U.S. Meeting Paris Accord Targets–This Week Anyway
Good news. Ironically, the U.S. is currently on track to meet its targets associated with the Paris Accord on climate. Note the emphasis on “currently”; based on what’s happening in the EPA, the U.S. clearly has no intention on staying on course—or even acknowledging that such a course exists.
Here’s what senior energy analyst Glenn Doty wrote:
Trump and Pruitt just made it legal for the coal companies to dump coal ash into rivers. We’ll see a large scale uptick in cancer and heavy metal poisoning for the next few years, and once we manage to rid our government of GOP officials we’ll get back to enforcing clean water rules… but for the next few years the coal ash will just flow out to sea, and we’ll have a lot more sickness and death. The coal barons will see a slightly higher profit as the industry dwindles.
Sad stuff. Lots of work to be done to turn this around.
Craig,
For two guys who proudly claim a science background, it’s evident you perform only a modicum of research, instead choose to rely on distorted information tailored to suit your own political purposes.
In the real world ;
1) Coal Ash is not a product of coal mining, so why would coal companies be dumping it in rivers ? How will “Coal Barons” make a profit from something that has nothing to do with them?
2) Coal Ash is a by product of Power Utilities. In recent years coal ash, which consist of two types, fly and bottom ash,is safely stored at power plants for recycling. The industrial uses for recycled coal ash have been growing rapidly in recent years.
3)The EPA after a long and extensive regulatory process, issued a final ruling in 2014. (While Obama was still President). The ruling classed coal ash Coal Combustion Residuals as subtitle D Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. (this class is regulated as “non-hazardous” waste).
4) Authority to regulate, manage and dispose of old, disused coal ash pits, some dating back 70 years or more, has always been the responsibility of local authorities.
5) The recent decision which has generated publicity is the decision by a local authority Virginia Water Control Board, to allow “treated” surplus water from old Coal ash pits to be safe to discharged into rivers.
6) Neither the President nor the EPA has made dumping coal ash legal ! Neither has anything to do with this issue.
7) The problem of coal ash is not related to current production of Coal fired power but is related to a much older method of storing waste, and the current moves to clean up historic waste sites.
8)In this clean up process the problem is not how to dispose of the ash, but what to do with the hundreds of millions of gallons of waste water siting on top of unlined ash pits, that must be removed before the pits can be rehabilitated.
This is a serious problem for areas with old historic coal ash pits, and isn’t helped by the hysterical, inaccurate ranting of poorly informed advocates, or worse by disingenuous activists seeking to cynically employ disinformation for irrelevant political purposes.
Craig, I repeat, to witness two gentlemen claiming scientific credentials, become so desperate in their hated of the current administration to indulge in such disingenuous distortions, is really sad.
It’s especially sad to exploit the problems of folks in Virginia, and other areas to further your own political objectives.
Such easily disproved advocacy can only strengthen not harm support for the President !
Marcopolo,
Your valiant attempt to constantly troll websites devoted to environmentalism in an attempt to find a “gotcha” moment has finally paid off!
Craig posted a comment that I made offhand on facebook, and now you can pat yourself on the back… the post was not tightly edited for publication. However, that doesn’t mean that what was said in it was not correct.
First off, coal power plant operators and coal mining operators are all part of the coal industry. Trying to split hairs and say that the Koch Brothers – who own coal mines and power companies which operate coal power plants and natural gas fields and fracking operations… are somehow able to be isolated only into one small corner of their operations when another portion of their operations is doing something dirty is sophistry. You should be smarter than that.
You should also be capable of understanding the idea of linked supply costs and how those costs might impact a fully fungible market with a highly elastic price. Supply and demand effectively set the price of coal. Whether or not the power company mothballs a coal power plant is based on the price of natural gas-sourced electrical energy, and the total cost of coal-sourced electrical energy. Dealing with the sludge ponds is one of the significant costs for coal. If the EPA shutters its enforcement agency (and yes, that is the action that I was responding to concerning Pruitt. I don’t care what the regulations SAY if they are not enforced), then the cost of dealing with the sludge ponds will magically be reduced in many cases. That keeps the doors open on several coal plants that would otherwise be going away, which keeps demand higher, and that – via the magic of the markets – will keep the delivered price of coal higher.
Perhaps I didn’t write all that out, including the relevant calculations, in a simple reply on facebook (nor even here in a reply to some troll who has chosen to vilify me).
But that doesn’t make the assessment incorrect. It just means I don’t always explain everything laboriously in a blog post.
I really am working quite hard these days, on something that occupies the majority of my mind. You’ll just have to accept that.
😉
Glenn,
What’s so difficult about just admitting you’re wrong ?
Even if we accept that you really meant users of coal, rather than producers,your assertions are still lackadaisical since the problem of coal ash is an historic, not current problem. It still doesn’t affect producers.
(Just mentioning the magic mantra “Koch brothers”, won’t help!)
You claimed “Trump and Pruitt just made it legal” ! That’s an unequivocal statement. In fact, the ruling was in 2014, two years before the Trump administration came into existence. If Pruitt was not enforcing the ruling, it would have the opposite effect you claim !
In this case, your efforts to justify your inaccuracy only compound the error, and display an unwillingness to acknowledge the defects in your allegations.
It’s also clear you have no idea, and not bothered to discover, anything about the problems concerning coal ash ponds.
Regrettably, from the tone and indignation of your reply, it’s evident that you care little for accuracy or integrity, instead believe it’s ok to be wrong and spread disinformation as long as it’s in what you believe to be a good cause.
Worse, you continue to support your claims with the arrogant imprimatur of an adherent to the disciplines of scientific training.
That’s the problem, you see nothing wrong in disseminating such nonsense, and when you are called to account, you angrily respond with name calling. Claiming your critics are unfair, “Trolling” or harming “environmentalists” none of which is helpful.
My interest is not to cause you, or Craig, offense or dismay, but to remind you that environmentalists must be very vigilant and always err on the side of objective accuracy.
It’s very important for environmentalists to not only be accurate, but also to instigate and accept criticism from within the ranks of other environmentalists.
When Craig and other environmental advocates claim “moral” and “scientific” justification for their advocacy, that must be accompanied by the responsibility, to be accurate and acknowledge error.
It’s exactly the kind of response you have displayed which got Donald Trump elected.
Joe Public is quite right to say to himself ” if environmental advocates are wrong in this instance, and can’t admit error, why should I believe other claims from those claiming to be morally superior environmental advocates.”
It’s the attitude of lofty disdain that damages the efforts of genuine environmentalists and creates support for skeptics.
Are you really such an exalted personage that you should be excused from the responsibility of being called to justify your pronouncements?
Too busy ? Hmmm, y’know it may be just my view from under my bridge, but every time I stood up to an arrogant bully (very common in UK private schools) , the bully usually backed away claiming “you’re lucky, you’re not worth bothering about, I’ve got better things to do!” ! ( “better things”, meaning bullying more submissive individuals”).
However, I do acknowledge you at least took the time to reply.
Marcopolo,
You could have just googled it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/01/white-house-proposes-cutting-epa-staff-by-one-fifth-eliminating-key-programs/?utm_term=.387607da47de
(one example of hundreds)
They are crippling the enforcement ability of the EPA. That makes it legal to dump coal ash.
This is happening, and it is factual, and it is absolutely without excuse.
Your trolling notwithstanding.
Glen thanks for pointing out these facts to Marco re the coal ash issue.
Marco none of us are missing any thing we are speaking Truth to carbon Fog or Carbon Smoke .
The toxic ash ponds and related are just one more concrete example of the reality that burning carbon creates cost and environmental externalities that the greater society has had to expend resources on to mitigate the negative outcome or consequence.
For decades these costs have been externalized while the profits have been realized internally.
Coal has been subsidized and the current political winds seem to want to continue that worn out practice much to the demise of good policy and good stewardship for the environment.
Whether a Troll or not as Glen says , your positions are not defensible and create unneeded carbon releases into the greater environment by all the electrons your missives generate. Maybe an enforceable carbon budget would limit such untenable positions.
The carbon masters may be cheering these days but they will be choking one day just like the Chna man does now so that is the future with continued blind and short term greed based subsidy’s of dirty carbon burning.
Those who are truly committed to a better future know there is a better way. And its cost effective as well.
Glenn,
Neither the article, nor your reply is relevant to your claims.
You continue to maintain a fabrication !
1) The ruling allowing the release of treated waste water form coal ash sites was made in 2014 ! Two years before the Trump administration. Nothing you can do or say, will alter that fact.
2) No amount of calling me a “troll”, will after the truth which is coal ash is no longer “dumped” !
3) The coal ash you are so mistaken about is already dumped, and is now being treated and removed.
4) the permits have nothing to do with the EPA, they are issued by Local authorities.
5) These actions were taken before the current administration took office.
6) the administration can’t make “legal” what is already legal !
On this issue cutting some funding to the EPA is totally irrelevant. Whether cutting funding will, or will not, make the EPA more or less effective is a totally different issue and a matter of speculation and conjecture.
The Washington Post is entitled to it’s opinion and may well be correct, but it’s irrelevant to this discussion.
If you had bothered to read the article you cite from the Washington Post you might have noticed it focused on what might occur to the EPA if Congress approves the type of budget cut being currently discussed.
How can something that might happen in the future, make something “legal” in the present!?
No amount of abuse and increasingly wild claims will cover up the fact that you just simply got it wrong, because you didn’t bother to know what you’re talking about!
Silent,
Again, you miss the point.
My comment is restricted solely to the issue of the disinformation by Glenn on the rehabilitation of historic Coal ash pits.
I haven’t expressed an opinion on other aspects of the Coal industry, so I can’t have an opinion defensible or
not defensible.
Silent, I think in your enthusiasm you over look the errors in Glenn and Craig’s assertions because you believe in a “greater good” .
But when is it ok to misrepresent the truth, even in a good cause ?
Glenn hasn’t refuted any of my 8 points, instead he tries to justify himself by citing an article about something that might happen in the future, while relying upon your hatred of the current administration, and the Coal industry to defect from his own errors and obfuscations.
Curiously, that’s exactly what the President does!
If you want to discuss the wider issues of pollution created by the Coal industry, that’s a perfectly valid discussion.
However, that’s not the subject of Craig’s post. Craig and Glenn made a very specific accusation.
When called upon to explain the errors in their assertions,(made with the imprimatur of “scientific training”) Glenn couldn’t substantiate his claims, instead replied with abuse and an irrelevant article.
Silent, you are quite right to be worried about allowing regulatory authorities to become lax on pollution. Removal and prevention of gratuitous pollution is a serious and important subject affecting every person on the planet.
That’s why I take exception to individuals who weaken the seriousness of these issues by misrepresenting the truth. It doesn’t matter if it’s an industry lobbyist or an environmental activist, a lie is a lie.
In fact it’s worse when environmentalists misrepresent the truth !
Regrettably, it’s expected of industry PR and lobbyists to spin the facts, whereas environmentalist are expected to possess higher standards of moral veracity.
That’s why it’s sad when advocates like Glenn and Craig support disseminating misrepresentations of the facts in any issue, then continue to defend the indefensible.
If you wish to discuss issues relating to the removal and rehabilitation of historic coal ash pits,I’m more than happy to discuss those issues and problems, including pit water treatment technology.
If you want to discuss issues relating to how proposed budget cut backs to the EPA may affect future anti-pollution programs, then that’s also worth discussing as like you, I’m equally alarmed as the effectiveness of the EPA as a regulator and enforcement agency may be compromised.
However, in this case the two issues are unrelated since the measures relating to coal ash pits were decided years ago and remained unchanged.
Marco
I will re read and reflect and absorb your points on this but here is a few that readily come to mind
1. if this coal ash waste by product or residual from power plants is so benign then why are Electric utilities like Duke energy and Old Dominion in the virginia and N Carolina and south Carolina regions spending close to $ 5 billion to do clean ups of their Legacy coal ash ponds and also some dry storage pits in some states.
2. These same type of clean ups are going on by TVA in Tenn as well.
3. In other states similar clean up actions are being undertaken as years of testing and monitoring has detected high levels of heavy metals like Arsenic, Cadmium along with Radium and Barium , some traces of mercury that threaten water sheds or have already toxified aquatic life in nearby streams and lakes.
These clean up activities were fought in courts and agency hearings over many years and finally specific actions are being taken to rectify a source point for water resource pollution.
You are correct in stating that there have been efforts in recent years for the coal power industry to find re purpose markets for some of these ash solids. They are finding some roles as blending agents for road way materials , cement and similar. But by no means has there been a significant redcution in the ash pits and landfills let alone the sludge lagoons.
In Montana at the aging Colstrip Power plant ( 2 units closing) soon. The owners have been told by the state and the Feds that they will face financial charges for the large volume of contaminated waters that they discharge now and have discharged for over 4 decades or more. The looming bill is so large the owners may hasten the closure and try to walk away from their legacy Waste.
Court actions and Asset seizure legal maneuvers by Regulators are under way.
So perhaps if you have a silver Bullet solution to these issues then there is a ready made market for your services. You could make a Billion and be saving them Billions. A match for sure.there are many such opportunities over here.
One thing I know for sure is that the decisions by the various utilities , Regulators was made by them after years of contentious debates and counter debates. So laying blame on Craig and Glen D . is out side the sidelines for sure. they are stating the obvious nown dirty consequence of burning dirty fuel COAL ! RIP coal !
I been away from the testing game for a few years now but I will go thru my notes and see what other possible re purpose for the solids could be viable or worth trying. If I can dig up some other applications I will post them Mate.
Back to my Wine!
Best wishes
Silent,
I think you miss the point.
Coal Ash waste was, and to a lessor extent still is, a waste problem for coal fired power stations. It’s the attempt to clean up these poorly designed old pits that’s causing the controversy.
No one is blaming Craig or Glenn for the coal ash, just their misrepresentations. Had either written an accurate opinion on the problems of old utility coal ash utility pits,or even the current problem of waste disposal by coal fired power utilities, I wouldn’t have a problem.
But they both made a number of either, deliberate or reckless, false claims which (to date)they have declined declined to retract, despite being presented with irrefutable contradictory evidence.
If the President or his administration made such claims you would be quite correct in criticizing both the veracity and integrity of such assertions. (And I’m sure you would:))
My point is simple. Critics must be very sure of their own facts, before making allegations. It’s not OK to tell lies, or disseminate false information, even in a good cause. It’s not OK to support your friends in falsehoods, just because you dislike their enemies.
As Craig once pointed out, I’m not a scientist and don’t claim to be, but when those who loudly proclaim to follow the disciplines of scientific training so obviously betray those principles in favour of publishing deceptions and distortions, the question must be asked, are they just desperately deluded, or cynical knaves ?
Neither description seems consist with the principles required in scientific discipline.
In my opinion, neither Craig nor Glenn are being intentionally dishonest. In my opinion, both are so consumed by the passion of the “Crusade” as to substitute propaganda for reality.