Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Moving on from coal without abandoning miners

Charleston Gazette Mail
By Jim Probst Jun 21, 2021
“Change is coming whether we seek it or not. Too many inside and outside the coalfields have looked the other way when it comes to recognizing and addressing specifically what that change must be, but we can look away no longer. We must act, while acting in a way that has real, positive impact on the people who are most affected by this change.”

The above quote is from a document released in April by the United Mine Workers of America, titled “Preserving Coal Country.” On June 16 there was a bill introduced in the U.S. Senate that addresses the changes occurring in coal country in a real, positive and substantial manner.

Introduced by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, the Save Our Futures Act proposes a comprehensive list of support for coal miners and coal-fired power plant workers affected by the transitions occurring in the ways that we produce energy.

For workers and their families, the bill includes:

n Five years of full wage replacement.

n Continuation of health care for five years based on previous employment.

n Continuation of pension contributions for five years also based on level from previous employer.

n Establishment of a G.I. Bill type program to provide educational benefits to affected workers and their children.

The bill also makes sure that the communities that have contributed so much are not left behind in this transition. Proposed support for communities would include:

n Replacement of lost tax revenue, for local governments, on a sliding scale, over a 10-year time period.

n Increased investment in abandoned mine reclamation, coal ash pond remediation and orphan oil well recovery.

n Increased investment in agencies important to community economic development such as the Appalachian Regional Commission.

n Investment of $30 million per year for 10 years in rural broadband development.

Quoting the President of the Utility Workers of America, who have endorsed this legislation, “The five years of full wage replacement, health insurance coverage, pension and educational benefits in this legislation together represent a baseline of support we must offer individuals and communities that have powered American innovation for generations.”

All told, this legislation would offer approximately $120 billion over 10 years to fossil fuel workers and their communities as part of its Energy Veterans Package.

Of course, the driver of this need for action is our changing climate. The Save Our Futures Act will take a robust approach to addressing climate change by placing a substantial fee on greenhouse gas emissions and rebating 70% of the fees collected to low- and middle-income households on a semi-annual basis.

This approach will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 50% after 10 years and help to ensure that global temperature change is kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The reality is that we can no longer say that change is coming. Change to our climate is happening now as are the ways that we produce our energy. In the past 10 years employment in the U.S. coal industry has declined by over 50%.

To quote the UMWA, “The devastating impact on families and communities cannot be overstated. Divorce, drug addiction, imprisonment and suicide rates are all on the rise. Poverty levels are creeping back up in Northern and Central Appalachia, the heart of coal country. For every one direct coal job that has been lost, four other jobs have disappeared in these communities, meaning a quarter of a million jobs have already been lost.”

The need for urgent action is now. Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., have both acknowledged the need to take steps to address climate change as well as the downturn our coal communities are dealing with. The problem is that their approaches to date just haven’t risen to the level of urgency required.

We are in need of a bold, dynamic, far-reaching and comprehensive pathway to addressing what are certainly the most important issues of our time. The Save Our Futures Act provides that pathway and I strongly urge our two senators to support this legislation.

Jim Probst, of Hamlin, is co-state coordinator of the West Virginia Citizens Climate Lobby.

Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Health Effects from Fossil Fuel Combustion

by Duane Nichols on June 19, 2021

Fossil Fuels are Causing Public Health Effects

One in Five Premature Deaths Result from Fossil Fuels

From Living On Earth, PRX, Air Date: Week of June 18, 2021

Fine particulate matter produced from fossil fuel combustion is known to cause numerous health issues, and a recent study finds that this pollution is responsible for one in five early deaths worldwide, hitting people of color especially hard. Pediatrician Aaron Bernstein, who is the interim director of the Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment at Harvard, joins Host Steve Curwood to discuss the implications of the research.

CURWOOD: Black and brown communities are bearing a disproportionate burden of air pollution. In fact a study in the proceedings in the National American Academy of Sciences found that minority groups are disproportionately exposed to more air pollution than they produce, about 66% more for black people and 63% for Latin X.

Meanwhile whites are exposed to about 17% less pollution than they are responsible for creating. This disparity is deadly due to the tiny particles from the burning of fossil fuels from coal, diesel and gas. Some 300,000 or more Americans suffer premature deaths directly from fossil fuel combustion according to a study in the journal Environmental Research and demographics would suggest these deaths are disproportionately amongst people of color. Fine particles can invade lungs and lead to health problems such as strokes, heart attacks, asthma and higher death rates from Covid-19. For more I’m joined now by Harvard Public Health expert and pediatrician Aaron Bernstein.

CURWOOD: So this study measured the impact of particulate matter small ones, two and a half microns from only from fossil fuel combustion. Describe to me exactly what this study looked at.

BERNSTEIN: Yeah. So these authors wanted to understand not what air pollution outside in total does to health. They wanted, as you pointed out, wanted to understand what the proportion of that pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels does to human health.

CURWOOD: The numbers that they have here of 350,000 premature deaths every year in the United States. That is an astonishing number. What about around the rest of the world?

BERNSTEIN: Yeah, so globally, they estimate that somewhere around eight plus million people are dying every year from air pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels, which is roughly one in five deaths worldwide, which is just stunning.

CURWOOD: Now, who do these fossil fuel particulates affect the most? What kinds of populations or groups of people are most at risk?

BERNSTEIN: Yeah, it’s, it’s unfortunately, everybody who can least afford it. So research has shown quite clearly that anyone with a chronic medical condition, particularly people with heart disease, lung disease are at risk. People who are pregnant, or their pregnancies are at risk from this air pollution. There’s lots of evidence that children with asthma will get sicker. And there’s even some evidence that this air pollution may be causing asthma. We know this air pollution causes lung cancer.

And there’s a whole host of other nasty stuff that’s coming into clear focus around the effects of air pollution on brain health, including on dementia, potentially contributing to diabetes. I should mention important to your question of who’s affected most is that it turns out that pollution and poverty are really close bedfellows. And so regardless of where the air pollution happens, it’s pretty much universally the case that people who are less well off are breathing more. In the United States, we have definitive evidence that people of color, particularly Black Americans, and Latinx Americans breathe more air pollution than the rest of us. And they are also least responsible for its production, meaning that they consume less goods that, you know, in their production result in the production of these air pollutants.

CURWOOD: Dr. Bernstein, what parts of the United States and the world are most at risk from these premature deaths from fossil fuel particulates?

BERNSTEIN: Yeah. So this study, and others have shown that the places that are really suffering most from this air pollution are in Asia. Particularly in China and India and Southeast Asia, where the lion’s share of the mortality from air outdoor air pollution is happening. Now, interestingly, Steve, you know, we’ve cleaned up the air in the United States, dramatically, everyone’s air quality has gotten better. The latest research shows, unfortunately, that the gains have not been equally shared. That in fact, white Americans have benefited most, whereas Black Americans and Latinx Americans have certainly benefited but not as much in the past several decades.

But one of the consequences of us cleaning up our air is that we’ve exported the pollution. So there’s been research now looking at how as manufacturing bases have moved, you know, from richer countries to low and middle income countries, that the pollution controls in those places are often less good. And the pollution that’s being generated there is substantial. And in some research, for instance, China is certainly the place where the most deaths are occurring for goods that are serving people not in China, and the EU and in the US are the largest purchasers of those goods.

CURWOOD: How fair Dr. Bernstein is it to say nevermind, climate change, global warming from fossil fuels. Just look at the health effects of burning fossil fuels?

BERNSTEIN: Well, I think, you know, there’s an interesting history here, Steve. So in the realm of climate change, the kind of health wins we get when we come off fossil fuels that this study shows are what are called the co-benefits, right? That’s, that’s the term that people use. These benefits aren’t really the co-benefits. They are the health benefits of climate action. And I think it’s critical that we start talking about them that way. Because to your point, you know, if 300,000 people roughly are dying every year in the United States from fossil fuel air pollution, and you know, 8 million people are dying globally, can you imagine what we would be doing if we treated this like we have Covid? I mean, the world is spending trillions upon trillions of dollars to deal with this pandemic. We’re not spending a fraction of that to deal with the air pollution mortality from fossil fuel use. You know, this is a global problem. And there’s a real need to look at how we are valuing energy and goods when it comes to health. And if we in fact, included the health effects of our production system and the reliance on fossil fuels, we would be off fossil fuels tomorrow, because no one could afford using them.

Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Corner: The kids are alright

Jun 19, 2021

Angie Iafrate

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

Teach your children well. This is sound advice to which we can all sing along thanks to 1970s folk rock, but speaking as both a parent and a former high school teacher, I have also seen time and again that for whatever and however we teach our children, they often teach us more and better if we make an effort to see the world from their vantage point.

As the Engagement and Program Coordinator for Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, reading the dozens of essays written by local high school youth for our Earth Day essay contest demonstrated this once again to be true. There are many young people right here in the Mid-Ohio Valley who acknowledge the reality of climate change and are willing to thoughtfully engage with the problem in the quest for solutions. Here are a few ways in which they impressed us with their essay submissions about carbon footprint reduction and a lesson or two that they taught us along the way.

First, it is notable that our young people are willing to openly and respectfully converse with friends, family, and neighbors about climate change, including those who may be neutral or even adverse to the topic. Not only are they willing, but a common theme running throughout the essays was their insistence that this conversation is necessary to building the awareness that precedes action and solutions.

Our first place essayist, a sophomore from Warren Local, also acknowledged that it is unrealistic to expect one’s environmental message to always fall on enthusiastic ears, but she demonstrated an admirable willingness to continue educating others, regardless. Offering a metaphor to teach us undeterred patience when encountering what appears to be disinterest, she writes, “Just because you plant a seed doesn’t mean it will grow; however, some seeds need to winter before they can sprout.”

Second, our young people demonstrate in their essays an ability to self-reflect and then consider where they might make changes in their own daily habits. They do not take new ideas that contradict their old ones as a personal affront, but approach them with a mindset of opportunity, recognizing a chance to make a positive impact. At the same time, they are realistic and honest. They know that there are limits imposed by geography, availability of resources, and even just by modern life that make it difficult or impossible for any one person to always follow every climate-friendly recommendation of which they are aware. Regardless, they refrain from despair or harsh judgment, and proceed with earnest intention toward a solution.

Third, while they are certainly willing to reflect on how personal choices affect one’s impact on climate and the environment as a whole, as we would all be wise to do, our young people also think critically about the role of systems and institutions in this global crisis. For example, our third place writer, a junior from Waterford High School, opines that a popular narrative in discussions about curbing carbon emissions places the onus disproportionately upon the average individual, while the role and responsibilities of a powerful and wealthy fossil fuel industry are meanwhile largely ignored. It can be inferred that for as long as we leave out this piece of the puzzle, we are destined to never solve it.

Along these lines, our second place finalist, a senior from Ritchie County, adds that while “personal initiative is noble and helpful, real change requires collaboration.” That is, small actions we take in our daily lives certainly matter, but they alone are not going to solve the problem. He makes note of political importance, as well, suggesting that the power of our vote and who we choose as our leaders supersedes the impact of our personal environmentalism. In short, young people lead us to the idea that our collective voices must also be used to compel economic and political systems to do their part.

There is another line from classic rock that comes to mind as I reflect on our recent essay submissions: “The kids are alright.” When it comes to our thoughtful teenage writers, I can’t help but agree. I encourage the grown-ups — myself included — to follow the lead of concerned youth on climate. If we do, they will indeed teach us well, and the planet we inhabit may just turn out alright, too.

***

Angie Iafrate is the Engagement and Program Coordinator with Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action focusing on youth programs and outreach.

Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Corner – Remembering the value of trees

Local columns 

Jun 12, 2021

Linda Eve Seth

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

My mother, a wise and unconventional woman, was in many ways far ahead of her peers and her times. Back in the 1950s, our urban N.J. home was surrounded by lovely flower gardens, lush greenery, huge shade trees, and numerous fruit trees. (No one else in our neighborhood had fruit trees!)

The interior of our home was filled with houseplants. I used to marvel and complain that every room except the bathrooms had numerous plants on the tabletops, window sills … virtually every flat surface. When asked about the presence of all that greenery, my mother would explain that plants improve the air quality and it was a good idea to have plants in our home, and trees all around us, because they helped us stay healthy. At the time, it seemed like a bizarre notion.

My mom has been gone for several years, but if she were alive, I am sure she would have been quick to jump on the climate change /environmental awareness bandwagon. It turns out she was right: PLANTS IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE.

No existing, human-made air filtration system has the ability to create oxygen. Oxygen is a critical element of clean and healthy air. Indoor plants create oxygen. Plants clean the air through the process of photosynthesis. We humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide; plants do the opposite. During the process of photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and produce the oxygen we breathe.

Studies from NASA reveal that plant-filled rooms contain 50 to 60 percent fewer airborne molds and bacteria than rooms without plants. And a cleaner environment is just the start. An NBC news report pointed out that “indoor plants improve concentration and productivity, reduce stress levels and boost your mood.”

Consider now — TREES.

Trees create a peaceful, aesthetically pleasing environment. Trees increase our quality of life by bringing natural elements and wildlife habitats into urban and suburban settings.

Trees improve water quality, and reduce flooding and erosion. A tree’s leafy canopy catches precipitation before it reaches the ground, allowing some of it to gently drip and the rest to evaporate. Tree roots hold soil in place, reducing erosion. In these ways, trees lessen the force of storms and reduce the amount of runoff into sewers.

Urban trees provide a cost-effective solution to improving air quality in our cities. The pores on the underside of tree leaves are effective in removing sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic carbon. The leaves’ upper surface intercepts airborne particulates, contributing even more to a healthy urban environment. It was estimated that trees in Chicago, for example, remove approximately 234 tons of particulates annually.

And trees give back even more. Remember photosynthesis and the fact that it releases oxygen? Studies reveal that one mature tree yields enough oxygen for four people EVERY DAY. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “One acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen. This is enough to meet the annual needs of 18 people.”

Trees contribute to their environment by providing oxygen, improving air quality, conserving water, preserving soil, and supporting wildlife. Trees, shrubs, and turf also filter air by removing dust and absorbing other pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. After trees intercept unhealthy particles, rain washes them to the ground.

Trees control climate by moderating the effects of the sun, rain and wind. Trees lower the air temperature and reduce the heat intensity of the greenhouse effect by maintaining low levels of carbon dioxide.

Trees mitigate the impact of climate change, and plants do, indeed, improve the quality of life. As usual, my mother was right.

***

Linda Eve Seth, SLP, M.Ed., is a mother, grandmother and concerned citizen. She is a member of MOVCA.

Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Corner – It’s time to THRIVE

Local columns 

Jun 5, 2021

Eric Engle

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

To quote Johan Rockstrom, Vice-Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, “An emergency is calculated by risk divided by time. Risk is probability multiplied by impact. Scientifically, we now have a very unfortunate set of data in front of us. We know that the likely impact on humans of climate disruption, mass extinction and air pollution is very, very high indeed. The probability is also uncomfortably high. This adds up to a very high risk. Now divide that by time. We have unequivocal evidence that we have entered a decisive decade. If we have any chance to prevent the loss of more than a million species, we must halt biodiversity loss now, not in 20 or 30 years. If we want to have any chance of keeping global warming to 1.5C [centigrade above preindustrial levels], we need to cut emissions by half over the next nine years.”

One of the best, or at least most immediate, shots we have in the U.S. at beginning to tackle the anthropogenic (human-caused) global climate crisis and related crises is infrastructure legislation now being devised, revised and debated in the U.S. Senate. This effort must coincide with the creation of a post-pandemic 21st Century economy that allows the American people to thrive.

Thrive–you should keep that word in mind. Why? Because the THRIVE (Transform, Heal and Renew by Investing in a Vibrant Economy) Act is our best shot at tackling climate and biodiversity as well as economic and public health crises starting now. The THRIVE Act would create 50,000 jobs in the first full year of the program and sustain high levels of employment throughout the next decade. The program would invest $5.2 billion per year for a decade into West Virginia in clean renewable energy and energy efficiency, infrastructure, electric vehicles, agriculture and land restoration, and the care economy, public health and the postal service. Economic renewal investments with strong labor standards ensure that jobs will not only increase, but that the quality of jobs will also improve.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and her Republican colleagues aren’t taking these goals seriously. They want to ignore the care economy entirely and they fail to take seriously and adequately address the climate and related crises we face. They miss the mark on a 21st Century economy centered around renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable agriculture and development that creates thousands of good-paying union jobs.

Republicans can’t even meet President Biden halfway on his American Jobs Plan. They want to talk about roads, bridges, water systems and broadband, which are all extremely important and included in both the American Jobs Plan and the THRIVE Act but focusing on just these is myopic.

Now is the time to go big and be bold. West Virginians are tired of just surviving, at best, while facing an addiction epidemic, the fallout of a global COVID-19 pandemic, and losing more population than any other state in the Union. We need leaders with vision and the tenacity to deliver. We’re tired of excuses and watching politicians check their stock portfolios and check in with industry lobbyists and deep pocket campaign contributors before they decide whether or not to listen to their constituents.

According to findings from a Data for Progress poll conducted May 7-11, two-thirds of voters are concerned about the impacts of climate change on their communities. That is all the mandate that the U.S. Congress and the White House need to take action! Tell Sen. Joe Manchin III and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito to act today and support the THRIVE Act, or at the very least go as big and as bold with the American Jobs Plan as they can possibly go. It’s time for West Virginia and the rest of the country to thrive!

***

Eric Engle is Chairman of the not-for-profit volunteer organization Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action, Board Member for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and Co-Chairman of the Sierra Club of West Virginia Chapter’s Executive Committee.

Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Emissions – What level?

Jun 5, 2021

Warren Peascoe

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

What is the proper amount of emissions to allow from industrial and chemical plants and how are emissions traded for jobs?

I was appalled when I compared what West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection expected to allow for the proposed West Virginia Methanol plant in Pleasants County, near the Ohio River, with what was achieved 30 years ago for a new plastics plant in New York.

About 1990, GE built a new plant in New York State. As I remember the Geloy plant yearly produced 30 million pounds of plastic and only one pound of emissions. The entire plant was inside a new building. There was a continuous air monitoring system, which sampled air at several critical locations. If the monitor detected more than 1 part per million of acrylonitrile, an alarm sounded and corrective action was taken.

Contrast that with the methanol plant under review by the WV DEP.

According to a Gazette-Mail article April 30, 2021:

“The proposed facility has the potential to emit 91 tons of carbon monoxide, 92 tons of nitrogen oxides (poisonous, highly reactive gases), 54 combined tons of three different kinds of particulate matter, and 11 combined tons of the known or probable human carcinogens formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene and 1,3-butadiene, according to West Virginia Methanol’s permit application.”

West Virginia Methanol will emit hundreds of tons of emissions compared to one pound of emissions achieved 30 years ago at the GE Geloy plant in Selkirk, N.Y. These emissions do not even include methanol but only byproducts of the process.

Since none of these separate byproducts individually exceeds the 100 tons per year required by the state to be considered a “major” emitter, no emissions modeling is required. One regulated stream will be 92 percent of a “major” emitter and a second will be 90 percent. When added together the two streams clearly exceed 100 tons. This appears to be a clever attempt to build the first of several possible plants and never be considered a “major” emitter.

I am familiar with butadiene, one chemical byproduct to be emitted by the methanol plant, which I used as a student and at GE Plastics, Washington plant. The plant used barge loads.

To compare the butadiene emissions from a plant that used massive amounts as a raw material to emissions of the proposed methanol plant that produced butadiene only as a byproduct, I looked at the WV DEP public records for the SABIC plant, formerly GE Plastics. For 2014 SABIC reported 0.5 tons per year of butadiene emissions. The methanol plant will be permitted to emit 11 tons of a mixture of four suspected carcinogens, one of which is butadiene. If all the mixture is butadiene, then the new construction will be permitted to emit 22 times more butadiene as a byproduct than the SABIC plant, which used butadiene as a feed stock, actually emitted in 2014.

I only found the 0.5 ton of butadiene after hours reading public records for the SABIC plant. Most appeared to be 60 pages of yearly documentation that correct procedures were followed. None had any numerical data about what was emitted. Only one Certified Emission Statement dated 7-11-2014 actually listed data. A Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Worksheet, filled out by hand, indicated 0.5 tons of butadiene was included in the combined total. The total also contained 3.7 tons of acrylonitrile, 2.72 tons of cumene, 3.87 of methyl methacrylate, and 22.18 tons of styrene plus other minor emissions. In 2014 SABIC reported emissions of 34.06 tons of combined Hazardous Air Pollutants.

In my opinion:

1) All emissions from the proposed WV Methanol plant should be added together in determining if the emitter is “major,” especially since two of the byproduct emission streams are each over 90 percent of the “major” 100 ton limit. In addition the emissions of methanol should be included in the “major” limit calculation.

2) Emission modeling for the methanol plant should be completed, even if it is not legally required.

3) Continuous fence line monitoring should be standard for all new plant construction or major modifications. If this is not done by the plant owner, DEP should have mobile monitors that are periodically placed near the fence line and the data made public. The public should be able to monitor anywhere outside the plant boundaries.

4) Best available technology should be used for new construction and major modifications.

5) Building several small plants as a substitute for one large plant to circumvent the emission requirements for the single large plant should not be allowed.

6) Annual emissions for each plant and each chemical should be easily accessible to the general public. This would lead to a clearer public understanding of the trade off between the health hazards of too lax and the economic hazard of too restrictive legislation.

***

Warren Peascoe is a Ph.D. chemist, retired from Uniroyal and GE Plastics,

Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Climate Corner: It’s time for us to reimagine Appalachia

May 29, 2021

George Banziger

Parkersburg News and Sentinel

People in the Appalachian region have for generations assumed that good-paying union jobs had to involve the sacrifice of their health–even their lives–in extractive industries such as coal. New research and new projects indicate that it does not have to be this way. There are good jobs in a reimagined Appalachia, such as those involved with capping abandoned oil and gas wells, modernizing the electricity grid, redesigning buildings and industry for energy efficiency, regenerative agriculture, clean and efficient manufacturing, a sustainable transportation system, energy storage, repurposing coal-fired power plants, and creating pathways and training programs for low-wage workers.

The officially recognized area of Appalachia, which is administered by the Appalachian Regional Commission, is comprised geographically of the area from northern Alabama and Georgia to the southern tier of New York State. It includes 13 states; West Virginia is the only state that is entirely encapsulated in the region. For decades this region has been associated with high unemployment, low educational achievement, high poverty rates, population decline, and more recently opioid abuse.

While the grip of the fossil-fuel industry in Appalachia has been quite firm in the 20th Century, this grasp has recently loosened. As coal has been recognized as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and as other sources of energy like natural gas and renewables like wind and solar have shown market advantages, coal has been in an inexorable decline. Energy companies themselves are shifting away from coal, as coal-fired power plants in Appalachia and around the country are shut down. Many in the region and in the Congress have supported the idea that long-term support, in the form of wages and benefits as well as job training, needs to be provided for those in the coal industry who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

The natural gas business provides a more affordable and less polluting source of energy than coal, and some of its advocates have argued that the industrial practice of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is a promising source of jobs and economic development for the Appalachian region and specifically the Ohio Valley. So far, this vision has not been realized. “Frackalachia” is the term used to describe the region within Appalachia where fracking for oil and natural gas (mostly the latter) takes place. As noted by the Ohio River Valley Institute, the boom in the shale-gas industry provided an overall benefit to the U.S. economy but did not provide any increase in jobs, population, or economic development in the region. Only 20 cents per dollar found its way into the local economy according to this study, and during this shale-gas boom jobs were in decline.

Washington County, Ohio, has more to offer for a reimagined Appalachia than to serve as the trash heap for fracking waste; the county has one of the largest number of injection wells in the state for pumping radioactive and toxic fracking waste into the ground from Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

There are already projects in the region for a reimagined Appalachia. In Wheeling, W.Va., there are greenhouses and vertically integrated businesses in regenerative agriculture, producing locally grown crops for local consumption in facilities like greenhouses built in abandoned factories. The Solvay plant in Marietta has combined with DTE Energy for a CHP (combined heat and power) project, saving 300 jobs at Solvay and 50 at neighboring American Styrenes. Battery manufacturing for the electric vehicle industry has emerged in eastern Ohio. New Jobs Appalachia is a local effort to spark new thinking that can seize the opportunities in a renewable economy rather than turning our backs on them.

The community of Centralia, Wash., is a model of repurposed infrastructure for economic development of the 21st Century. Formally a site of a coal mine, employing 600 workers and a coal-fired power plant with 370 workers, Centralia reimagined itself with GDP gains at twice the rate of the U.S. as well as population growth. This growth was achieved through three initiatives: a weatherization fund for energy-efficiency upgrades, an economic community development fund using local labor, such as HVAC, lighting contractors, and an energy technology fund for clean energy generation. These are 21st Century businesses that provide local jobs with good wages and benefits and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and that should serve as a compelling model for our region of Appalachia.

Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Repurposed – Solar energy project shows great promise

Editorials 

May 29, 2021

An experiment is in the works in southwest Virginia and Tennessee, that might have far-reaching benefits for the rest of coal country. A Nature Conservancy preserve that spans parts of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee includes approximately 550 acres of deforested mineland, for which developers are working on a large-scale solar project. According to Energy News Network, the project is expected to be generating up to 75 megawatts of solar energy within the next two to three years.

To put that in perspective, the Pleasants Power Station near Belmont, W.Va., has a capacity of 1,300 MW; the Mitchell Power Plant near Moundsville is 1,633 MW. Still, 75 MW is well above the level needed to be labeled a utility-scale project, and the work on the Cumberland Forest property could become a model for repurposing mine lands, creating renewable energy jobs and finding out just how much solar facilities can be scaled up to meet energy needs.

“We can do things that are good for nature and people,” Brad Kreps, director of the conservancy’s Clinch Valley Program in Abingdon, Va., told Energy News Network. “A mission of conservation and economic recovery can be compatible. These two things don’t have to be mutually exclusive.”

Developers are still working on the project, but should it come to fruition, the results should help inform energy and development policy in a region working so desperately to diversify its economy, do right by the planet AND preserve quality of life for families who have depended on coal for generations.

Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Which option do we choose?

Parkersburg News and Sentinel

Letters to the editor 

May 22, 2021

Aaron Dunbar

I was quite interested to read “Honest environmental talks,” Christina Myer’s May 15 column in the News and Sentinel.

Myer’s piece deals with the subject of rare earth metals used in various sources of renewable energy, and the potential hazard of “trading one kind of destructive extraction industry for another.”

Broadly speaking, I do agree with Myer’s point that there are no easy answers to the challenges we face. Lithium, a key ingredient in the manufacture of electric car batteries, for instance, can be so environmentally destructive that it’s sometimes referred to as “white oil,” and is frequently mined in hellish conditions through what can only be described as slave labor.

On the other hand, electric vehicles still remain cleaner than their gasoline-powered alternatives overall, and even as I write this there is serious research being conducted into powering EV’s without the use of any rare earth metals whatsoever.

In her column, Myer calls for a “more honest, more difficult discussion” about climate change. And I respect that. What, then, might such a discussion look like?

For starters, it must begin with a few very basic, incontrovertible facts: climate change is real, it’s driven by fossil fuel extraction, and it will cause civilization as we know it to collapse should we fail to transition away from fossil fuels at whiplash-inducing speeds.

From here, as I see it, there are four fundamental paths we can choose to take:

1. Do nothing, continue burning fossil fuels, and allow civilization to collapse.

2. Trade one form of exploitation for another, and preserve the Global North and capitalist extremism by plundering the Global South as we have been, in order to maintain our affluent lifestyles.

3. Find a way of transitioning to renewable energy that ensures materials are ethically and sustainably sourced, at the pace and scale necessary to avert catastrophic, runaway warming.

And 4., probably the most radical option of all to most readers: accept Kenneth Goulding’s sentiment that “Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist,” and embrace the reduction and degrowth of Global North economies.

We can choose to like it or not, but this is the hand we’ve been dealt, thanks in overwhelming part to the misinformation and delay tactics of the fossil fuel industry.

I wholeheartedly back Ms. Myer’s call for engaging in difficult conversations about climate change. The bigger issue, to me, is whether or not we’re mature enough as a society to accept the difficult answers we’re likely to be presented with.

Last Updated: April 29, 2023 by main_y0ke11

Climate Corner: Carbon capture sequestration technology won’t solve crisis

May 22, 2021 Parkersburg News and Sentinel

Randi Pokladnik

In its current state, carbon capture is another false promise when it comes to addressing the urgent need to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. The very industry that is a main contributor to climate change can now profit from tax breaks and government funding being directed at Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) projects. A 2019 report by the Center for International Environmental Law, “Fuel to Fire,” states, “It is not surprising that the fossil fuel industry has invested and is investing heavily in the technologies that would render a transition from fossil fuels less urgent.” Carbon capture is one of those technologies.

First used in 1972 in Chevron’s Terrell Natural Gas plant in Texas, carbon capture can remove carbon dioxide from exhaust fumes of industrial facilities such as coal and gas power plants or from the surrounding air. There are several techniques that have been used to capture CO2. These include: absorbing it with a sponge-like material; separating it with membranes; or cooling and condensing it using a cryogenic process. These processes all require high energy inputs, and once captured, the carbon dioxide is either stored or used. Storage involves the gas being transported to locations where it is injected deep underground into saline deposits or rock strata.

Small amounts of carbon dioxide have been used as a feedstock for chemicals or fuels, to distill and carbonate beverages, or for use in greenhouses to help promote plant growth. Once again there are substantial costs involved to transport the gas, and carbon dioxide captured this way can quickly re-enter the atmosphere. According to a recent paper in Nature Climate Change, “the tonnage of CO2 humanity emits simply dwarfs the tonnage of carbon-based products it consumes.”

The majority of carbon dioxide from CCS is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). During this procedure, pressurized CO2 is pumped into old oil field wells to help force out any remaining oil deposits. The majority of the world’s 21 large-scale CCS plants are located in the USA and Canada, and all but five sell or send their carbon dioxide to facilities involved in enhanced oil recovery. The carbon dioxide removed by power plants can be sold to other companies that use it to help “bolster” production of older oil fields.

There are many economic, social, and environmental problems associated with using CCS for oil recovery. Using the carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery does not guarantee the gas is permanently removed from the atmosphere. Eventually it is released back to the atmosphere as it leaks from the wells and fissures. Additionally, it enables more oil to be extracted thus continuing our reliance on fossil fuels and contributing to climate change.

In the CIEL report “Fuel to Fire,” Exxon stated that it had a working interest in one quarter of the world’s total carbon capture and storage (CCS) capacity, and Shell is involved with four current CCS projects. Chevron has invested $75 million in CCS research in the past ten years, while BP is a current sponsor of the CO2 Capture Project. There are economic incentives that are encouraging fossil fuel industries to champion the use of CCS. These include government programs as well as tax incentives.

In 2008, a program was set up to give tax credits to companies using CCS. According to section 45 Q of the tax code, companies could get tax credits for capturing carbon dioxide and doing one of three things with it: dispose of it in an underground secure geological site, use it for enhanced oil recovery, or use it in a commercial process. In 2018, the tax credits for CCS were raised to $50 per metric ton of CO2 from the previous $20 per ton, and credits for carbon dioxide used in EOR were raised from $20 to $35 per ton.

Estimates based on IRS records show that Exxon may have claimed hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits using this law. There is a requirement that companies claiming the tax credit also commit to a monitoring program through the EPA. A new industry group, Energy Advance Center, which represents companies like Exxon, have lobbied to do away with monitoring programs that would ensure CCS emissions did not escape back into the atmosphere.

Additionally, CCS research projects have received substantial amounts of government funding. According to the Department of Energy, CCS research projects received $110 million in 2019, $72 million in 2020, and as of April of 2021 received $75 million.

Recently, U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Shelley Capito introduced legislation to augment the tax credits for CCS under 45Q and 48A, tax credits for coal companies using CCS. One facet of the bill would grant the same tax treatment to CCS as is currently offered to wind and solar projects. It would also allow for direct payments of carbon capture credits. No surprise that many of the Carbon Capture Utilization and Tax Credit Amendment Act supporters are from states heavily influenced by the fossil fuel industry (West Virginia, Wyoming and North Dakota).

Finally, there are issues of safety involved in CCS. Once the carbon dioxide is captured it can be used or stored but it also must be transported. This involves pipelines. In 2019, in Yazo, Miss., a 24-inch carbon-dioxide containing underground pipeline ruptured. Over 300 people were evacuated and 46 people were treated at hospitals. The concentration of carbon dioxide was high enough to cause gas-powered car engines to stop. First responders said some people were unconscious while others wandered around like zombies.

Unlike solar and wind energy, which according to Clean Technica are “roughly displacing 35 times as much CO2 every year as the complete global history of CCS,” carbon capture technology is still in the early stages of development. It is not ready to be used in the scale necessary to curtail the climate crisis. It has however become a diversion used by industry and governments to avoid doing what needs to be done to actually address the climate crisis in a timely way.

Find Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action on the following social media:

Check out our Facebook group and join a conversation

Recent Comments
    Archives
    Categories

    Copyright © 2026 · All Rights Reserved · Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action

    Nonprofit Website by GivingPress · RSS Feed · Log in