My backyard

The Greenpeace Coal Plant Protest

It's important to understand why Greenpeace did this today, and targeted the Bridgeport coal plant --


Bridgeport Harbor is an aging, inefficient plant -- it's 40 years old -- and it isn't necessary to provide power to Connecticut's grid. Yet it emits 3 million tons of carbon emissions every year, as well as 2,800 tons of toxic sulfur dioxide, 2,200 tons of nitrous oxide, and 50 lbs of mercury. The coal plant literally casts a shadow upon a low-income section of Bridgeport, where 1 in 4 residents have asthma. Health experts estimate that at least one death a year in the city can be attributed to the coal plant's noxious emissions.


Furthermore, all the coal that the 400 MW plant burns is imported from Indonesia, where it is mined by workers who enjoy low wages and few human rights, at an estimated cost of $79 million per shipment. Essentially, the plant epitomizes all that's wrong with coal-power in modern America -- it spews copious amounts of carbon emissions, poses an immediate risk to public health, is inefficient, expensive, and old

Not the kind of news Bridgeport would like to be recogbnized for - but a very important issue that has been around too long.

Leave the Lorax alone

Image via Wikipedia

New 'Green Coal' Company Names Itself After the Lorax Without Permisson

Now, a new start-up coal company is attempting to pull off a double whammy--it's both calling itself a "green coal" company, and naming itself "LoraxAg" after Dr. Seuss' beloved environmental children's book. The move reeks of desperation--made worse by the fact that the company didn't bother to get permission to use the name.


First of all, there's no such thing as clean coal. We all know that. But to drag the Lorax into it? That's just low.


Hear, hear. If the Lorax were to watch a single mountaintop removal mining operation in action, he'd probably weep. It's worth noting that the company's goal of finding "a less toxic use for high-sulfur coal" is actually a worthy pursuit, especially considering the volume of coal burned--and will continue to burn for some time--in our power plants. But I think it's safe to say it's not quite up to Lorax standards.

Clean coal, green coal, safe nuclear power...the list of fairy tales continues. Disgusting to use these terms but to then include the Lorax in the mix --- makes it even worse.

James Hansen's New Book

"Storms of My Grandchildren"

We have finally arrived at the main story: what we need to do to solve the climate problem, and how we can save a future for our grandchildren.

People need to make basic changes in the way the live. Countries need to cooperate. Matters as seemingly intractable as population must be addressed. And the required changes must be economically efficient. Such a pathway exists and is achievable.

Let's define what a workable backbone and framework should look like. The essential backbone is a rising price on carbon applied at the source (the mine, wellhead, or port of entry), such that it would affect all activities that use fossil fuels, directly or indirectly.

Our goal is a global phaseout of fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions. We have shown, quantitatively, that the only practical way to achieve an acceptable carbon dioxide level is to disallow the use of coal and unconventional fossil fuels (such as tar sands and oil shale) unless the resulting carbon is captured and stored.

Hansen also is set against cap and trade. His solution?

In summary, the backbone of a solution to the climate problem is a flat carbon emissions price applied across all fossil fuels at the source. This carbon price (fee, tax) must rise continually, at a rate that is economically sound. The funds must be distributed back to the citizens (not to special interests)--otherwise the tax rate will never be high enough to lead to a clean energy future.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Climate bill chaos: Your guide to the two newest proposals (green.venturebeat.com)