Using short sided logic the Sierra Club is once again trying to convince us we're all doomed if Baard's ORCF plant gets built. In a news release dated November 13 the Sierra Club announced an EPA Appeals Board remanded an air quality permit issued to Deseret Power Electric Cooperative out in Utah. Remanded in this case means the permit was sent back for further consideration.
Deseret Power Electric Cooperative is going through the permitting process in hopes of building a new coal fired electric generating plant. No where in the Sierra Club's news release are we told that the appeal was based on that company's failure to use BACT (Best Available Control Technology) for carbon dioxide emissions in their plans for the new plant. Therein lies the rub. Reading their release and Mike McElwain's scary sensational article in last Tuesday's ER one would think that Deseret's plans have been squashed forever. Then their kid from Columbus using Matt Stewart and his blog is trying to convince us this will have a snowball effect on everyone and anyone that wants to do anything constructive with coal. That would include Baard.
In all their rhetoric on this there are several facts that the Sierra Club spokes people chose either to ignore or at the most lightly gloss over. One fact that early came to mind was that the appeal was an argument for BACT which is a federal requirement. I skimmed through the appeal - all 69 pages of it - looking for the hinted fact that Deseret's permit was denied. It wasn't there.
Another fact that the Club wants us to believe is the CO2 will eventually wipe out every living thing on earth if the use of coal is allowed to be used in new businesses. The fact is every living organism whether plant, animal or human emits CO2 and has since the beginning of time. CO2 emissions are not today regulated other than using BACT. With everything considered it would be tough to regulate. The use of coal as an energy source probably goes back to the ice age. It's been around for a long time. You can search the history books and will not find one incident where it has been proven that CO2 has wiped us out. Using the logic that the Sierra Club is trying to lead us to believe the City of Pittsburgh should not be in existence today. For years back when that city was the steel making capitol of the world the smog was so great there were periods when they didn't see sunshine for days. With new technology that situation got cleaned up way before the steel industry hit bottom in the early 1980s.
That's another fact that they fail to mention - new technology. The strides of improvement have been enormous over the last few decades. If weather permits you can see clearly now in the 'burgh. New regulations for cleaning up the environment has been voluminous especially since the EPA was conceived. I can remember when people wouldn't fish in the river because of the pollution. That's changed and that's just one example of the improvements made.
The Sierra Club also fails to admit that the plans for Baard's ORCF plant have included every known BACT in their permit applications. The Baard people have bent over backwards committing to using the best and the newest technology to protect our environment. From what I've seen I'm convinced that Baard will continue to seek out and use any new methods to protect our environment that may come along in the future.
The Sierra Club doesn't want us to believe that we can coexist with a new plant that uses coal - a new plant that would in fact breath new life into our region. It's their way or the highway. For Lord's sake don't let them scare you with all their slanted propaganda. It's scare tactics. It's taking any negative hint to the extreme.
I have to ask the question. If the Sierra Club is so adamant on alternative energy sources why don't they use some of their considerable financial resources to invest in wind mills and solar panels? That money could be a lot more useful than throwing it away on legal fees and renting office space all over the country. Stop and ask yourself why don't they put their money where their mouth is?
ole nib
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
One other fact that the Sierra Club types want to ignore is based in basic biology. Plants absorb CO2, and emit O2. We have been "warned" that Poison Ivy is growing bigger. I believe this extra growth extends to all plants, not just one species. Following the process of plants, more foliage absorbs more CO2 and emits more O2. By creating more O2 less CO2 is in the atmosphere. As the CO2 level drops, and it will because of plant's absorption, we have more O2. The cycle will be reversed until the imbalance occurs again and the plant world will respond to the situation again. Pehaps that is why our Planet has not expired as yet. We suggested that to a Conservation Educator in Raccoon Creek Park in PA. His reaction was to state "the tour has to continue because we have a lot to see". He didn't want to have to speak to the natural cycles of plant life on this earth. It is called Photosynthesis.
Whew.
Well, first of all, Ohio EPA issued Baard's air permit yesterday afternoon.
Second, you're right that Deseret's air permit hasn't been denied (though I'm confused about why you think the press release says it was denied - the press release says no such thing). The permit was actually remanded. What the Environmental Appeals Board did was to rule all of EPA's previous excuses for not regulating carbon dioxide to be invalid. They instructed EPA to either regulate carbon dioxide or to come up with a better reason for not regulating carbon dioxide. (One would think if they had a better reason, they probably would have used it already.)
Now, the impact of that federal ruling on Ohio's regulatory regime is debatable - and as we now know, Ohio EPA claims there is no impact. I am not a lawyer, but Sierra Club's legal team expects that there will be widespread impacts across the country as a result of this ruling. That's what the press release reported.
Whether or not you believe that CO2 should or should not be regulated (it actually is not currently regulated, under a BACT regime or anything else), and whether or not you believe as we do that global warming poses a threat to this state and country, the fact is that this federal appeals board remanded a coal plant's air permit solely on the basis that US EPA did not have a sufficient reason for refusing to regulate CO2. How is it poor logic to conclude that this will have an impact on coal projects nationwide? Of course it will. To think otherwise would stretch reality, especially with an incoming President who has promised to regulate CO2.
Now as for using Sierra Club's financial resources to fund green energy... well, we're a non-profit grassroots organization, not a venture capital firm. There do exist green venture capital firms. But if Sierra Club were as anti-job as you claim, I highly doubt that large, credible labor unions like the United Steel Workers would be publicly partnering with Sierra Club to promote green energy jobs. Or have we managed to somehow fool USW into buying into our evil plan to destroy Ohio's economy?
'Anonymous' - Your explanation of basic biology is just that - basic. Actual biologists have shown that plant biomass growth is not correlated with an increase in atmospheric CO2, and moreover experimental results have shown different plants react differently to increased CO2 levels. Most plants that respond favorably are nuisance plants, such as ragweed, and most food plants such as grains respond negatively.
Nachy - Remanded is not exactly an everyday common word. To us average laymen it sounds rather ominous. It has negative connotations. At least that's my feeling.
The news release does not once mention BACT. Instead it stresses the lack of regulating CO2 emissions.
You'll have to find better scientific minds than mine to argue the effects of CO2. Since it's a natural phenomenon from the beginning of time that nature corrects I'm not convinced it is as harmful as portrayed, especially with new technologies being applied in today's times. Instead I get a distinct feeling that the Sierra Club and other nature conservative groups are like the little boy who cried wolf.
Sure the USW is going to side with the Sierra Club since they are pushing windmills. After all windmills use a lot of steel. Producing that steel means jobs for them. The unions also strongly endorse the ORCF plant as you witnessed here in Wellsville. It's all about the jobs. You can't be so naive to think that they would support you if you threatened their livelihood.
nib
Ok, I acknowledge that. The press release didn't mention BACT because it was intended to explain the significance of the ruling, not the nuts and bolts of the case itself. Most landmark court decisions in this country's history (like Marbury vs. Madison, for example) have been tangential to the actual case being litigated (Marbury only wanted to be made Justice of the Peace). This decision may have been about BACT for a small coal plant in Utah, but it has broad and national implications.
You're right about USW... they are allied with us on the issue they care about, which is expanding steel jobs in Ohio. But that's what I'm saying - Sierra Club WANTS to expand steel jobs in Ohio to create windmills and such. We WANT to create job opportunities that don't destroy human health and the environment. We are allying with groups who used to oppose us, like USW, because we see the enormous need for doing so.
This isn't about us not *understanding* new technology - as we've said many times, if Baard intends to sequester its carbon dioxide, there's no reason not to put it as a binding limit in the air permit (and this new federal ruling supports that argument). But I must stress that I understand why many people in Wellsville disagree, and I have a lot of respect for the arguments that you and many other people have made. Ultimately this dialogue is a very positive thing, and I appreciate that you've provided a forum for it.
Nachy - I'm no where near to be even beginning to think that the ORCF plant will "destroy human life & the environment" as you state. All those experts at OEPA and others can't all be wrong. They are not misleading us. Are you suggesting that these learned experts are being underhanded with their concerns for our health & well being?
These are the same folks that probably put some steel mills out of business years back with their enforcing costly pollution control technology be put into use. That is one of the reasons a major portion of steel production went overseas. Just look at China with all their pollution problems. Your praise of your alliance with the USW is dubious at best.
You question why carbon sequestion is not made binding. Two thoughts came to mind: first - I think it is part of Baard's agreement. I believe they are committed to making that work. They are not just blowing smoke. They even have a commercial plan to utilize the CO2. You may argue that it has never been done but it has been proven to be feasible.
Secondly, even if I'm wrong about Baard making carbon sequestion a firm committment in their permits, how can you make something binding when there are no statues on the books regulating CO2? There may be rules someday but you would be hiding your head in the sand if you think Baard doesn't realize this. At the very least they are ahead of the game.
The decision by the appeals board in Utah will only have nationwide implications for newly proposed plants that do not have any plans to use BACT. That is if it stands up in court.
nib
Post a Comment