Even the grand old guys know we have to cut carbon

Those of us who have been adults for several decades remember the sway that big accounting firms used to have in the business world. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is one of those well-respected names that can still turn heads when they speak.

PwC just issued its 2014 Low Carbon Economy Index.

Not good news. To quote the report, "For the sixth year running, the global economy has missed the decarbonization target needed to limit global warming to 2 degrees C."

To stay on track for the two-degree-max target, we would have had to cut our carbon emissions by 6 percent in 2013. How did the world do? A miserable 1.2 percent decrease.

Last year's lapse means we now need to speed up even more to achieve the goal, specifically cutting carbon by 6.2 percent in 2014—five times last year's rate. Doesn't seem likely, does it?

To be sure, these are global measurements and projections. But is Pennsylvania doing its part? This is an especially painful question at the moment, given the horrendous step backward that the our General Assembly has just taken: They passed H.B. 2354, which throws a monkey wrench into the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to limit CO2 from coal-burning power plants in Pennsylvania, the major source of carbon pollution in this country.

Read what Mother Jones has to say about PwC's bad news.


Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

Finally, we'll see limits on carbon pollution from new power plants

The country got great news last Friday from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): a proposed standard that will limit the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from any not-yet-built power plant. Since Congress has long refused to do its job to limit global warming pollution, the Obama Administration is doing their job by issuing this proposed rule. (Actually, it's a re-proposed rule. It was first proposed over a year ago but withdrawn by the EPA since it was felt the rule as first written wouldn't withstand the inevitable court challenges from the fossil fuels industry.)

Ah, yes, speaking of the fossil fuels industry: If you've driven along the Pennsylvania Turnpike recently, you've probably seen the numerous billboards erected by the coal industry, touting "clean coal" (or "less filthy coal," as I like to think of it) as available and affordable and just all-around wonderful. So, one might have expected the coal industry to welcome the EPA's new standard. If coal is so clean, it would have no trouble meeting the new standard, right?

Wrong. The National Mining Association said the new standard “effectively bans coal from America’s power portfolio, leaving new power plants equipped with even the most efficient and environmentally advanced technologies out in the cold.”

Huh? What did I miss?

Note that the standard as proposed would not stop all CO2 from leaving the smokestacks, just 20 to 40 percent of it. That's a good start, but just a start.

And, for now, the dirty old power plants that already exist can continue to belch their carbon pollution unabated into our skies. (Fortunately, the EPA is on track to release another standard next June that will begin to limit the carbon dioxide emitted from existing plants. Stay tuned for what will be a lollapaloozah of a fight around that rule.)

The standard proposed on September 20 isn't a done deal yet. The public can submit comments for up to 60 days. And once the standard goes into effect sometime next year, Congress could still repeal it through an arcane provision called the Congressional Review Act. PennFuture will be there to fight that battle when it invariably arises.

Right now, we're celebrating that the federal government is finally taking action to directly limit emissions from a huge source of carbon pollution.

PennFuture applauds the EPA for this critically important step to protect our health, our kids' future, our economy, and the natural world.

A lump of coal

Hailing from the heart of the historical anthracite coal mining region, I know coal well. Our PennFuture Wilkes-Barre office is in a building that, in a fitting twist, was founded in 1911 as the Miners' Bank Building, and was once home to coal barons and financiers. Our region has one of the last standing defunct coal breakers in NEPA, a 1930's behemoth on the skyline that teeters on the edge of demolition. Deep mining ended here in 1959, but its traces remain, and its stories are an essential part of who we are. A network of rails-to-trails now crosses the old tracks that carried the black gold to market. Like hundreds of thousands, my ancestors mined it, built homes alongside it, and even perished with it. Coal played a major part in our nation's and Pennsylvania's history and, as descendants of immigrant laborers, many of us wouldn't be here without it.

But it's 2013, and we've known for a long time the damage coal does -- to those who mine it, to human health, and to the planet. A recent federal report confirms the sobering news that global coal consumption ---and, thus, climate change -- will continue to increase this century, particularly in developing nations. But the United States, as the third-biggest coal consumer in the world, can lead the way in other sources of energy, despite increases in China, India, and other nations.

We have the benefit of better science and technology today to recognize our diverse energy solutions. Putting our eggs in the renewables basket is the only reasonable option, for our health and economy.

First Energy deactivating two coal-fired power plants--the future of energy in the U.S.?

On Tuesday, First Energy Corp. announced plans to deactivate two coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania. The Hatfield's Ferry Power Station in Masontown, Pa., and Mitchell Power Station in Courtney, Pa., will not be active after October 9. First Energy cites the cost of compliance with new and future environmental standards such as the Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury Air Toxic Standards, and the declining cost of electricity due to cheap and plentiful natural gas, as the reasons for the shut downs. There could be another issue at play, however. As reported by Anya Litvak of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, persons familiar with the electricity market believe the reason for the closures is a general lack of demand for electricity.

Both facilities had previously been under consideration for retrofits to turn them into coal and natural gas powered plants but, instead, will join the nine other facilities First Energy plans to close. 

There is little doubt that the Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell power stations are contributors of harmful pollution in southwest Pennsylvania, and nearby residents will breathe easier after the closures. In 2006, PennFuture filed a lawsuit involving the Hatfield's Ferry Power Station due to its inability to comply with federal standards for particulate pollution. The suit was successfully settled, and the facility was ordered to take aggressive action to come into compliance.

First Energy claims that after the shut downs, nearly 100 percent of its power generation will come from non- or low-emitting sources, with 13 percent from renewables. Hopefully, we'll see them bump up that 13 percent as the country's appetite for coal continues to decline.

It's a war on injustice, actually

President Obama hit it out of the park on Tuesday, announcing his plan to tackle climate change. It was especially encouraging to hear him instruct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement rules to limit carbon pollution from power plants. Although he couldn't quite bring himself to say out loud that coal is the primary target of the new rules, it wasn't lost on those who somehow defend this dirtiest of industries.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wrongly described the plan as a war on coal. Sorry, Mitch, but you're wrong. All that carbon dioxide belching forth unchecked from coal plants means we'll fry the planet if we don't transition immediately to a clean energy economy. More specifically, we're on the way to ruining the future of millions of children who will have to contend with a world of routine extreme weather and the economic and societal disruptions that will result.

This isn't a war on coal, Senator. Rather, it's a war on the injustice of relying on a devastating source of power when we have clean sources of power such as wind  and solar readily available. Even so, Congress insists on providing disproportionately large subsidies to fossil fuels instead.

Fortunately, there's another guy named Mitch who sees the truth. That would be Rev. Mitch Hescox, president and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network. Mitch, a self-described Republican Evangelical, said this week, "We need solutions that engage all of America. I agree with the President, American ingenuity can help us cut down on pollution, champion energy efficiency, and create the next generation of jobs, while taking care of the poor."

Which Mitch would you choose? Backward-looking Mitch McConnell, or forward-looking Mitch Hescox?

I know my choice. I'm on the bus with Mitch Hescox.