Follow Us on Twitter: Appalachian Voices | iLoveMountains.org

Posts Tagged ‘Coal’

Reflecting on Gainesville Loves Mountains

Thursday, May 10th, 2012 - posted by brian

————————————————————————————————————————————–
We’re happy to share this guest blog post by Kathy Selvage. Last month, Kathy traveled to Florida to speak at Gainesville Loves Mountains. There she found engaged citizens with open hearts and minds.
————————————————————————————————————————————–

I landed at the airport in Jacksonville, FL., on Saturday afternoon, April 14, 2012 at the behest of Jason Fults who invited me to be part of the second Gainesville Loves Mountains series of events and activities. The image of two smokestacks near Jacksonville, seen from high above the earth, seemed to drive their image into my chest as we descended. It haunted me for quite awhile but quickly dissipated by the warm and wonderful people I met afterward.

Saturday night was devoted to getting to know my extraordinary hosts, Jason Fults and Laurel Nesbit, and I was thankful for that time to unwind slightly before we wound ourselves up again for what has proven to be a whirlwind of events.

The very next morning, I attended service with amazing people at UC Gainesville. It was a beautiful service, amazingly inclusive, a wonderful sermon by a seemingly “too young to be a minister” young man named Vince Amil. The repetitive words from a song stuck with me: “When the worship is over, service begins.” After crossing a very inviting courtyard, we met at 11:00 in a separate room for an Adult Education Class on Mountaintop Removal. How cool is that? I left them with a book for the church library accessible to all to remind others of the consequences of burning fossil fuels in this country, the consequence that is most often left out and ignored, the consequence of the extraction process on the Appalachian region and its people. I left there knowing in my heart that these intelligent, thoughtful people would engage and continue to be creative in ways not yet imaginable by me.

Circles close quickly when we are open to others and will have heartfelt conversations with them. I met a woman in the Church who was born in Wise, VA, where I have lived nearly all my life. (more…)

Rebranding Bank of America’s Responsibility

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 - posted by brian

————————————————————————————————————————————–
Join us in Charlotte on May 9 to remind Bank of America, the largest financier of the U.S. coal industry, of their responsibility to citizens and the environment. Visit our action page for more info and to sign up.
————————————————————————————————————————————–

BREAKING: Daring Action at Bank of America Stadium,” read the first email in my inbox this morning. Immediately, I thought what a crazed football fan might be capable of — in the offseason no less — if they were to break into the complex.

Turns out my imagination had taken the wrong course. The “daring action” at Bank of America Stadium targeted the bank itself. This morning, five activists from the Rainforest Action Network scaled the stadium walls before unfurling a banner suggesting a more appropriate name for the corporation. The “Bank of Coal” banner is a reminder to shareholders, board members and thousands on their daily commute, that the Charlotte-based bank cannot hide its long-standing relationship with coal industry under fluffy pronouncements of corporate responsibility.

(more…)

Working Together for a Clean Energy Future in Virginia

Monday, April 30th, 2012 - posted by Tom

I’ve been thinking a lot about the future lately. Our family has a set of newborn twins expected home from the hospital within another week or two, and it’s funny how babies simultaneously awaken you to the present moment and highlight the importance of preparing well for the coming decades and beyond. Kids transform the future from something abstract to something so literally tangible that you regularly hold it in your arms.

There’s the personal side of this, of course – everything from financial planning to the apple and pear trees my four-year-old and I planted in the backyard earlier this year and the new garden beds we’re building. But there’s no escaping the fact that, prepare individually as we might, the fates of our families and offspring – and everything else we care about – are tied to the future of our communities, our society, and the planet itself. To be sure, contemplating this reality can lead to despair for those attuned to the array of threats to our common future. But despair get us nowhere, and there’s something far more useful that comes just as naturally: the excitement of working together to lay the foundation for a bright future in the face of these threats.

Opportunities to do this abound, and a central part of Appalachian Voices’ role is to engage people willing and able to take at least a little time for this exciting work.

There’s an important opportunity right now, actually. Virginia is currently reviewing Dominion Virginia Power’s 15-year plan for providing the electricity we use. In other words, this is the time for Virginians to make our voices heard regarding how Dominion will be investing the money from our electric bills when my twins are teenagers. Will they still be pouring our cash into dirty energy sources like coal that wreck havoc on our mountains, air, water and climate? Well, according to Dominion’s 15-year plan, they will be. Although the plan does call for retiring some of Dominion’s oldest coal-fired power plants (a good first step), it also involves no large-scale wind or solar projects and falls far short of Virginia’s conservative goal for increased energy efficiency! In other words, Dominion plans to continue locking us into dependence on the fossil fuels that are one of the greatest threats to our children’s future.

Fortunately, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) is accepting comments from Virginians on the plan. And we’ve made it easy for you to submit a comment on the Wise Energy for Virginia website demanding that electricity ratepayers’ money be invested in a transition to clean energy. And, for those of you able to go the extra mile to voice your desire for a clean energy future, please consider attending our coalition’s Rally for a Clean Energy Future in Richmond scheduled to take place outside the SCC building next Tuesday, May 8, the day the SCC begins its hearing on Dominion’s plan.

Can you imagine watching a clean energy future for Virginia growing over the years along with the children, trees and gardens in our communities? We can – and must – work together to make this a reality. Please take the time to submit a comment, and I hope many of you can make it to Richmond next Tuesday, May 8!

KY Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Citizens and Water

Friday, April 27th, 2012 - posted by eric

Yesterday the Kentucky State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Appalachian Voices and our partners KFTC, Waterkeeper and the Kentucky Riverkeeper. The ruling upheld lower court rulings allowing us to intervene in a lawsuit between Frasure Creek Mining and the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet.

That case was brought about in October 2010 when we filed a Notice of Intent to Sue against Frasure Creek Mining, and International Coal Group (Now an Arch Coal subsidiary) for 20,000 violations of the Clean Water Act with potential penalties of over $700 million. The bulk of these violations relate to false and potentially fraudulent reporting of water pollution levels. Under the Clean Water Act companies have limits on the amount of pollution they are allowed to release, and they are required to monitor their pollution to make sure they meet these limits.

In an effort to keep us from being able to bring a case in federal court, the coal companies reached settlements with the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, but those settlements needed to be approved by a state court. The settlements amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist; they have minimal fines and no meaningful measures to ensure that the same problems will not continue. Through the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act, citizen are allowed to participate in legal actions to protect public waters. Using this provision, we intervened in the state court case in order to argue that the state’s settlement was not fair, adequate and in the public interest.

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upheld the lower court’s decision to allow us to intervene in that case, and provides clarification for citizens wishing to intervene in future Clean Water Act enforcement cases in Kentucky.

In September of 2011 a three day trial, for the case in which we intervened, was held to determine whether or not the settlement should be entered. The court has yet to rule on that matter, and ordered all the parties to mediation. Settlement talks are still ongoing.

The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet’s role in this case has been an interesting one. They opposed our intervention (contrary to federal law), and they joined Frasure Creek in appealing the decision to allow us to intervene. It seems odd that an agency whose duty is to protect citizens from pollution has been spending its limited resources trying to prevent citizens from intervening to protect streams they use and enjoy. Yesterday’s Ruling even stated, “an interested citizen’s not being permitted to so intervene can be a factor casting doubt upon the ‘diligence’ of the state’s enforcement efforts.”

We hope that this case will be a step towards cooperation between the Cabinet, Kentucky coal companies and citizens, so Kentucky can have coal jobs and clean, safe water.

-Click here to see the KY Supreme Court Ruling

-Click here to find out more about the history of this case

The Dirty Money Dozen

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 - posted by Madison

According to both the Center for Responsive Politics and Oil Change International, contributions from oil, gas and other energy industries skyrocketed in the past five years, with the coal industry alone contributing more than $8 million in 2009-2010 — more than twice what the industry had contributed in any previous election cycle. And during 2011, an unprecedented amount of legislation was introduced to undermine environmental protections and undo existing laws (see “The Dirtiest Congress Money Could Buy” on page 13). We took a look at Appalachian legislators from Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and North Carolina to see where they stacked up on the energy contribution spectrum. Here are the top three senators and nine representatives who received the highest contributions from the fossil fuel industry thus far in the 112th Congress.

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY)
Rep. Davis received $38,500 from fossil fuel industries in the 112th Congress, which is just a fraction of the $427,500 energy companies have contributed to his coffers since 2005. He’s held a firm position against environmental interests, siding with industry on the majority of bills to weaken clean air and water protections this Congress. Davis’ anti-regulation stance isn’t limited to environmental issues — he introduced the REINS Act, which would require Congress to pass any major regulation. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index ranked Davis’ district as one of the bottom 5 percent nationally for physical and emotional well-being.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
A self-described “constitutional conservative,” Paul is ideologically opposed to government regulation of business; the freshman senator has also received over $226,500 from the energy industry. During his 2010 campaign, Paul notoriously said of mountaintop removal, “I don’t think anyone’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there.” He recently introduced a bill to significantly restrict the EPA’s ability to stop even the most egregious mountaintop removal mines from moving forward, and shows no signs of changing his ardent anti-regulation stance through the remaining four years of his term.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
The current U.S. Senate Minority Leader and the longest-serving U.S. senator in Kentucky history, McConnell has received $1.6 million dollars in fossil fuel industry donations since 1999, including large contributions from energy giants such as Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries. According to Oil Change International, during his tenure McConnell has sided with fossil fuel interests and against the environment on nearly every occasion. In 2011, along with fellow Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, McConnell introduced S. 468, a bill that would amend the Clean Water Act to ensure that coal mines and some of the nation’s largest polluters are immune to meaningful regulatory scrutiny.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY)
There is more mountaintop removal mining in Kentucky Congressman Hal Rogers’ district than any other district in the United States. Unfortunately, his district also has the seventh highest poverty rate in the nation, with more than 37 percent of the children living below the poverty line, and his constituents ranked dead last in physical and emotional well-being in Gallup’s 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 well-being surveys of all 435 congressional districts in the country. Since 1999, Rogers has received more than $430,000 of industry contributions, including significant sums from some of the nation’s largest polluters such as Alpha Natural Resources and Arch Coal. In 2010, he sponsored a bill to defund the EPA’s efforts to protect Appalachian citizens from the toxic valley fills associated with mountaintop removal.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN)
Fleischmann gained the support of a number of coal and oil companies during his freshman run for the 112th Congress, to the tune of $46,900. He represents Tennessee’s 3rd district, which made national headlines when the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant spilled more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal ash into the Emory and Clinch rivers. Fleischmann took an uncharacteristically pro-environment stance on an amendment to the House budget bill that would prohibit the EPA from spending money on regulations that identify fossil fuel combustion waste (like coal ash) as hazardous. Yet Fleischmann sided in favor of another anti-environmental coal ash bill introduced by West Virginia Rep. David McKinley and sponsored his own bill to repeal weatherization assistance that improves the energy-efficiency of low-income residents’ homes.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)
In terms of political contributions from the fossil fuel industry, Tennessee Representative Scott DesJarlais is last on our list of top recipients. Including pre-term contributions before the 2010 election, DesJarlais brought in $29,000, including $16,000 from Pilot Oil Corp. However, when it comes to anti-environmental votes, DesJarlais fits right in. According to Oil Change International, Rep. DesJarlais has voted against the environment 100 percent of the time, including key votes that would undermine the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act and deny the science related to global warming.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Congressman Nick Rahall has represented southern West Virginia in Congress since 1977. Although he has received more than $250,000 in industry donations, he casts pro-environment votes nearly half the time, according to Oil Change International. As a freshman, he helped draft and pass the 1977 Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act, and rose through the ranks to become chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. Additionally, Rahall is the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. But, during the 112th session, Rahall sided against clean water legislation more than a dozen times, including attempts to defund citizen protection programs, weaken
mountaintop removal regulations and block meaningful legislation on coal ash.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
A self-described “friend of coal,” the former West Virginia governor has received more than $740,000 from the energy industry since he took office in 2009 — second only to Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell in total amount of fossil fuel contributions received by senators in Southern Appalachian states. At his first congressional committee hearing, Senator Manchin erroneously claimed that the coal industry receives “not one penny of taxpayer subsidies,” and shortly after the 112th began he sponsored S. 272, a bill that would amend the Clean Water Act and remove the authority of the EPA to prohibit discharges of materials into U.S. waters at sites designated for waste disposal.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Representing West Virginia’s 2nd District, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito has received more than $850,000 over her congressional career from energy giants such as Dominion Resources, Chesapeake Energy and CONSOL Energy. Capito sided with polluters on nearly every piece of legislation during the first session of the 112th Congress, voting significantly worse on environmental legislation than in previous terms. At the beginning of 2011, she joined Reps. Nick Rahall and David McKinley in sponsoring H.R. 199, a bill that would have suspended any action taken by the EPA under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide for two additional years.

Rep. David McKinley (R-WV)
Freshman Rep. McKinley has received more fossil fuel money than almost any other representative or senator from Central and Southern Appalachia, accepting nearly $400,000 from fossil fuel industries. In McKinley’s district, Little Blue Run, the nation’s largest coal ash pond, has been leaking for years. While McKinley has announced plans to visit the site with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, he introduced a bill last fall to prevent the EPA from regulating coal ash. McKinley also introduced an amendment to another bill that would have prevented the EPA from using its Clean Water Act authority to prohibit or restrict projects that would have an “unacceptable adverse effect” on water, fish and wildlife. But environmental advocates might have reason for hope — McKinley sponsored bipartisan legislation to provide rebates to homeowners who invest in energy efficiency improvements.

Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA)
A freshman representative in Virginia’s 5th congressional district, Hurt received $78,600 from the energy sector before he was even elected, including substantial contributions from utilities such as Richmond, Va.-based Dominion Resources. In 2011, the House of Representatives passed a bill co-sponsored by Hurt to prevent the EPA from regulating farm dust, a pollution the agency had not intended to regulate in the first place. Including his pre-term contributions, Hurt has received $102,300 from fossil fuel industries during the 112th Congress.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA)
This freshman representative from southwest Virginia is well-known in energy industry circles, receiving the second-highest amount ($152,300) of fossil fuel money of any Appalachian representative. Griffith has also made a name for himself as one of the EPA’s most aggressive foes — he introduced a bill to shelter polluters by stalling the EPA’s proposed limits on the amount of mercury and other pollutants released by boilers and incinerators. Griffith also sponsored an amendment to the 2011 budget bill to block the EPA and other agencies from protecting navigable waters from mountaintop removal coal mining waste. A member of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, he took an anti-environmental stance on 100 percent of bills evaluated by Oil Change International.

Additional Mentions

Although North Carolina does not have the environmental issues that mountaintop removal coal mining and other resource extraction brings to the other four Appalachian states profiled here, congressional representatives from the Tarheel State still receive substantial contributions from the fossil fuel industry and energy corporations — with two Congressmen coming in just below the top 12 energy money earners from coal-bearing states to earn a mention on the Dirty Money Dozen list.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
Coming in at 13th on the list, Representative Patrick McHenry represents North Carolina’s 10th district in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. He ranks first in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry for federal representatives in North Carolina during the 112th Congress, receiving $17,500, including $10,000 from Koch Industries.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
While Burr, a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Energy, received only $1,000 in fossil fuel money in the 112th Congress (less than almost all of his peers), he received an estimated $452,000 during the 111th Congress — second only to Senator Manchin of West Virginia — and has collected a total of $1.1 million in contributions since 1999 from sources like Duke Energy and Dominion Resources. An opponent of offshore drilling regulation, Burr pushed to reopen the Gulf to oil drilling only months after the Deepwater Horizon spill, and in 2011 introduced a bill that sought to eliminate the EPA by folding it into the Department of Energy.

State Legislature Kills Mountaintop Removal Ban Through Delays

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 - posted by Madison

By Molly Moore

The Scenic Vistas Protection Act, a bill to end mountaintop removal coal mining in Tennessee, was killed by a state House subcommittee after the bill was heard by the state’s Senate this March.

The Tennessee hearing marked the first time that a bill to ban mountaintop removal was heard by a full legislative chamber in a state with active mountaintop removal mining. The bill would have protected Tennessee’s virgin ridge lines above 2,000 feet from the destructive mining practice.

The state Senate delayed an up-or-down vote on the bill, which sent the bill to a House subcommittee. That subcommittee then delayed a vote on the bill by sending it to a summer study session. Rep. Richard Floyd, who proposed the motion, said the summer session would give the subcommittee more time to study the issue. The Scenic Vistas Protection Act, active in the Tennessee legislature for the past five years, also languished in summer study in 2011, with no action and no result.

Rep. Mike McDonald, the bill’s House sponsor, told the subcommittee, “We have lost eight mountains since 2008 by delaying. If we don’t vote this year, we will lose more mountains.”

Prominent Tennesseans, such as former Knoxville mayor Victor Ashe and Rev. Gradye Parsons, the highest elected official in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), supported
the legislation.

An editorial in one of the state’s primary newspapers, The Tennessean, stated, “Whoever votes “no” to passage of HB 0291/SB 0577 will be on record as supporting this wanton destruction.”

Private Property Rights Transferred to Coal Industry

A bill that transfers property rights to empty underground mine chambers from private landowners to coal companies was signed by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell in April. The bill allows companies to dispose of toxic waste in these chambers against the property owners’ wishes, even if the waste would endanger the quality of a property owner’s drinking water.

A hastily written amendment to the bill says that, in some cases, companies must get landowners’ consent. But the bill also says, “such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld if the owner has been offered reasonable compensation for such use.” This provision would leave it up to the courts to decide whether a landowner who refused to allow waste disposal on his or her land for a fee was being unreasonable.

Newsbites

Fly Ash Lawsuit Refiled Against Dominion Virginia Power

More than 400 residents near the Battlefield Golf Club in Chesapeake, Va., refiled a lawsuit this February asking for $2 billion in damages related to water contamination from the coal ash on which the course was built. The Virginian-Pilot reported that court records show well water testing with elevated levels of toxic substances — including lead, vanadium, cobalt and cadmium.

Coal Plant Shutdowns

GenOn Energy will shut down seven coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania and Ohio after a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ruling forced the utility to greatly reduce the plants’ sulfur dioxide emissions. In Chicago, Midwest Generation agreed to shut down its two plants in exchange for community groups dropping lawsuits against the company.

Coal’s Share of U.S. Electricity Generation Falls to 35-Year Low

Competition from natural gas and mild weather contributed to a 35-year low in the share of U.S. power generated from coal. Although coal still generates the largest share of electricity in the country, its share of monthly power generation dropped below 40 percent in November and December, 2011, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Premium Coal Fined For New River Damage

In response to a Jan. 1 coal slurry spill into Tennessee’s New River, the state Department of Environment and Conservation has levied a fine of up to $196,000 against Premium Coal. The company has until April 21 to appeal the fine.

OSM/BLM Merger Moves Ahead

On March 12, the U.S. Department of Interior announced it would move forward with the consolidation of the Office of Surface Mining into the Bureau of Land Management. Proponents say the move will generate savings, while critics say OSM needs to remain an independent agency to be effective.

Alpha Named Most Controversial Mining Company

Alpha Natural Resources took the top spot recently when RepRisk, a firm specializing in environmental and social risk, released a report ranking the world’s most controversial mining companies. The report was released just days after Alpha Chairman Michael J. Quillen announced he was stepping down.

Penn Students Pass Resolution Against Mountaintop Removal

The University of Pennsylvania Undergraduate Assembly passed a resolution on Feb. 21, urging the university to reevaluate its relationship with longtime partner and coal supporter PNC Bank. The resolution by the Penn Community Against Mountaintop Removal, passed with a vote of 20-4.

UBB Mine Manager Charged

Massey mine superintendent Carl May was charged with conspiracy in February for violating mine safety laws in the 2010 explosion that killed 29 miners at the Upper Big Branch facility in Raleigh County, W.Va. Federal prosecutors allege that May and others knowingly put coal production ahead of worker safety on numerous occasions.

The Dirtiest Congress Money Could Buy

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 - posted by Madison

By Matt Wasson

According to a report released at the end of 2011, the 112th Congress had achieved, in just its first year, the dubious distinction of running the most anti-environmental legislative session in history.

The report, conducted by Representatives Henry Waxman, Edward Markey and Howard Berman, showed that, in 2011, the House voted 191 times to weaken environmental protections, averaging more than one anti-environmental vote for every day the House was in session.

All told, more than one in five of the legislative roll call votes in 2011 were on bills to undermine environmental protections, including 27 attempts to block action on climate change, 77 votes to undermine Clean Air Act protections, eight efforts to undermine Clean Water Act protections and 47 attempts to weaken protection of public lands and coastal waters.

A look at campaign contributions to members of Congress elected in 2010 paints a fairly clear portrait of how that came to pass — oil, gas and other energy industries contributed record amounts of money to congressional campaigns in the run-up to the 2010 elections. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, contributions from the coal industry alone skyrocketed to more than $8 million in 2009-2010 — more than twice what the industry had contributed in any previous election cycle. One of the top recipients of coal mining industry dollars — receiving $228,000 during that time period — was Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who took a rifle and famously shot a hole through a cap-and-trade climate bill in a campaign ad.

Based on the most recent data for the 2012 cycle, the coal industry appears set to surpass the record it set in 2010. The biggest recipient to date has been freshman Representative David McKinley of West Virginia, who has introduced some of the highest-profile bills to roll back the EPA’s authority to enforce clean water laws that impact the coal industry — and has received $186,878 in money from fossil fuel sources.

Rep. McKinley’s contributions are closely followed by contributions to House Speaker John Boehner ($171,505), with likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney rounding out the top three ($135,500). Not surprisingly, the majority of the increase in dirty energy contributions are being funneled through outside groups called Super PACs, a new type of political action committee made possible by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” ruling, a controversial decision that President Obama presciently warned at the time would, “… open the floodgates for special interests to spend without limit in our elections.” (see “The ‘Art’ of Influence” on p.16).

But polluting industries’ surge in political spending is not limited to political fundraising — expenditures on lobbying for anti-environmental legislation are also reaching record highs. Lobbying expenditures by the coal mining industry grew from less than $3 million per year in 2004 to more than $18 million in 2011 — with the two largest mountaintop removal coal mining companies, Alpha Natural Resources and Patriot Coal Corporation, spending more than $3.3 million lobbying Congress in 2011. By comparison, these two companies reported no lobbying expenses in 2007 and 2008.

Research shows that money spent on lobbying can have a significant return on investment. A study published by three researchers in Kansas in 2009, examining the return on lobbying investments relating to a tax holiday on certain repatriated earnings, found that, “Firms lobbying for this provision have a return in excess of $220 for every $1 spent on lobbying, or 22,000 percent.”

Although it is difficult to prove a direct connection between lobbying, campaign contributions and the actions of legislators, the correlation between the unprecedented number of anti-environmental bills pushed by the 112th Congress and the unparalleled political spending by the fossil fuel industry is hard to ignore.

Some Things Money Can’t Buy

Given the increasingly powerful and unregulated influence of money in politics, the question is raised — how does the average person’s voice or vote even matter?

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts provided a compelling answer to that question in a recent episode of the National Public Radio program, “This American Life,” that focused on the role of money in campaigns. According to Frank, “If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money’s rear end every time.”

In his 40 years in politics, Frank says, “I’ve never met a politician who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and the number of campaign contributors, doesn’t go with the district.”

That’s not to say that all of the special interest money has no effect. The defensive view of campaign finance offered by some lobbyists and politicians — that money has no effect because both sides are giving — is equally inaccurate, according to Frank. “If that were the case, we would be the only human beings in the history of the world who, on a regular basis, took significant amounts of money from perfect strangers and make sure it had no effect on our behavior — that is not human nature.”

One of the primary problems is that a large portion of constituents either don’t know, or don’t care about most legislation passing through government — resulting in the bottom line that the majority of members of Congress aren’t hearing from their constituents on important issues that affect them. But what donor money does do is buy access for special interests to tell their side of the story; it doesn’t guarantee a vote, but if constituents are silent, then special interests will be the only voices that legislators hear.

There are only two ways for citizens to truly counter the influence of special interest money on politics — shining a light on who is giving the money, and holding their recipients accountable.

Hampton Roads Vs the Coal Plant

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 - posted by mike

The effort to keep Hampton Roads air from suffering from a major new source of air and water pollution for next sixty years is picking up and your help is needed. On Tuesday Norfolk is going to vote whether to join the Consortium for Infant and Child Health (CINCH), The American Lung Association, Isle of Wight County, Southampton County, the Town of Surry and many others in opposing what could be Virginia’s largest coal-fired power plant built upwind of Hampton Roads.

If you live in Norfolk you can help steer the City Council in the right direction by sending a brief note or letter their way. You can do this easily by clicking here: http://wiseenergyforvirginia.org/norfolk/

The Norfolk City Council was originally going to vote last week but an apparent misunderstanding has led to a delay that is now allowing Norfolk Southern, which would benefit financially from the coal plant, to weigh in and offer their comments on the draft resolution of opposition. Please consider coming to their next meeting on Tuesday, April 24th. Get there by 6:45 to sign up to speak against the coal plant. You can read more about this unfortunate delay here: http://appvoices.org/2012/04/12/strange-happenings-in-norfolk/?

There are also efforts in Virginia Beach and Hampton City to pass resolutions of opposition to this massive polluting coal plant.
(more…)

Strange Happenings in Norfolk

Thursday, April 12th, 2012 - posted by mike

Norfolk could be on the verge of becoming the fourth Hampton Roads locality to officially oppose the largest coal fired power plant ever proposed in Virginia. It appears, however, that a few strange events occurred in the last couple weeks that kept it from coming to a vote and could potentially make the resolution of opposition language weak or not happen at all.

Members of the public, several Norfolk City Council members and I, were under the impression (based on discussion at the previous meeting) that the council was going to vote whether or not to adopt a resolution of opposition during their most recent, April 10th, council meeting.

For some reason, that isn’t what happened.

The resolution made it onto the agenda for discussion but through an apparent miscommunication or misunderstanding it didn’t make it onto the agenda for an actual vote. This was quite a disappointment to the council members and Norfolk citizens who had been hoping to see it voted on this week.

You can see the discussion and frustration over the delay yourself in the YouTube video below of Tuesday’s meeting. Watch as long as you like but I think you’ll get the point in the first five minutes, or by minute 47.

During the discussion it was also revealed that the chairman of Norfolk Southern called the city on Monday and asked to be able to review the resolution and to provide comments on it. (For clarity’s sake, I should point out that the agenda was printed on Friday.) Given the delay and Norfolk Southern’s sudden interest in the city council’s actions, there is now a chance that the support for a resolution of opposition could be eroded by corporate interests. It is no secret that the rail line that would service the coal plant should it ever get built, is owned by Norfolk Southern and that the corporation has a financial interest in seeing the project go forward.

I found it troubling to hear reports that the presentation on the coal plant from staff was watered down at this full council meeting as compared to the presentation from staff to the Health, Education and Family two weeks earlier. You can view the most recent presentation here if you’d like. While I completely understand that staff must remain impartial and that their job is to leave it up to council to make the decision, I don’t think that impartiality means leaving out relevant and pertinent facts. I was disappointed that the presenter skipped over the fact that the town of Surry (the seat of Surry County) passed a unanimous resolution against the plant yet she pointed out that the resolutions passed by Isle of Wight and Southampton County were not unanimous. She also failed to mention the one study that used EPA methodologies to look at potential health affects which concluded that pollution from the coal plant would adversely affect the health of downwind residents. I think the council would want to know that the damage every year would include an estimated 16 cases of chronic bronchitis, 23 asthma-related emergency room visits, 26 premature deaths, 40 heart attacks, 442 asthma attacks, 3,340 lost work days, and 19,903 days in which people will have to reduce their activities because they are sick. One third of these health problems would be in Virginia, with the rest spread across the mid-Atlantic region. The total cost to society of these illnesses and deaths would be about $208 million a year—or more than $6 billion over a generation (30 years). For more information on the coal plant click here.

Also curious was the fact that at the previous meeting in late March, only one resolution had been discussed -an outright resolution of opposition to be presented for an up or down vote at the early April meeting. Without the consent or knowledge of the full city council, staff was directed to write two resolutions, one an outright resolution of opposition to the coal plant and the other a weaker letter expressing only concern and stating that the city would monitor the situation.

While the reason for the delay and for the drafting of this second, weaker, resolution isn’t clear these events allow Norfolk Southern and the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) additional time to weigh in and encourage the council to pass a weaker resolution or no resolution at all. We need to make sure that no council member gets the interests of their “corporate citizens” and their actual citizens confused. After all, the operations of a large corporation like Norfolk Southern can survive worsening air quality while, on the other hand, the living and breathing citizens of Norfolk and Hampton Roads have real lung tissue that can get damaged on “Code-Red” air days and real asthmatics and sufferers of COPD that can actually experience shorter lives as a result of living downwind of a coal plant.

I think the majority of the council is on the right track, but to keep them there it is more important than ever that many more Norfolk residents let their City Council know that they fully support an official resolution of opposition.

The vote will occur a the April 24th Norfolk City Council Meeting starting at 7:00 PM. If you are a Norfolk resident and want to attend and speak (which I highly encourage you to do) you should get there by 6:45 to sign up with the clerk. In the mean time, you can click here to send a letter to all the council members, and mayor. Grassroots, citizen pressure is the best tool in overcoming the interests of powerful corporations like Norfolk Southern and utilities like ODEC. Letters from citizens are one of the most powerful tools in swaying council member’s votes.

We must make sure that the council feels the support of all Norfolk citizens in opposing this coal plant that would be so detrimental to the health of all Hampton Roads residents.

The EPA’s New Carbon Rule, Getting Serious About Climate Change

Sunday, April 1st, 2012 - posted by brian

New EPA regulations that will cut carbon emissions that contribute to climate change and impact human health will become law later this year.

So we’re a little late to the punch on this one. Let’s take a moment to catch up. Last Tuesday, March 27, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the first-ever rules regulating carbon pollution from power plants. For those who didn’t already know this news, I should also mention this is not an April Fool’s joke, nor would it be a particularly funny one if it were.

The Tuesday announcement from the EPA represents the findings of a several year-process, beginning in 2007 with a U.S. Supreme Court decision. The ruling that got the ball rolling found that, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas pollution that threatens Americans’ health and welfare by making us sick and contributing to global climate change and. But not only do they have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, they’re required to, unless they could prove a scientific basis for their refusal, the court ruled further. (more…)