EPA chief warned not to deny California on emission standard

WASHINGTON - A Environmental Protection Agency official warned her boss, EPA chief Stephen Johnson, that if he denied California's bid to enforce its own tailpipe emissions rules, the agency's credibility "will be irreparably damaged" and Johnson would have to think about resigning.

Margot Oge, the head of EPA's office of transportation and air quality, also told Administrator Johnson in an Oct. 17 memo that "there is no legal or technical justification for denying this," despite "alternative interpretations that have been suggested by the automakers."

These internal warnings were included in EPA documents released Tuesday by Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Environment Committee and had requested the records.

Johnson turned down California's request for a waiver from the Clean Air Act on Dec. 19, after months of review. He overruled the recommendations of senior staff members, according to several media reports, and the documents released Tuesday provide some examples.

Boxer said the documents showed "an agency in crisis," and called on the EPA to release additional documents about meetings with White House officials.

"The documents show the dedicated, professional staff working hard to protect our health and our environment," Boxer said. "We see more and more evidence of Administrator Johnson ignoring the science and the facts, and discarding the advice of his staff."

Boxer plans to question Johnson today when he appears before the committee to defend the EPA's proposed budget.

Johnson has defended his decision, announced the day a new energy bill was signed into law. He said the higher fuel economy standards contained in that bill precluded the need for state initiatives to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions.

Oge's office and other legal and technical staffers sent e-mails and memos citing California's long history of receiving EPA waivers - only two of the state's 95 requests had been even partially denied - and the case California had made for its own greenhouse-gas emissions standards. At least 16 other states are prepared to adopt the California standards if they are approved.

"I think Johnson now appreciates that there are additional conditions in California that make them vulnerable to climate change," a staffer wrote others in the EPA climate change division on Oct. 31.

Oge's "talking points" for Johnson, prepared by deputy director Christopher Grundler, recognized the historic nature of the decision and the pressures Johnson faced. The auto industry and the Bush administration's Department of Transportation lobbied against the California regulations, which in the absence of federal regulations were the most ambitious effort to tackle emissions causing global warming.

"Clearly the stakes are huge, especially with respect to future climate work," Oge's Oct. 17 memo for Johnson said. "You have to find a way to get this done. If you cannot, you will face a pretty big personal decision about whether you are able to stay in the job under those circumstances."

William Reilly, a former EPA administrator in President George H.W. Bush's administration, also worked with Oge and other top staffers in an unsuccessful effort to persuade Johnson to grant the waiver, according to members of Boxer's staff.

On May 1, when Johnson prepared to attend a White House meeting on the issue, his staff prepared a power point presentation noting the history of California waivers, and that "Congress wanted California to be afforded the broadest possible discretion" with such regulations.

The EPA did not turn over documents about that May 1 meeting.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quickly sued the EPA in early January to reverse its decision. Because of the litigation, EPA officials said they do not want to disclose additional documents that could be used against them in court. They had asked that the documents turned over to the committee be kept confidential, but Boxer decided to release them.

Boxer said she expected the next president would overturn the EPA decision because Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain support California's waiver request.

"But why on earth should we wait that long?" Boxer said. "We're only wasting time and money."

By Frank Davies Mercury News Washington Bureau
Article Launched: 02/26/2008 03:55:15 PM PST

AP Photo

McCain Scores Zero on Environmental Scorecard

Environmental scorecards, released yesterday by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) show significant differences between presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, all three of whom tout their environmental credentials.

The scorecards, which rank individual U.S. legislators based on their votes on environmental issues, focused on 15 votes this year--all of which senator McCain missed, resulting in a 0% score.

Presidential candidates historically suffer from absenteeism, due to busy campaign schedules that keep them away from Washington. However, Obama and Clinton both missed only 4 environmental votes, and received scores of 67% and 73% respectively.

McCain's lifetime average, as scored by LCV, is 24%, far below Obama's 86% lifetime average and Clinton's 87% lifetime average.

Of the 15 missed votes, McCain received harshest criticism from environmental groups earlier in the year for missing a vote that failed by only one "yes" to advance legislation that would have created tax incentives for renewable energy while repealing tax breaks for big oil and gas companies.

Commenting on Congress-wide scores, LCV President Gene Karpinski said 2007's scorecard shows that last year "marked a turning point for the environment" highlighted by the passage of an energy bill raising vehicle fuel efficiency, which he attributed to new leadership in both the U.S. House and Senate.

He noted that 71 out of the 89 candidates (80%) endorsed by the LCV in 2006 won, and said "electing pro-environment candidates is a critical first step toward enacting sound environmental policies that will protect our planet and our future."

"Elections have consequences," Karpinski said, noting that LCV's 2006 campaigns helped defeat 9 out of 13 of LCV's ‘Dirty Dozen' legislators. who had a combined average lifetime score of just 8%, while the new members who defeated them have a combined average score of 88%.

In 2008 the LCV said it will urge Congress to pass legislation reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 15-20% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050.

source - SustainableBusiness.com News

Oil-Rich UAE Pushes U.S. to Consider Green Energy

[Abu Dhabi] The capital of the UAE, Abu Dhabi, is investing heavily in alternative sources of energy. The oil rich emirate, the fourth largest OPEC producer, with 10 percent of the world’s known oil reserves, is keen to become a global center for the development and implementation of clean energy technology. The Masdar Initiative - a carbon-neutral city - backed by hundreds of millions of dollars of Abu Dhabi’s money is considered an ambitious goal. However, this historic step does not indicate that the rich emirate wishes to reduce its future investments in oil and gas. The oil and gas sectors still retain dazzling appeal to United States oil companies.

Big U.S. energy firms have a strong presence in UAE’s oil and gas sector, with a market share of 51%, according to published data. The giant multinational Halliburton unveiled plans last March, to move its base to Dubai, one of the UAE's seven emirates. Halliburton, which was headed by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney until 2000, said this move will take advantage of the Gulf region's vast oil and gas markets. The New York Times quotes Energy Intelligence Group analyst Susan Shook saying, “they are moving to the center of the Eurasian-African hemisphere and that’s where the bulk of the work is going to be in the future.”

According to the National U.S. Arab Chamber of Commerce publication, last June the U.S. Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Michele Sison, said, “with almost $12 billion in U.S. goods exported to the UAE in 2006, opportunities for American industry are virtually unlimited. Among the many sectors showing excellent promise are aircraft and parts, the oil and gas sectors, construction materials, safety and security equipment, medical equipment and project management and architectural and engineering services. “

The country’s current total oil production is around 2.8 million barrels per day, but in April 2007, the UAE’s Minister of Energy, Muhammad Bin Zain Al-Hamili, announced plans to increase production to 3.5 million barrels per day by 2009. Al-Hamili was also president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 2007.

One of the more important energy investments planned for the UAE in the next few years will be by ExxonMobil, which along with ADNOC and the Japan Oil Development Company, plans to increase production from Abu Dhabi’s huge Upper Zakum oil field from 520,000 barrels a day to around 750,000 barrels. ExxonMobil is also establishing a Technology Center in Abu Dhabi to support and train personnel in the most advanced production technologies. Abu Dhabi Oil and Gas City, a $1 billion tax-free zone for the energy industry, will house offshore firms in such fields as engineering, project management, consulting and finance. Occidental Petroleum is also working on the Dolphin Project, a multi-billion dollar initiative to bring natural gas from Qatar to the UAE and Oman.

Given the UAE’s critical need for energy and power, the energy sector is a key area for investment. A vital component of this strategic relationship is maintaining an unhindered flow of oil and gas.

In his meeting with David Hamoud, chairman of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce, ‘Salah Salim A-Shamsi, chairman of the Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce and Industry encouraged American companies to increase their investments in Abu Dhabi. A-Shamsi stressed the importance of allowing American companies an opportunity to enter the fields of engineering consultancy, oil services, and other fields and assured Hamoud that the UAE authorities would facilitate and pave the way in this regard.

Clean Energy

Abu Dhabi, bloated with oil money, is eager to explore the clean energy sector, which will definitely represent new opportunities for U.S. clean-tech companies. The Masdar initiative has attracted both attention and skepticism due to the relatively simple fact that Abu Dhabi’s Masdar initiative to research and develop renewable energy sources seems odd coming from one of world’s leading oil exporters. Despite the criticism, Masdar is still pursing its goals and showing how serious it is. Thus, Masdar is partnering the most prominent U.S. companies, educational institutions, and investment firms. The Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company (ADFEC), a government owned organization mandated to execute the Masdar Initiative, is open to new partnerships from all over the world.

Dr. Sultan Al-Jabir, CEO of Masdar, explained, "The world needs a portfolio of solutions, It can no longer be hydrocarbons or renewables. It is a combination of both." Since its commencement, Masdar gained momentum and support by participating in the Clinton Global Initiative on Energy and Climate Change (CGI) last year in New York.

In February 2007, the ADFEC signed a cooperative agreement with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) whereby MIT faculty would help expand the curriculum and organization of the Masdar Institute. Sultan Ahmad Al-Jabir, CEO of Masdar, hailed the agreement with one of the world’s most prominent universities. He said “The Masdar Institute will serve as the nucleus of the Masdar Initiative, feeding it with talent and innovative technologies to enhance economic development and promote new industries using renewable energy and resources in the emirate and the region.”

President George W. Bush visited a proposed model of Abu Dhabi’s Masdar City at the Emirates Palace Hotel in January this year. He said, "We just heard a briefing about how they're going to construct a city based entirely upon renewable energy. It will be an opportunity to see what works and what won't work, and an opportunity to share their technology with others.”

In Jan 21 this year, the ADFEC hosted the first World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, attracting around 200 of the world’s foremost innovators and experts clean energy, and an exhibition of alternative energy technologies. During the summit, His Highness, General Sheikh Muhammad Bin Zayyid Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, announced the most ambitious sustainability program ever launched by a government, to be funded by an initial investment of $15b. for projects targeting solar, wind and hydrogen power; carbon reduction and management, and sustainable development.

It is worth noting that American companies and universities are involved in the building and operation of Masdar. U.S. company CH2M HILL was appointed program manager for the first phase of the development and will be responsible for technology integration. Also, the American Louis Berger Group of consulting engineers will manage the Masdar city design process. So far, four architects firms have been shortlisted for the contract for designing the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company (Masdar) headquarters in its planned carbon-neutral city. Shortlisted are Foster & Partner, Murphy & Young and Atkins, all of the UK, and the US firm, Smith & Gill. Khalid 'Awad, director of the property development unit at Masdar said, "We will announce the winner soon." Groundbreaking on the world’s first zero carbon emmission city took place on 9 February. On the other hand, some analysts say that this city seeks to create a new global community only for the elite as it is not a social project.

SIDEBAR:

UAE-U.S. Security Ties By Sherin Deghedy

Security issues play an important part in the U.S.-UAE bilateral relationship, and given regional tensions, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. For more than a decade, the Defense Cooperation Agreement of 1994 between the U.S. and the UAE has provided a solid basis for military cooperation and coordination. Under this agreement, the UAE has participated in joint military training exercises with U.S. forces and offered U.S. forces access to UAE ports and territory. Lockheed Martin Corporation, for example, has worked closely with the UAE government on providing solutions to its defense needs, such as the F-16 fighter plane. Raytheon has had a presence in the UAE for decades and has been a key provider of UAE air defense systems since 1980.

Written by Sherin Deghedy

photo credit - NREL

to the source

Wall Street joins battle against global warming

From New Scientist

ENVIRONMENTALISTS have a new, unlikely ally in the fight against global warming.

A document signed on Monday by three of Wall Street's largest banks - Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley - requires anyone seeking money for new fossil-fuel power plants in the US to consider the effect this will have on the global climate.

The document, entitled The Carbon Principles, states that power companies that want to build new plants will be asked to consider renewable alternatives and carbon-trading schemes. Even if legal emission limits are not yet in place, the document requires power firms to consider future legislative changes and budget accordingly.

Borrowers will also have to analyse the potential of carbon capture schemes (see opposite), such as locking away carbon dioxide in disused oil reservoirs. In the US, the principles are likely to have the greatest impact on new coal-fired plants, some of which are already being disrupted by environmental objections.

Climate Change - Want to know more about global warming: the science, impacts and political debate? Visit New Scientist continually updated special report.

A Better Way to Capture Carbon

New materials provide a potentially cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Researchers have developed porous materials that can soak up 80 times their volume of carbon dioxide, offering the tantalizing possibility that the greenhouse gas could be cheaply scrubbed from power-plant smokestacks. After the carbon dioxide has been absorbed by the new materials, it could be released through pressure changes, compressed, and, finally, pumped underground for long-term storage.

Such carbon dioxide capture and sequestration could be essential to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, especially in countries such as the United States that depend heavily on coal for electricity. The first stage, capturing the carbon, is particularly important, since it can account for 75 percent of the total costs, according to the Department of Energy.

The new materials, described this week in Science, were created by researchers at UCLA led by Omar Yaghi, a chemist known for producing materials with intricate microscopic structures. They absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide but do not absorb other gases.

Techniques already exist for capturing carbon dioxide from smokestacks, but they use large amounts of energy--15 to 20 percent of the total electricity output of a power plant, according to one estimate, Yaghi says. That is because existing materials, known as amines, need to be heated to release the carbon dioxide they've absorbed. Indeed, capturing and compressing carbon dioxide through these existing methods can add 80 to 90 percent to the cost of producing electricity from coal, says Thomas Feeley, a project manager at the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

Feeley says that Yaghi's materials "compare favorably" with other experimental materials that absorb carbon dioxide that are being developed to help bring down these costs. Yaghi says that his materials could lower costs considerably since they use less energy, although exactly how much will require testing the materials at power plants.

Beyond being potentially useful in smokestacks, the materials could be employed in coal gasification plants. In these plants, coal is first processed to produce a mixture of carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas. The hydrogen is then used to generate electricity. The carbon dioxide could be captured using a solvent that increases energy consumption. But as in the smokestack-based process, the new UCLA materials could require less energy.

The materials belong to a class called zeolitic imidazolate frameworks (ZIFs). They're made of metal atoms bridged by one of a number of ring-shaped organic molecules called imidazolates. Prior to Yaghi's research, 24 types of ZIFs had been developed over the course of 12 years. Yaghi made 25 new versions in just three months. These materials can be extremely versatile, since the metal atoms can act as powerful catalysts, and the organic molecules can serve as anchors for a number of functional molecules.

The new materials absorb carbon dioxide in part because they're extremely porous, which gives them a high surface area that can come into contact with carbon dioxide molecules. The most porous of the materials that Yaghi reports in Science contain nearly 2,000 square meters of surface area packed into one gram of material. One liter of one of Yaghi's materials can store all of the molecules of carbon dioxide that, at zero °C and at ambient pressure, would take up a volume of 82.6 liters.

While the exact mechanisms are not fully understood, Yaghi thinks that the slightly negative charge of organic molecules in his material attracts carbon dioxide molecules, which have a slightly positive charge. As a result, carbon dioxide is held in place, while other gases move through the material. This method of trapping carbon dioxide is better than some other methods because it does not involve strong covalent bonds, so it doesn't take much energy to release the gas.

The next step for the materials is commercialization. This means scaling up production and incorporating the materials into a system at a power plant, such as by packing the materials into canisters that can be filled with pressurized exhaust gases--something that the UCLA group says could be possible in two to three years. Yaghi estimates that the materials could easily be made in large quantities, since they are similar to other materials he has developed that can now be made by the ton by BASF, the giant chemical company. "Now it's in the hands of industry," Yaghi says. And he has developed automated techniques that could lead to more materials that could have even better properties.

source -- MIT Technology Review

Top 10 Ways to Be More Energy Efficient – and Green – in 2008

“Going green” and “reducing your carbon footprint’ are all the rage, but these trendy concepts are nothing new for the Alliance to Save Energy. That’s because you can’t be green without minimizing your energy use; and energy efficiency has always been and remains the quickest, most cost-effective way to use less energy – and the amount of pollution you produce.

The added benefits: While lowering your household energy bills, energy efficiency doesn’t require sacrificing comfort or convenience, and it will increase your indoor comfort.

It’s just a matter of taking simple steps with your home and vehicles and employing today’s widely available, easy-to-use energy-efficiency technologies. You’ll not only ease the strain of today’s high energy prices on your household budget, you’ll also shrink the greenhouse gases and other global warming pollutants you spew into the atmosphere.

Here are the Alliance to Save Energy’s Top 10 Ways to be More Energy Efficient and Green in 2008:

10) Remember when your mom would ask, “Do you think we own stock in the electric company??!!” Take her sage advice and turn off lights, computers, TVs, stereos, etc. when you are done using them.

9) Green means clean – air filters, that is. Clean or replace HVAC filters regularly, whether you have a central heating and/or cooling system or window air conditioners.

8) Don’t let “vampire energy use”– aka “standby power” – suck your wallet dry. Instead, look for the ENERGY STAR label on electronics – TVs, VCRs, CD players, DVD players, cordless telephones, and more that continue to use less electricity in the “off” mode to keep display clocks lit and memory chips and remote controls working.

7) Keep on rolling – efficiently – down the highway. Keep your tires properly inflated to improve gas mileage by about 3.3 percent. You could save more than 20 gallons of gasoline per year, which amounts to about $60 per car annually and about $120 per typical two-vehicle U.S. household with gasoline at $3/gallon. Added benefits: Extended tire life and avoidance of more than 390 pounds of CO2 production per vehicle yearly.

6) “Show the love” to your car by keeping it in good working order. Fixing a car that is noticeably “out of tune” or has failed an emissions test can improve gas mileage by an average of 4 percent. That amounts to nearly 25 gallons of gasoline per year, or savings of about $80 per vehicle per year or about $160 per household. Added benefit: Savings of nearly 500 pounds of C02 per vehicle, or 1,000 pounds per household.

5) Generate light, not heat, with ENERGY STAR qualified lighting such as compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). Energy-efficient lighting products use at least 2/3 less energy than standard incandescent lighting and last up to 10 times longer. So despite their higher up-front cost, they yield lifetime savings of up to $50 per bulb. Added benefit: CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescents, so they don’t add to the summer heating load that your AC needs to cool down.

4) Don’t waste money and pollution by heating or cooling an empty house. When installed and properly programmed to follow your daily and weekly patterns, a programmable thermostat can cut heating and cooling costs by about 10 percent – enough, in most cases, to pay for the device within one season and then yield home energy savings of about $150 a year. Added benefit: When the thermostat “remembers for you” to adjust the temperature when no one is home, you come home to a comfortable house yet have not wasted money or polluted unnecessarily.

3) Reach for the stars – the ENERGY STARs, that is. ENERGY STAR qualified products can cut related electricity costs by up to 30 percent. More than 50 categories of products are now labeled with this government “seal of approval” for energy efficiency. In addition to electronics and lighting (see tip numbers 8 and 5), they also include appliances, HVAC systems, windows, and more (see www.energystar.gov for a complete rundown).

2) Don’t waste money and energy heating and cooling the great outdoors, either! Make sure you have the proper amount of insulation for your climate, and seal leaks around doors and windows to cut your heating and cooling bills by up to 20 percent. With home energy costs estimated at $2,200 for the average U.S. household in 2008, and just over half of that going for heating and cooling, those savings can amount to about $225. Added benefit: Eliminate drafts and hot and cold spots for greater indoor comfort.

1) Slow down and save! Each 5 miles per hour you drive over 60 mph costs you about 20 cents more per gallon of gasoline. And aggressive driving habits – speeding, rapid acceleration and braking – can lower gas mileage by a whopping 33 percent at highway speeds and 5 percent around town. But driving sensibly can save up to 200 gallons of gasoline per year at highway speeds, or about $600 per car and about $1,200 per household with gasoline prices at $3/gallon. Added benefit: Avoiding up to 4,000 pounds of CO2 per car/8,000 per household.


For further information:Ronnie Kweller: 202-530-2203 (office); 202-276-9327 (mobile)Rozanne Weissman: 202-530-2217 (office); 202-904-4490 (mobile)
~~~~~
The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote the efficient and clean use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, the environment, economy, and national security.

U.S. Moving Toward Ban on New Coal-Fired Power Plants

In a report compiled in early 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy listed 151 coal-fired power plants in the planning stages and talked about a resurgence in coal-fired electricity. But during 2007, 59 proposed U.S. coal-fired power plants were either refused licenses by state governments or quietly abandoned.

In addition to the 59 plants that were dropped, close to 50 more coal plants are being contested in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged as they reach the permitting stage.

What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations and a fast-growing number of state governments. The public at large is turning against coal. In a September 2007 national poll by the Opinion Research Corporation about which electricity source people would prefer, only 3 percent chose coal.

One of the first major coal industry setbacks came in early 2007, when environmental groups convinced Texas-based utility TXU to reduce the number of planned coal-fired power plants in Texas from 11 to 3. And now even those 3 proposed plants may be challenged. Meanwhile, the energy focus within the Texas state government is shifting to wind power. The state is planning 23,000 megawatts of new wind-generating capacity (equal to 23 coal-fired power plants).

In May, Florida’s Public Service Commission refused to license a huge $5.7-billion, 1,960-megawatt coal plant because the utility could not prove that building the plant would be cheaper than investing in conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. This argument by Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental legal group, combined with widely expressed public opposition to any more coal-fired power plants in Florida, led to the quiet withdrawal of four other proposals for coal plants in the state. Republican Governor Charlie Crist, who is keenly aware of Florida’s vulnerability to rising seas, is actively opposing new coal plants and has announced that the state plans to build the world’s largest solar-thermal power plant.

The principal reason for opposing new coal plants is the mounting concern about climate change. Another emerging reason is soaring construction costs. And then there are intensifying health concerns about mercury emissions and the 23,600 U.S. deaths per year from power plant air pollution. (See data.)

Utilities have argued that carbon dioxide (CO2) from coal plant smokestacks could be captured and stored underground, thus helping keep hope for the industry alive. But on January 30, 2008, the Bush administration announced that it was pulling the plug on a joint project with 13 utilities and coal companies to build a demonstration coal-fired power plant in Illinois with underground carbon sequestration because of massive cost overruns. The original cost of $950 million when the project was announced in 2003 had climbed beyond $1.5 billion by early 2008, with further rises in prospect. The cancellation effectively moves the date for any coal plants with carbon sequestration so far into the future that this technology has little immediate relevance.

Some utilities are being refused licenses for coal plants because they have not examined alternative methods of satisfying demand, such as increasing the efficiency of electricity use. For example, insulating buildings greatly reduces energy needs for heating and cooling. Shifting to more-efficient light bulbs would save enough electricity to close 80 U.S. coal power plants.

The Sierra Club, the national leader on this issue, is working with hundreds of local groups to mount legal challenges in state after state. Other national groups that are actively involved include the Rainforest Action Network, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Environmental Defense. Information on the grassroots momentum to oppose coal plants is tracked on the Web site Coal Moratorium NOW!.

States that are working to reduce carbon emissions are banding together to discourage other states from building new coal plants simply because it would cancel their own carbon reduction efforts. In late 2006, for instance, the attorneys general of California, Wisconsin, New York, and several other northeastern states wrote to Kansas health officials urging them to deny permits for two new coal power plants of 700 megawatts each. The permits were subsequently denied, citing that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and should be regulated, as determined in an April 2007 Supreme Court ruling. And in a letter on January 22, 2008, a similar grouping of states urged South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control to refuse a permit for the proposed 600-megawatt Pee Dee coal plant.

Coal’s future is also suffering as Wall Street turns its back on the industry. In July 2007, Citigroup downgraded coal company stocks across the board and recommended that its clients switch to other energy stocks. In January 2008, Merrill Lynch also downgraded coal stocks. In early February 2008, investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi, and J.P. Morgan Chase announced that any future lending for coal-fired power would be contingent on the utilities demonstrating that the plants would be economically viable with the higher costs associated with future federal restrictions on carbon emissions. On February 13, Bank of America announced it would follow suit.

In August 2007, coal took a heavy political hit when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had been opposing three coal-fired power plants in his own state, announced that he was now against building coal-fired power plants anywhere in the world. Investment banks and political leaders are beginning to see what has been obvious for some time to climate scientists, such as NASA’s James Hansen who says that it makes no sense to build coal-fired power plants when we will have to bulldoze them in a few years.

In early November 2007, Representative Henry Waxman of California announced his intention to “introduce legislation that establishes a moratorium on the approval of new coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act until EPA finalizes regulations to address the greenhouse gas emissions from these sources.” If a national moratorium is passed by Congress, it will mark the beginning of the end for coal-fired power in the United States.

We may be on the verge of a monumental victory in the worldwide effort to stabilize climate. In our new book, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, I propose cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020. The first step is to stop building any new coal-fired power plants. If the United States imposes a moratorium on such construction, as Denmark and New Zealand have already done, it would send a powerful signal to the rest of the world, bolstering the effort to cut carbon emissions. The next steps are to quickly exploit the vast worldwide potential to raise energy efficiency and to massively develop renewable sources of energy, such as wind, solar, and geothermal, in order to phase out existing coal-fired power plants.

The world is moving toward a political tipping point on the climate issue. If it comes soon enough, we may yet avoid catastrophic climate change.

Lester R. Brown -- Earth Policy Institute