plant for load balancing they actually produce more GHG's than they save.

Real cost of solar.

Arcadia Florida newest largest solar plant in the US$32B/Gw or 50 cents a kwh.

Real cost of wind.

Cape wind $20B/Gw 24 cents a kwh going to 34 cents over 15 years latest tariff agreement.

Current Amerian nuclear costs are 2 cents a kwh.

Real cost of American nuclear power built by American engineers in five years or less overseas for public power companies instead of the attorney’s­, corrupt private power companies and pet politician­s, and greedy wall street financiers taking ten years at four times the cost to build the same nuclear plants in the US.

AP1000 build $1.2B/Gw 2007, 1.3 cents a kwh

http://www­.bloomberg­.com/apps/­news?pid=2­0601080&re­fer=asia&s­id=aJPyNB5­Q_Fr0

Both AECL and Westinghou­se are predicting less than $1B/Gw their new Gen 3+ units when production levels get into the scores.

If not so green folk get their way by 2050 the US will be paying 50 cents a kwh for wind and solar load balanced by dirty radioactiv­e radon and GHG spewing low efficiency gas plant while GHG free Asia will be laughing at our destroyed economies with less than 1 cent a kwh nuclear.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
02:06 AM on 06/28/2010
The worst case scenario in the Gulf may include a life threatenin­g impact on much of the Northern Hemisphere­.

Ironically­, moving beyond coal and other fossil fuels may be possible much more rapidly than is generally believed.

A very thin film of oil on the surface in the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans apparently could raise temperatur­es toward a catastroph­ic Tipping Point.

See: Life Threatenin­g Danger and What to Do at http://www­.aesopinst­itute.org

The White House must rapidly consider the possibilit­y that a massive mobilizati­on is needed to combat what might be looming if, as several qualified engineers believe, the leak cannot be capped.

We may be confrontin­g a huge national emergency.

If so, an adequate response might, ironically­, generate an enormous number of jobs.

Little known breakthrou­ghs involving radically new energy technologi­es can supersede oil much more rapidly than is easily believed. See Running on Water and Moving Beyond Oil at the same Aesop Institute website.

Future cars can become power plants when parked, wirelessly selling electricit­y to the local utility.
Within very few years with 24/7 developmen­t, such vehicles might be able to sell sufficient power to pay their own way.

Cars and trucks would begin to cost-compe­titively replace coal and other central power plants.

We need more voices that can be heard suggesting sensible steps to reduce the dangers.

Bold leadership is needed now!

This catastroph­e is a wake up call! Time to throw every available resource into action!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Enock Zamora
KARMA
12:33 AM on 06/28/2010
One canary said to the other canary in the coal mine, how long does a millennium last? The canary said, two thousand one hundred years. Why? The first canary said, well you see it is because of "Ophichus"­, the original [cross]. The other canary said, you mean that symbol you see when you go to the canary doctor with the (2) snakes, staff and wings. Ya said the other canary, Iets fly the coop, I think we are in Plato's [Cave]. WOO-HOO. :)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:37 PM on 06/27/2010
I just can't wait to read by candleligh­t again. Yes, those were the good old days.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
07:25 AM on 06/28/2010
"I just can't wait to read by candleligh­t again"

Hyperbolic nonsense, sorry. That's not anyone's plan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:45 AM on 06/28/2010
Not the plan, just the result.
08:27 PM on 06/27/2010
Climate Fraud? Climate Gate?

Stopping real pollution is great. Carbon Trading? Somehow I am suspicious­. As exhale Carbon.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
07:23 AM on 06/28/2010
The carbon you're exhaling came out of the atmosphere in the first place, so it's a wash. Living things taken as a whole (i.e., plants + animals) are essentiall­y carbon neutral because they're just recycling atmospheri­c carbon over and over again.

This is very different from burning fossil fuels, where we're injecting into the atmosphere carbon that has been buried for millions upon millions of years.
04:44 PM on 06/28/2010
Humans (mammals) take in the air, metabolize it, and exhale CO2. Plants take in the air, metabolize it, and exhale O2.

One more thing, the world's current CO2 level is the lowest its been in 300 million years.