Take a quick look at this article/video. After the showing of a comedic political documentary, a speech is made about mountain-top removal mining and its ill effects. The crowd of enthusiastic movie-goers then canvasses the sidewalks of a nearby JP Morgan Chase bank with coal graffiti. It brings up an interesting point about who’s surreptitiously lurking behind the companies that deal with coal. In a word, banks.
Let’s reflect for a bit on the role of banks in (or rather behind) coal-related issues. For starters, it’s a tricky situation because the banks don’t actually do any of the polluting or emitting, they merely finance it:
One could take one of two extreme standpoints on the environmental impact of banks’ products. On the one hand, all pollution caused by companies who are financed by banks is the responsibility of banks. It is easy to make an estimate of the environmental impact in this sense: it would equate to almost the aggregate pollution of the whole economy in many countries. On the other hand, as the products of banks do not pollute, the users of those products—the clients—should take sole responsibility for the pollution they create. Of course, both standpoints are absurd. The truth lies somewhere in the middle
As usual, it’s that middle ground which is very hard to find in the real world.
The Rainforest Action Network has put together a very informative pamphlet concerning banks (particularly Citi and Bank of America) and their relationship to coal in the US. Here are just a few numbers taken from this publication:
There are about 150 proposed coal-fired power plant sites in the US currently, with an estimated price-tag of approximately 140 billion dollars for the lot. This might be considered another ‘coal rush,’ and someone will have to finance all of this. You might think of this as adding 100-180 million passenger cars to US roads.
Citi and Bank of America have both been major financiers of Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal mining company. Peabody has been involved in mining coal on the Black Mesa (Hopi Indian community land), where they have drained millions of gallons of water from the sole aquifer in the area and left behind a 273-mile coal slurry pipeline.
Both banks have also underwritten numerous loans for other coal mining companies including Massey Energy, Arch Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources. Each of these companies is involved in mountaintop removal, a particularly destructive form of coal mining.
The World Bank is not setting a very good example, either. The Bank has acknowledged that the developing world should not become locked into the same carbon-intensive infrastructure of the West, yet it still intends to help fund coal-fired power plants in several developing nations. It’s a hard line to walk, that between developmental and environmental issues, however there are more sustainable alternatives available and with the right planning and finance, these could become a reality.
But let’s step away from the blame game. No matter who is the most responsible – the bank or the polluter – the fact is that banks, with their abundant resources, should be clever and forward-thinking enough to see the non-sustainability of coal as an investment. Conversely, there abound investment opportunities in clean, sustainable energy. For example, Lord Browne, former head of BP, has urged the British government to direct government-controlled bank investment into renewable energy resources, such as offshore wind power. Germany has been a leader in sustainable energy investment; look at this report from the Deutsche Bank. In the US there have been proposals for a Green Bank which would, among many other things, help to drive much-needed capital investment into clean-energy technologies and infrastructure.
This isn’t just green tomfoolery, it could be money in the bank (literally).
I’m not (by any stretch of the imagination) an expert on Native American affairs, but there is an interesting and rather sad drama playing out in the Navajo Nation (a semi-autonomous Native American homeland covering parts of Arizona, Utah and New Mexico). The Nation also encompasses the Hopi Reservation, represented by the Hopi Tribal Council. Here is a USA Today article of September 30th, in part:
PHOENIX — The president of the Navajo Nation joined other Native American leaders this week in assailing environmentalists who have sought to block or shut down coal-fired power plants that provide vital jobs and revenue to tribes in northern Arizona.
“These are individuals and groups who claim to have put the welfare of fish and insects above the survival of the Navajo people when in fact their only goal is to stop the use of coal in the U.S. and the Navajo Nation,” said Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., who presides over America’s largest Indian reservation, which sprawls over three states and claims a population of about 250,000.
Shirley’s remarks came Wednesday after the Hopi Nation’s Tribal Council sent a message Monday to the Sierra Club and a handful of other environmental groups: Stay off the reservation.”
Shirley also said in a recent statement: “Environmentalists are good at identifying problems but poor at identifying feasible solutions. Most often they don’t try to work with us but against us, giving aid and comfort to those opposed to the sovereign decision-making of tribes.” This is an interesting statement in light of the fact that environmental groups worked together with the Hopi Tribe in opposing the proposed uranium mine near the Grand Canyon and securing protection for the desert nesting bald eagle, among other issues.
Nonetheless, for a community with unemployment at 42% (Data from 2000) and poverty at 43% (people living below the poverty rate) economic concerns must obviously be a top priority, as Joe Shirley Jr. makes clear. But it is sad when leaders resort to vilifying those who have been working for and with the Hopi (and Navajo) people all along. In the case of the Hopi people it is even more ironic. Vernon Masayesva, executive director of Black Mesa Trust and former Hopi Chairman: “To be a Hopi is to be a conservationist, a caretaker and a steward of planet earth. So, by implication, the Council has banned all Hopi people from their land.” That would certainly be one way to solve the economic and social problems in the area. If, for the past forty years, coal has been such a major constituent of the economic lifeblood of the Nation, yet economic problems still abound, what’s the catch?
All of this leads to the question: why the sudden opposition?
As is quite often the case, the answer could lie in the depths of a corporation – in this case Peabody Coal, a mining company which already has major interests within the Navajo Nation. Might Peabody Coal be putting pressure on the Hopi Tribal Council to carry out the agenda of coal within the region? Masayesva thinks so: “The real story on Hopiland, that is yet to be revealed, is the take-over of the government by pro-Peabody legislators with the support of their legal counsel . . . and the ensuing corruption and abuse of power by an illegally constituted Council.” Funnily enough, this isn’t the first instance of something like this happening. You can read about Peabody’s previous efforts here.
President Joe Shirley Jr. and the Hopi Tribal Council must each look beyond the quick-fixes and easy-money offered by coal, especially when these are to the detriment of their people, heritage, and land. Clean and renewable energy solutions are becoming increasingly viable, and will be able to provide green jobs and revenue to be kept by the Navajo and Hopi. In fact, in June this year the Navajo Nation Council passed the Navajo Green Commission Act, which will help to establish green jobs across the Navajo Nation. Why not take this path, and develop it fully (with, I daresay, the help of various environmental groups)? Sole dependence on outside companies, such as Peabody Coal, will allow the economic success of the region to be dictated by these outside sources, and they might not always have the best interests of the Navajo and Hopi at heart.
Today marks the end of a State-Wide Coal Plant Press tour. This tour has seen representatives from Public Citizen of Texas and Sierra Club travel across the state visiting communities which would be impacted by proposed coal plants and meeting with local organizations. This was all in a bid to support recent bold action from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the coal plant permitting process of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and to request that the EPA take further steps to create a moratorium on the permitting or operation of any new coal-powered plant (Texas currently has 11 in either the pending, permitted or under-construction phase).
The crux of the matter is the discrepancy between the TCEQ permitting standards and the Federal Clean Air Act. The TCEQ is responsible for the permitting process of coal plants in Texas. For some time now the TCEQ has been issuing what it calls ‘flex permits,’ which essentially allow individual polluters to emit over the limits of the Federal Clean Air Act, as long as the aggregate pollution of an umbrella of regional sources is below the allowed level. In summation: “EPA ruling claims Texas’ air permitting standards are so flexible and record keeping so vague that plants can circumvent federal clean air requirements [emphasis added].” I suppose these ‘flex’ permits are aptly named.
1) Halt any new air pollution permits from being issued by the TCEQ utilizing the TCEQ’s current illegal policy.
2) Create a moratorium on the operations of any new coal fired power plants in Texas until the TCEQ cleans up its act by operating under the Federal Clean Air Act.
3) Require companies to clean up their old, dirty plants – no exemptions, no bailouts, and no special treatment by reviewing all permits issued since the TCEQ adopted its illegal policies and require that these entities resubmit their application in accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act.
(Read this blog concerning plans to “grandfather” Texas coal plants, where you can also contact Texas senators about these issues)
The tour visited communities in Waco, Dallas, Abilene, College Station, Corpus Christi, Bay City, Houston, and concluded today in Austin. The travelers included a giant coal plant float and local protestors at each site, attracting much local media attention. I’ve included some of the media links below:
In 1977 Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act that provided exemptions to existing coal plants, allowing them to ignore the new emissions standards any new plants would have to adhere to. It was thought these plants would simply age and be retired quickly, but because these plants suddenly became much cheaper to operate (due to not having to meet stricter standards) the companies who owned them kept them operating for as long as possible. It wasn’t until almost 30 years later, in 2003, that this “grandfathering” loophole was finally closed and all plants had to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Now that global warming legislation is on the horizon, there is a new rush to build an entire new fleet of coal plants throughout the country. The hope is to get similar “grandfathering” provisions into any climate change legislation so that these brand new coal plants (some already being constructed) will not have to adhere to the new CO2 emission standards. Already, language in the American Clean Energy and Securities Act has been added to try and exempt any plants from the new standards if they receive their permit before January 1, 2009. The new standard, as it is now in the pending legislation, would require all qualifying plants to reduce their CO2 emissions by half by 2025. If the current fleet of new plants being built across the country are grandfathered this will result in massive amounts of CO2 added to our atmosphere that would otherwise have been mitigated. The new plants in Texas alone (which has more coal and pet coke plants proposed than any other state), if grandfathered, would end up emitting about 38.5 million tons more CO2 every year that they would if forced to adhere to the new emission standards.
There is no reason why any of these modern plants being permitted and built today should be exempt from modern CO2 emission controls, especially when there are plenty of alternatives such as energy efficiency and renewables that can meet this need. These coal companies are simply trying to slip in under the wire and evade responsibility for their emissions. The people of Texas call upon Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn to not vote for or allow any provisions in any CO2 or climate change legislation that would allow such grandfathering of this new fleet of coal plants.
Please go to the following sites to email the senators. You can simply copy and past the following brief statement, put it in your own words, or both:
Dear Senator, The American Clean Energy and Securities Act is intended to address the grave threat of global warming. To do this it is setting new emissions standards for CO2 releases from industrial power plants. There are currently exemptions, however, that would allow new plants being permitted and built today to escape these new standards, effectively "grandfathering" them similar to the way that existing plants were grandfathered under the Clean Air Act in 1977. There is no reason why plants being permitted and built today should not be held to the new emission standards. Please do not vote for, or allow to be added, any provisions or exemptions that would allow grandfathering of these plants.
The heart of this site. Tools, advice, and materials to help you mount opposition to proposed coal plants in your area and promote better choices.
Welcome to Coal Block
Welcome to the new and improved Coal Block! The goal of this website is to network together online resources and local groups around the country in our efforts to stop the construction of new coal-fired power plants wherever and whenever they are proposed. If you run a website or are involved in any other sort of online activity associated with fighting coal plants and/or encouraging renewable sources of power generation please feel free to contact us. If you live near a proposed coal plant, or even already run an organization actively fighting a plant, please contact us and let us know how we can help you.
We have many resources here that you will hopefully find useful - like our Coal Impact Guide. We will also be adding a Coal Block Community section to the site where involved groups can sign up and interact through their own group pages with other organizations and participants in the Coal Block Community. Only together can we stop these plants and the threat they pose to our ecosystem, public health, and an economically sound energy policy. Even if it is just for linking purposes - get a hold of us now, there is no time to waste!
I’m not (by any stretch of the imagination) an expert on Native American affairs, but there is an interesting and rather sad drama playing out in the 
As is quite often the case, the answer could lie in the depths of a corporation – in this case Peabody Coal, a mining company which already has major interests within the Navajo Nation. Might Peabody Coal be putting pressure on the Hopi Tribal Council to carry out the agenda of coal within the region? Masayesva 
1) Halt any new air pollution permits from being issued by the TCEQ utilizing the TCEQ’s current illegal policy.
