DOCSLIB.ORG

Health Impact Assessment of Coal and Clean Energy Options in Kentucky

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Health Impact Assessment of Coal and Clean Energy Options in Kentucky Health Impact Assessment of Coal and Clean Energy Options in Kentucky A Report from Kentucky Environmental Foundation By Elizabeth Walker, PhD Deborah Payne, MPH Acknowledgements The authors thankfully acknowledge the following experts for reviews and comments on drafts of this report: Carla Baumann, MSN, RN Philip Curd, M.D., MSPH Richard Futrell, PhD Michael Hendryx, PhD David Mannino, MD John Patterson, MD, MSPH Monica Unseld, PhD Any remaining errors are entirely our own. The authors also thank contributions of interviews carried out by students of Berea College’s Health in Appalachia course (HEA/APS 210), Fall 2010 and 2011. About Kentucky Environmental Foundation: The Kentucky Environmental Foundation (KEF) is a non-pro!t organization dedicated to securing solutions to environmental problems in a manner, which safeguards human health, promotes environmental justice, preserves ecological systems and encourages sustainability. Design and layout: Rob Gorstein Graphic Design, Inc. i Health Impact Assessment of Coal and Clean Energy Options in Kentucky Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................3 Health Impacts of Coal Mining ............................................................................................5 1. Surface mining ...........................................................................................................6 a. Heavy metals and acid mine drainage: water contamination .......................................7 b. Dust .......................................................................................................................9 c. Flooding and accidents ............................................................................................9 d. Psychological effects of mountaintop mining ...........................................................10 2. Deep coal mining ......................................................................................................12 a. Slurry and slurry pond "ooding ...............................................................................15 Health Impacts of Coal Processing and Transportation .......................................................16 Health Impacts of Power Plant Emissions ..........................................................................18 1. Particulates ..............................................................................................................18 2. Mercury emissions ....................................................................................................20 3. Greenhouse gas emissions ........................................................................................22 Health Impacts of Coal Waste ...........................................................................................23 Health Impacts of Energy Efficiency And Renewable Energies ............................................25 Recommendations ............................................................................................................32 References .......................................................................................................................33 A Report from Kentucky Environmental Foundation ii Executive Summary Introduction lungs, and nervous system, as well as damage prenatal development. Coal-!red power plants also emit If we Kentuckians value our health, and if Kentucky mercury, a toxicant that can have signi!cant negative legislators are concerned with improving public health, it e$ects on the nervous system, especially in fetuses, is imperative that community and state leaders examine infants, and children. Individuals can experience loss the role of energy policy in determining health outcomes. of intelligence that can last a lifetime, in addition to Governments and institutions are increasingly using other nervous system disabilities. Health Impact Assessments (HIA) as tools to help make policy decisions in the best interest of public health. t Coal extraction and burning processes release Using both quantitative and qualitative data, an HIA can greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, arrive at policy recommendations or propose a speci!c which are linked to climate change. Climate change course of action to create the best health outcome possible. impacts public health through heat strokes, %ooding, Energy policy in Kentucky has typically been loss of crops, and increased spread of diseases. designed to maintain the use of coal, a resource that t Remaining coal ash contains toxic metals such as currently provides roughly 93-94% of Kentucky’s arsenic and cadmium. "is is stored in impoundment electricity. Kentucky legislators have given less attention ponds and land!lls across Kentucky. "ese toxic to the speci!c health bene!ts and consequences of metals can leak into water supplies or blow into the our energy options. "is HIA provides a health-based air, causing cancer and other health problems. screening of coal, and of the energy e#ciency and Electricity can also be generated from renewable renewable energy options proposed in the Clean Energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro and biomass, and Opportunity Act as introduced in the 2011 and 2012 these sources may also have some health impacts. For Kentucky legislative sessions. example, solar panel manufacturing involves use of Findings. Coal has provided reliable electricity many heavy metals and chemicals (as in other electronics to Kentuckians for decades and has provided many manufacturing) and as such poses occupational exposure Kentuckians with the bene!ts of employment, but risks. Low-frequency noise and vibrations from wind at a substantial cost to the health of people in the turbines have been reported to cause disturbances Commonwealth. Public health is a$ected throughout the to some people living close by. Biomass can involve coal cycle from mining to waste disposal: combustion of fuel sources like wood and switchgrass or t Mountaintop mining exposes people to air pollution, other materials, which result in air emissions that may be contamination of groundwater and drinking water, harmful depending on the fuel used. %ooding, structural damage to homes, and accidents. Energy e#ciency is not an electricity source, rather t Miners working in deep coal mines are exposed to refers to methods of using electricity from any source high levels of dust, noise, and toxic gasses, leading to more e#ciently. Home weatherization, energy e#cient respiratory damage and hearing damage. appliances and lighting are common examples of energy t After coal is extracted, it is cleaned with a chemical e#ciency. Health impacts from energy e#ciency wash. Any hazardous chemicals remaining from the activities may come from exposure to chemicals in wash are stored in ponds or injected into abandoned construction or building materials, as would be the case mines, both of which may leak into streams, rivers, generally with any new building construction or retro!t. and groundwater. Spills may involve millions of Scienti!c and health research clearly show that gallons, leading to %ooding of toxic chemicals. the bene!cial impacts of energy e#ciency and renewable energy are often realized in the avoidance t Coal is transported by rail or trucks, which has led to of additional pollution from coal. Displacement of accidents and respiratory disease from coal dust and pollution at each step in the coal cycle means lower diesel combustion. rates of worker illness or injury. Lower levels of soot, t Impacts from coal power plants can be measured heavy metals, greenhouse gases and other harmful up to hundreds of miles from the source. Gaseous emissions can directly reduce the number of heart emissions and particulate matter can a$ect the heart, attacks and asthma attacks. In addition to the health 1 Health Impact Assessment of Coal and Clean Energy Options in Kentucky bene!ts of pollution prevention, tangible bene!ts from Recommendations energy e#ciency can be observed. Bene!ts include Based on these !ndings, we recommend: those from home weatherization, which results in 1. Kentucky legislators should support diversi!cation fewer incidences of general illnesses, and reduction in of Kentucky’s energy portfolio to include renewable eye-strain and headaches when energy e#cient lighting energy from sources such as solar, wind or hydro, and is used. provide incentives for Kentuckians to use energy more Research also shows that avoiding the use of less- e#ciently. "ese portfolio standards would displace or non-toxic chemicals and materials can mitigate pollution from coal and provide additional direct health some of the potential health impacts associated with bene!ts to Kentucky residents. Policy proposals like energy e#ciency. Renewable energy health impacts the Clean Energy Opportunity Act (HB 167) of 2012 can be addressed at the manufacturing or installation could help shift toward a healthier energy portfolio. phase or in the case of biomass, by choosing non-toxic 2. renewable fuels. Kentucky legislators and environmental regulatory "e HIA authors and reviewers intend for this agencies should consider the health impacts of our document to serve as a tool primarily for Kentucky state’s current and future energy policy and consider legislators to consider health outcomes of energy policy requiring that HIAs
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2019
    Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2020 Rank Mine Name / Operating Company Mine Type State Production (short tons) 1 North Antelope Rochelle Mine / Peabody Powder River Mining LLC Surface Wyoming 66,111,840 2 Black Thunder / Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Surface Wyoming 50,188,766 3 Antelope Coal Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 19,809,826 4 Freedom Mine / The Coteau Properties Company Surface North Dakota 12,592,297 5 Eagle Butte Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 12,303,698 6 Caballo Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 11,626,318 7 Belle Ayr Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 11,174,953 8 Kosse Strip / Luminant Mining Company LLC Surface Texas 10,104,901 9 Cordero Rojo Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 9,773,845 10 Buckskin Mine / Buckskin Mining Company Surface Wyoming 9,699,282 11 Spring Creek Coal Company / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Montana 9,513,255 12 Rawhide Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 9,494,090 13 River View Mine / River View Coal LLC Underground Kentucky 9,412,068 14 Marshall County Mine / Marshall County Coal Resources Underground West Virginia 8,854,604 15 Bailey Mine / Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company Underground Pennsylvania 8,668,477 16 Falkirk Mine / Falkirk Mining Company Surface North Dakota 7,261,161 17 Mc#1 Mine / M-Class Mining LLC Underground Illinois 7,196,444 18 Tunnel Ridge Mine / Tunnel Ridge, LLC Underground West Virginia 6,756,696 19 Lively Grove Mine / Prairie State Generating Company
    [Show full text]
  • REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water
    REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water March 2014 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation EPA 542-R-14-001 Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 5 Notice and Disclaimer..................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 9 Passive Technologies Technology: Anoxic Limestone Drains ........................................................................................ 11 Technology: Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS).................................................. 16 Technology: Aluminator© ............................................................................................................ 19 Technology: Constructed Wetlands .............................................................................................. 23 Technology: Biochemical Reactors .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coal and Coal Mining in Washington
    State of Washington ARTHUR B. LANGLIE, Governor Department of Conservation and Development ED DAVIS , Director DIVISION OF MINES AND MINING SHELDON L. GLOVER, Supervisor • Report of Investigations No. 4 Coal and Coal Mining in Washington By STEPHEN H. GREEN OLYMPIA STA1'E PRINTING PL ANT 19'1 (' CONTENTS Page Foreword .. 3 Introduction . • . 5 Selected bibliography . 6 Historical . 7 Coal areas of the State. 8 :Northwestern Washington ..................................... 8 King County . 9 Pierce County . 10 Southwestern Washington ..................................... 11 Kittitas County .. ............ .. ........................... 11 Anthracite . 12 Whatcom County ............................ .................... 12 Lewis County ........ ................... ....................... 13 Coal production ..................................... .. ..... ........ 18 Coal mining methods.. 20 Coke industry ...... ·.... -· ................ , ......... : ................ 16 Conditions affecting mining.. 20 Carbonization and hydrogenation of coal. ............................... 17 Fuel briquets . 16 :New prospects and developments.. 41 Present status of the coal mining industry ............................... 24 Properties operating in 1943. 25 King County . 26 Kittitas County . 38 Lewis County . 36 Pierce County . 33 Thurston County . 35 Whatcom County .......................... ..... ................ 25 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing principal coal areas of Washington ........ Facing 8 Figure 2. Graph of production 1860-1942, inclusive .
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Waste Water Quality Management in Iilawarra Coal Mines
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Engineering and Information Coal Operators' Conference Sciences 1998 Study of Waste Water Quality Management in IIlawarra Coal Mines R. N. Singh University of Wollongong H. B. Dharmappa University of Wollongong Muttucumaru Sivakumar University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/coal Recommended Citation R. N. Singh, H. B. Dharmappa, and Muttucumaru Sivakumar, Study of Waste Water Quality Management in IIlawarra Coal Mines, in Naj Aziz and Bob Kininmonth (eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Coal Operators' Conference, Mining Engineering, University of Wollongong, 18-20 February 2019 https://ro.uow.edu.au/coal/268 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Study of Waste Water Quality Management in IIlawarra Coal Mines ABSTRACT This paper is concerned with two case histories of wastewater quality management in underground coal mines in the I1lawarra region. The first investigation briefly presents an analysis of mine water discharge having an extremely high concentration of suspended solids and consistently high barium concentrations, averaging 14.4 mg/l Barium, over the sampling period. A laboratory study of chemical precipitation processes has indicated that about 91% of barium could be removed by using ferric sulphate and lime. On the basis of the information obtained from the environmental audit process an alternative water treatment and reuse system incorporating 51% reduction in the water consumption with 32% less off-site discharge has been suggested (Thomas, 1995). The second case history is concerned with the storm water management at a mine situated in the Illawarra escarpment where only 20% of the wastewater generated in the colliery is discharged off -site.
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental Impacts from Coal Cradle to Grave: the Environmental Impacts from Coal © 2001, Photostogo © 2001, Photostogo
    Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal © 2001, PhotosToGo © 2001, PhotosToGo Clean Air Task Force 77 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110 June, 2001 Clean Air Task Force 77 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 292-0234 Fax: (617) 292-4933 CATF gratefully acknowledges support for this report from the following foundations: The Turner Foundation The John Merck Fund The Joyce Foundation The Heinz Endowments The Rockefeller Brothers Fund The Energy Foundation The Kapor Foundation Credits: Writer: Martha Keating, Clean Air Task Force Editing: Ellen Baum, Clean Air Task Force Amy Hennen, Izaak Walton League of America Design Editor: Bruce Hill, Clean Air Task Force Design: Jill Bock Design Printing: Spectrum Printing & Graphics, Inc. June, 2001 Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal Cradle to Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal he electric power industry is health. Some are known to cause the largest toxic polluter in cancer, others impair reproduc- the country, and coal, which tion and the normal development Tis used to generate over half of of children, and still others the electricity produced in the damage the nervous and immune U.S., is the dirtiest of all fuels.1 systems. Many are also respira- From mining to coal cleaning, tory irritants that can worsen from transportation to electricity respiratory conditions such as generation to disposal, coal asthma. They are an environmen- © 2001, PhotosToGo releases numerous toxic pollut- tal concern because they ants into our air, our waters and onto our lands.2 Nation- damage ecosystems. Power plants also emit large ally, the cumulative impact of all of these effects is quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), the “greenhouse gas” magnified by the enormous quantities of coal burned each largely responsible for climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 River Basin Management Plan
    2021 River Basin Management Plan Mine waters challenge Published: 22/10/2019 Contents 1. Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 2. Mine water pressures ............................................................................................... 3 3. Addressing the challenge ......................................................................................... 6 4. Future challenges and actions .................................................................................. 9 5. Case studies: abandoned metal mines ................................................................... 12 6. Choices ................................................................................................................... 17 7. Contacts and supporting information ...................................................................... 18 8. References ............................................................................................................. 18 1. Summary Mining played a major part in Britain’s rich industrial history, but this also led to thousands of abandoned mines left scattered across our landscape. Most of these mines closed well over 100 years ago but they still pollute our rivers, harm fish, river insects and ecosystems and can have an adverse impact on economic activity. Discharges from abandoned mines continue to pollute over 1,500km (3%) of rivers in England. Pollution from coal mines is easy to see, because the iron rich water they
    [Show full text]
  • Air Pollution Due to Opencast Coal Mining and It's Control in Indian Context M K Ghose • and S R Maj Ee Centre of Mining Environment
    Jou rn al of Scientific & Industrial Research Vol. 60, October 200 I, pp 786-797 Air Pollution due to Opencast Coal Mining and It's Control in Indian Context M K Ghose • and S R Maj ee Centre of Mining Environment. In dian School of Mines, Dhanb ad 826004, India Received: 29 Janu ary 200 I; accept ed : 29 June 200 I Open cast mining dominates th e coal production scenario in India. It creates more serious air pollution prob le m in the area. Coal producti on scenari o and its impact on air quality is descri bed. To maint ain th e energy demand in opencast min ing i~ growing at a phenomenon rate. There is no wcll-clefinccl method for assess in g the impact on air qu alit y clu e to minin g projects. An investi gati on is condu cted to evalu ate th e impact on ai r enviro nment due to opcncast coal mining. Emi ssion fac tor dat a arc utili zed for computati on of du st ge neration due to different mining ac ti viti es. Approach for the selec ti on of work zo ne and ambient air monitoring stations arc cl cscribccl. Work zone air qu alit y, ambient air qu alit y, and seasonal va riati ons arc di sc ussed. whi ch shows hi gh po llution potential clue to SPM. The statu s of air pollution clue to opencast mining is evaluated and its impac t on air environment is assessed. Characteristics SPM show a great concern to human hea lth .
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Mine Methane (CMM) Finance Guide Updated July 2019
    EPA-400-D-09-001 Coal Mine Methane (CMM) Finance Guide Updated July 2019 Introduction such as the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Global methane emissions from the coal Implementation originally created financial mining sector can be reduced through markets and incentives to develop projects recovery and utilization projects that collect that reduce GHG emissions, and the California methane gas from coal mines for productive and Quebec Cap-and-Trade programs have use or through destruction when an economic expanded to include CMM offsets. More use is not feasible. recently, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s provides a pathway for international (EPA’s) Coalbed Methane Outreach Program cooperation through markets and carbon (CMOP) is a voluntary program with the goal pricing associated with Nationally Determined of reducing methane emissions from coal Contributions. Third, multinational mining activities. Our mission is to promote collaborative initiatives such as the Global the profitable recovery and utilization of coal Methane Initiative (www.globalmethane.org) mine methane (CMM), a potent greenhouse have focused on overcoming policy, gas (GHG) that contributes to climate change regulatory, legal, and technical barriers that if emitted to the atmosphere. When collected inhibit project development. and used for energy, CMM is a valuable fuel Often, the critical barrier to developing CMM source. projects is securing financing. This is due, in CMOP estimates that more than 200 CMM part, to the lack of awareness of the sources projects exist worldwide. Many more project of finance and limited understanding of the opportunities exist in emerging market requirements to secure financing.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Particulate Matter (PM10) Related to Surface Coal Mining Operations in Appalachia
    Atmospheric Environment 54 (2012) 496e501 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Atmospheric Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv Short communication Characterization of particulate matter (PM10) related to surface coal mining operations in Appalachia Viney P. Aneja a,*, Aaron Isherwood b, Peter Morgan b a Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8208, USA b Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, San Francisco, CA 94105-3441, USA article info abstract Article history: This study investigates the environmental exposure of residents of a community in southwest Virginia to Received 20 June 2011 respirable concentrations of dust (PM-10 i.e. PM10) generated by trucks hauling coal from surface coal Received in revised form mining operations. The study site is representative of communities in southwest Virginia and other parts 13 February 2012 of Appalachia that are located in narrow hollows where homes are placed directly along roads that Accepted 15 February 2012 experience heavy coal truck traffic. Preliminary air sampling (Particulate Matter i.e. PM10) was conducted for a period of approximately Keywords: two weeks during early August 2008 in the unincorporated community of Roda, Virginia, at two locations Surface coal mining (about a mile apart along Roda Road (Route 685) in Wise County, Virginia). For the purposes of this study PM10 Elemental analysis (a combination of logistics, resource, and characterization of PM) we sited the PM samplers near the road Electron microscopy to ascertain the micro exposure from the road. The results revealed high levels of PM10 (the mean 3 3 Air toxic adjusted 24-h concentration at the Campbell Site 250.2 mgmÀ ( 135.0 mgmÀ ); and at the Willis 3 ¼ Æ 3 Site 144.8 60.0 mgmÀ ).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact of Methane Released from Coal Mines
    MATEC Web of Conferences 305, 00030 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202030500030 SESAM 2019 Environmental impact of methane released from coal mines Nicolae Ianc1*, Corneliu Boantă1, Ion Gherghe1, Cristian Tomescu1 1National Institute for Research and Development in Mine Safety and Protection to Explosion – INSEMEX, 32-34 G-ral Vasile Milea Street, Petrosani, Hunedoara, Romania Abstract. Methane gas accompanying coal deposits was formed as a result of successive stages of the anaerobic process of vegetal material transformation into coal, at high temperatures and pressures, without external oxygen supply. During the metamorphism process, the content of C, H and O is modified, meaning an increase in carbon content, a decrease in hydrogen and oxygen, the nitrogen and sulphur content remaining constant. During this process, water and carbon dioxide is generated, the water being generated in the first transformation phases. Within the slow oxidation process, gas products result by using the oxygen content in plants, especially methane and carbon dioxide due to the fermentation stimulated by bacteria. Methane released into the atmosphere following the mining of coal have double ecological impact, participating in the destruction of the ozone layer and at the same time contributing to the enhancement of the greenhouse effect. At the same time, methane gas released into the atmosphere during coal mining may be used by mining operators as primary power resource for covering the power requirements of the mine or it can be used for commercial purposes. 1 Introduction The methane gas that accompanies the coal deposits was formed as a product in the successive stages of the process of anaerobic conversion of the vegetal material into coal at high temperatures and pressures, during the carbonization process, without oxygen supply from the outside.
    [Show full text]
  • AP-42 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining
    Revision of Emission Factors for AP-42 Section 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining Revised Final Report For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Factor and Inventory Group Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Attn: Ron Myers (MD-14) EPA Contract 68-D2-0159 Work Assignment No. 4-02 MRI Project No. 4604-02 September 1998 Revision of Emission Factors for AP-42 Section 11.9 Western Surface Coal Mining Revised Final Report For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Emission Factor and Inventory Group EPA Contract 68-D2-0159 Work Assignment No. 4-02 MRI Project No. 4604-02 September 1998 NOTICE The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-D2-0159 to Midwest Research Institute. It has been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. iii PREFACE This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Contract No. 68-D2-0159, Work Assignment No.4-02. Mr. Ron Myers was the requester of the work. Approved for: MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE Roy Neulicht Program Manager Environmental Engineering Department Jeff Shular, Director Environmental Engineering Department July 1998 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1 Introduction ...................................................... 1 Section 2 Revision of AP-42 Section on Western Surface Coal Mining .................
    [Show full text]
  • Accounting for Carbon Pollution from Coal Mining on Federal Lands
    ISSUE BRIEF: ACCOUNTING FOR CARBON POLLUTION FROM COAL MINING ON FEDERAL LANDS COAL’S CLIMATE LEGACY AT HOME AND ABROAD Combustion of coal is one of the leading drivers of climate change. Primarily burned as a source for electricity gen- eration, coal is up to two times more carbon pollution intensive than other fossil fuels used for power generation generation. Due to changes in the domestic market and policies aimed at cleaning up coal-fired power generation, the number of power plants in the United States that burn coal has dropped, and there are virtually no new coal fired power plants slated for construction. Well-designed and properly implemented, new power plant rules will continue to drive down domestic demand for coal and spur more renewable energy development. The decrease in domestic demand and policies to reduce carbon pollution at home are not deterring coal producers from seeking new markets to sell their product – particularly in energy-hungry Asia. The U.S. government has a lead- ing role to play in domestic coal production. Perhaps most significantly, about 40 percent of annual coal produc- tion comes from publicly owned minerals. Companies lease the coal from the federal Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM).1 Despite policies that are intended to drive down U.S. carbon pollution, the federal government continues to lease coal rights at rock bottom prices without adequately or consistently accounting for the significant carbon impacts of these decisions. Continued leasing of public lands for coal production is undermining other efforts to cut carbon pollution by allowing our coal to be strip-mined, loaded on trains, shipped from ports and burned overseas.
    [Show full text]