CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Air Quality coal power plant pollution

Published on February 10th, 2010 | by Zachary Shahan

8

Senators Go Straight at Coal in "The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010"

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 10th, 2010 by Zachary Shahan 

Some leading businesses, Hollywood, Obama, and the public are putting the pressure on Congress to move forward with a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill, but while we wait on that, some Senators have decided to tackle some specific coal pollutants that cost the American public trillions of dollars in healthcare costs, hundreds of thousands of lives, and great human suffering every year in another way.

12 Democratic, Republican and Independent Senators have just put forth “The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010” to protect countless Americans who are being harmed by extremely toxic coal emissions everyday.

Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) introduced the bill last Thursday and got 10 other senators from across the political spectrum to co-sponsor it.

[social_buttons]

215,000 lives and more than $2 trillion in health care costs [would be saved] by 2025, by cleaning the air and thereby reducing Americans’ likelihood of suffering from chronic lung disease, asthma, or lung cancer” from these Clean Air Act ammendments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates. (emphasis mine)

186 million Americans live in areas where air pollution endangers lives, according to the American Lung Association. As a result of this and other factors, the US is now ranked 61st internationally (down from 39th) in overall “environmental performance”. In other words, our environmental quality of life has diminished significantly compared to other nations.

Senator Carper appropriately said:

“Twenty years have passed since Congress passed significant revisions to the Clean Air Act. While there have been some significant environmental progress along the way, clearly we can do better. If the legislation we are introducing today is enacted, we will do much better. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010 provides us an opportunity to work across the aisle, something we do too rarely these days. Passage will not only help us clean up our nation’s power sector and our nation’s air, it also will provide the certainly and predictability that an important industry in America needs. And, it provides us an opportunity to work with utilities, with environmentalists, and with towns and communities across America to improve the lives and health of tens of millions of Americans in the years to come.”

Senator Alexander added: “Mercury can contaminate our crops and water supply, ultimately harming brain function and other vital organs, and is especially harmful to children and pregnant women. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides can contribute to respiratory illness and other lung diseases.”

Specifically, the following are the requirements of the proposed amendment:

Cut SO2 emissions by 80 percent (from 7.6 million tons in 2008 to 1.5 million tons in 2018).

Cut NOx emissions by 53 percent (from 3 million tons in 2008 to 1.6 million tons in 2015).

Cut mercury emissions by at least 90 percent no later than 2015.

This legislation would work to ensure that regulations are cost-effective by including a nationwide SO2 and NOX trading system, and the EPA would regulate mercury itself.

It has been 20 years since Congress tightened the Clean Air Act and although the EPA has tried to put stricter controls on nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury, court challenges have continually invalidated those proposals.

Senators Carper and Alexander, as well as Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Edward Kaufman (D-Del.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), have co-sponsored this bill in order to try to address those problems.

Image Credit: Señor Codo via flickr under a CC license

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • Jon

    Ed S. Says “Coal is many things, but the most important thing to realize if that coal is not NECESSARY.”

    Ed I think you need to do a little research. 54% of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Converting these plants is not like changing your vehicles engine oil. Conversion takes time and money. If these amendments are passed we will see our electric bills skyrocket and give the Feds more control in our lives. Whats next taxing those who burn wood for heat?

  • Jon

    Ed S. Says “Coal is many things, but the most important thing to realize if that coal is not NECESSARY.”

    Ed I think you need to do a little research. 54% of our electricity is generated by burning coal. Converting these plants is not like changing your vehicles engine oil. Conversion takes time and money. If these amendments are passed we will see our electric bills skyrocket and give the Feds more control in our lives. Whats next taxing those who burn wood for heat?

  • Ed S.

    Obama’s clean coal talk has been just talk because there is no such technology; there is no clean coal. Is it Obama’s fault for listening to coal lobbyists during his campaign: YES! Is it acceptable for me as someone who voted for him to accept this change in position: YES!

    Coal is many things, but the most important thing to realize if that coal is not NECESSARY. Yes, we have many coal fired plants, yes we have many rail lines and coal mines (and associated jobs) which depend on coal power to survive, but this is all so small an impact comapred to the environmental impact and the human impact of using coal. Convert existing coal plants to natural gas and be done with coal forever.

  • Ed S.

    Obama’s clean coal talk has been just talk because there is no such technology; there is no clean coal. Is it Obama’s fault for listening to coal lobbyists during his campaign: YES! Is it acceptable for me as someone who voted for him to accept this change in position: YES!

    Coal is many things, but the most important thing to realize if that coal is not NECESSARY. Yes, we have many coal fired plants, yes we have many rail lines and coal mines (and associated jobs) which depend on coal power to survive, but this is all so small an impact comapred to the environmental impact and the human impact of using coal. Convert existing coal plants to natural gas and be done with coal forever.

  • http://www.elementalled.com Elemental LED staff

    12 senators, huh? So only 88 possible senators to threaten filibustering. And has Obama’s lip service to “clean coal” been just that?

  • http://www.elementalled.com Elemental LED staff

    12 senators, huh? So only 88 possible senators to threaten filibustering. And has Obama’s lip service to “clean coal” been just that?

  • Bill W

    Hmm. I can’t find the text right now, but with a Republican supporting it, I’m a little worried about whether there’s a small item in there that takes away EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 (i.e., that it’s a sneakier version of the Murkowski “Dirty Air Act” bill).

  • Bill W

    Hmm. I can’t find the text right now, but with a Republican supporting it, I’m a little worried about whether there’s a small item in there that takes away EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 (i.e., that it’s a sneakier version of the Murkowski “Dirty Air Act” bill).

Back to Top ↑