Sierra Club Beyond Coal
Yesterday, Puget Sound Energy (PSE) released its final Integrated Resource Plan that maintains the Northwest region’s reliance on coal for another generation. PSE is the largest owner of the outdated, dirty coal plant in Colstrip, MT, and generates about 30 percent of its electricity from the plant and other increasingly-expensive coal sources.
Calling on PSE to invest in clean energy solutions as well as Washington communities, the Sierra Club and community partners barged an inflatable coal plant with a sign reading “PLEASE PSE, RETIRE COAL. INVEST IN CLEAN ENERGY” surrounded by “Clean Energy” kayaks. These images served as a backdrop to a press conference where local leaders and concerned residents spoke out against the utility's continued practice of burning coal to power Washington.
“While PSE supports many clean-energy programs, it also owns the largest, most polluting coal-fired power plant in the Northwest,” said Doug Howell of the Sierra Club. “Right now, PSE has a momentous opportunity to invest in clean energy and create good jobs in Washington State by moving beyond coal. Instead of continuing to rely on this toxic fossil fuel, which harms people’s health and the environment, it’s time for PSE to completely replace coal with cleaner forms of energy."
The movement to help PSE transition from coal to clean energy has recently galvanized Washingtonians who see costly coal pollution as standing in the way of much needed local clean energy jobs and a sustainable energy infrastructure. Residents say that PSE’s plan for another 20 years of coal fired pollution from its coal plant should serve as a wake up call to take immediate action.
“Our future does not lie in old, dirty coal-fired power, but in making homes more sustainable, lowering electricity bills, and creating a wave of innovation in the wind and solar industries,” said Dave Asher, a Kirkland, WA, city council member. “As we upgrade our buildings and invest in new sources of energy, we can create jobs, stimulate new businesses, and create a diverse and safe energy future.”
More than 150 coal plants across the country, including the Northwest’s TransAlta and Boardman plants, are on a path to retirement as the U.S. moves away from its reliance on coal. This has opened up the doors to a flood of clean energy investment and a new era of healthy air and clean power.
“PSE’s final recommendation puts ratepayers at risk because its coal plant is riddled with potential liabilities,” said Eric de Place of Sightline Institute. “PSE’s customers could find themselves facing more costs for addressing public health concerns, complying with clean air laws and reducing carbon emissions.”
Activists from all around PSE’s territory joined in yesterday’s event. Annie Newcomb, an activist from Issaquah, WA, says that in the next few years, PSE will be faced with increasing costs for pollution controls at its aging coal plant. “They, and we, have a choice to make—dump hundreds of millions of dollars of our hard-earned money into an outdated coal plant, or invest in clean energy jobs here in the Northwest,” said Newcomb.
Chiara D'Angelo, a high-school student from Bainbridge Island, says that the threat of climate disruption concerns many of her friends and classmates, and she worries about what the future will look like if the problem worsens. “This coal plant is a huge contributor to climate change, an urgent threat to our families, communities and to future generations. The cost of climate change impacts is too great to ignore. I expect my PSE to create a more sustainable future,” said D’Angelo.
The group urged local residents to make sure their voices are heard by sending comments to the Utility and Transportation Commission to call for a true assessment of costs for PSE’s coal consumption. The public comment process commenced yesterday with the release of PSE’s Integrated Resource Plan.
Visit EcoWatch’s COAL page for more related news on this topic.
——–
Click here to tell Congress to Expedite Renewable Energy
Though made in large part of plastic, glass, ceramics, gold and copper, they also contain critical resources. The gallium used for LEDs and the camera flash, the tantalum in capacitors and indium that powers the display were all pulled from the ground — at a price for nature and people.
"Mining raw materials is always problematic, both with regard to human rights and ecology," said Melanie Müller, raw materials expert of the German think tank SWP. "Their production process is pretty toxic."
The gallium and indium in many phones comes from China or South Korea, the tantalum from the Democratic Republic of Congo or Rwanda. All in, such materials comprise less than ten grams of a phone's weight. But these grams finance an international mining industry that causes radioactive earth dumps, poisoned groundwater and Indigenous population displacement.
Environmental Damage: 'Nature Has Been Overexploited'
The problem is that modern technologies don't work without what are known as critical raw materials. Collectively, solar panels, drones, 3D printers and smartphone contain as many as 30 of these different elements sourced from around the globe. A prime example is lithium from Chile, which is essential in the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles.
"No one, not even within the industry, would deny that mining lithium causes enormous environmental damage," Müller explained, in reference to the artificial lakes companies create when flushing the metal out of underground brine reservoirs. "The process uses vast amounts of water, so you end up with these huge flooded areas where the lithium settles."
This means of extraction results in the destruction and contamination of the natural water system. Unique plants and animals lose access to groundwater and watering holes. There have also been reports of freshwater becoming salinated due to extensive acidic waste water during lithium mining.
But lithium is not the only raw material that causes damage. Securing just one ton of rare earth elements produces 2,000 tons of toxic waste, and has devastated large regions of China, said Günther Hilpert, head of the Asia Research Division of the German think tank SWP.
He says companies there have adopted a process of spraying acid over the mining areas in order to separate the rare earths from other ores, and that mined areas are often abandoned after excavation.
"They are no longer viable for agricultural use," Hilpert said. "Nature has been overexploited."
China is not the only country with low environmental mining standards and poor resource governance. In Madagascar, for example, a thriving illegal gem and metal mining sector has been linked to rainforest depletion and destruction of natural lemur habitats.
States like Madagascar, Rwanda and the DRC score poorly on the Environmental Performance Index that ranks 180 countries for their effort on factors including conservation, air quality, waste management and emissions. Environmentalists are therefore particularly concerned that these countries are mining highly toxic materials like beryllium, tantalum and cobalt.
But it is not only nature that suffers from the extraction of high-demand critical raw materials.
"It is a dirty, toxic, partly radioactive industry," Hilpert said. "China, for example, has never really cared about human rights when it comes to achieving production targets."
Dirty, Toxic, Radioactive: Working in the Mining Sector
One of the most extreme examples is Baotou, a Chinese city in Inner Mongolia, where rare earth mining poisoned surrounding farms and nearby villages, causing thousands of people to leave the area.
In 2012, The Guardian described a toxic lake created in conjunction with rare earth mining as "a murky expanse of water, in which no fish or algae can survive. The shore is coated with a black crust, so thick you can walk on it. Into this huge, 10 sq km tailings pond nearby factories discharge water loaded with chemicals used to process the 17 most sought after minerals in the world."
Local residents reported health issues including aching legs, diabetes, osteoporosis and chest problems, The Guardian wrote.
South Africa has also been held up for turning a blind eye to the health impacts of mining.
"The platinum sector in South Africa has been criticized for performing very poorly on human rights — even within the raw materials sector," Müller said.
In 2012, security forces killed 34 miners who had been protesting poor working conditions and low wages at a mine owned by the British company Lonmin. What became known as the "Marikana massacre" triggered several spontaneous strikes across the country's mining sector.
Müller says miners can still face exposure to acid drainage — a frequent byproduct of platinum mining — that can cause chemical burns and severe lung damage. Though this can be prevented by a careful waste system.
Some progress was made in 2016 when the South African government announced plans to make mining companies pay $800 million (€679 million) for recycling acid mine water. But they didn't all comply. In 2020, activists sued Australian-owned mining company Mintails and the government to cover the cost of environmental cleanup.
Another massive issue around mining is water consumption. Since the extraction of critical raw materials is very water intensive, drought prone countries such as South Africa, have witnessed an increase in conflicts over supply.
For years, industry, government and the South African public debated – without a clear agreement – whether companies should get privileged access to water and how much the population may suffer from shortages.
Mining in Brazil: Replacing Nature, People, Land Rights
Beyond the direct health and environmental impact of mining toxic substances, quarrying critical raw materials destroys livelihoods, as developments in Brazil demonstrate.
"Brazil is the major worldwide niobium producer and reserves in [the state of] Minas Gerais would last more than 200 years [at the current rate of demand]," said Juliana Siqueira-Gay, environmental engineer and Ph.D. student at the University of São Paulo.
While the overall number of niobium mining requests is stagnating, the share of claims for Indigenous land has skyrocketed from 3 to 36 percent within one year. If granted, 23 percent of the Amazon forest and the homeland of 222 Indigenous groups could fall victim to deforestation in the name of mining, a study by Siqueira-Gay finds.
In early 2020, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro signed a bill which would allow corporations to develop areas populated by Indigenous communities in the future. The law has not yet entered into force, but "this policy could have long-lasting negative effects on Brazil's socio-biodiversity," said Siqueira-Gay.
One example are the niobium reserves in Seis Lagos, in Brazil's northeast, which could be quarried to build electrolytic capacitors for smartphones.
"They overlap the Balaio Indigenous land and it would cause major impacts in Indigenous communities by clearing forests responsible for providing food, raw materials and regulating the local climate," Siqueira-Gay explained.
She says scientific good practice guidelines offer a blueprint for sustainable mining that adheres to human rights and protects forests. Quarries in South America — and especially Brazil — funded by multilaterial banks like the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group have to follow these guidelines, Siqueira-Gay said.
They force companies to develop sustainable water supply, minimize acid exposure and re-vegetate mined surfaces. "First, negative impacts must be avoided, then minimized and at last compensated — not the other way around."
Reposted with permission from DW.