Publisher Scraps Kids Guide to Energy Sponsored by Coal Industry
Scholastic is now reviewing its policies and editorial protocol on sponsored titles and content. (image: fun-learning-activities-for-children.com)
After a New York Times article spurned intense public ridicule, major publishing company Scholastic announced it would no longer be offering The United States of Energy, an educational book for children sponsored by the American Coal Foundation, the Consumerist reported yesterday.
The Times article reported on three advocacy groups lobbying for Scholastic to stop distributing the fourth grade textbook, stating, “What they do not mention [in the book] are the negative effects of mining and burning coal: the removal of Appalachian mountaintops; the release of sulfer dioxide, mercury and arsenic; the toxic wastes; the mining accidents; the lung disease.”
The Chairman of the American Coal Foundation fired back in a letter, writing, “The United States of Energy educational program is not ‘a treatise on coal’ but offers instructional materials on all forms of energy that generate electricity…Steps have been taken to ensure the review and acceptance of the program by the education community.”
Coal generates more than half the electricity used in the United States. While more energy consumers are becoming aware of the serious and diverse hazards of burning coal, both for the environment and for human health, it’s unlikely to be totally phased out anytime soon. Scholastic had published The United States of Energy for the past three years – it was distributed to approximately 66,000 fourth grade teachers. But after the influx of public criticism, the company is discontinuing the title.
“We acknowledge that the mere fact of sponsorship may call into question the authenticity of the information, and therefore conclude that we were not vigilant enough as to the effect of sponsorship in this instance,” said Scholastic CEO Richard Robinson. “We have no plans to further distribute this particular program.”
Secretary Chu Calls on Gas Industry Leaders to Develop Safe Fracking
Energy Secretary Steven Chu, appointed the task of making natural gas fracking safe, spoke out about the issue on NPR. (image: news.cnet.com)
In an interview yesterday on National Public Radio’s The Diane Rehm Show, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu spoke out on hydraulic fracturing, the controversial method of extracting natural gas from shale rock, according to a Platts news report.
“We need to look into this, that it’s possible to extract that shale gas in a way that protects the water. We would need some of the leaders in the industry to step forward,” Chu said. “We would want to form a group that says, ‘These are the best practices that really minimize the harm to the environment and, especially, the water supply.’”
Chu acknowledged, “bad things have happened,” which many would call a serious understatement. Wastewater from fracking sites containing radiation, carcinogens, mercury, and various other toxins, has leaked into public drinking water sources. A recent probe by House Democrats revealed that at least six fracking states were found to have 100,000 gallons or more of contaminated water that would’ve otherwise been drinkable. Protests in Pittsburgh and Albany have called attention to the issue, but so far the EPA and gas industry haven’t come up with a clear plan for regulating the practice. Secretary Chu seemed miffed, like so many others, about why these chemicals are coming in contact with water sources.
“The question is, what is the cause of that, and how can they be prevented and mitigated,” he said. “Science will give us better ways of monitoring what is going on.”
*Natural gas is the most widely used heating fuel in the United States.
UK Fuel Poverty Measure Lets Fuel Companies Decide Who Qualifies for Aid
The "Warm Home Discount" will reduce some fuel poverty in the UK, but it doesn't automatically offer fuel rebates to low-income households with children. (image: tribuneindia.com)
The British government’s latest anti-poverty program, the “Warm Home Discount” scheme, has been simultaneously praised and criticized by consumer protection groups, according to UK Press Association reports.
When it takes effect in April, the new program will force home heating energy companies to give automatic discounts to retirees on low fixed incomes. The program seeks to help approximately two million households every year for the next four years by dispensing 1.1 billion pounds (about $1.78 billion) to such energy companies.
Here’s the issue – while the energy companies will be required to give rebates to retirees on pensions, they’ll also be allowed to decide which other vulnerable low-income households should receive heating assistance. Because it will be up to these companies’ individual discretion, citizens are concerned that some of the UK’s neediest households may not be granted access to the discount.
Spokespersons from Consumer Focus, Save the Children, and other public health and safety advocacy organizations have requested that government officials consider extending the automatic discount to low-income families with children and terminally ill or disabled members. However, the program remains unchanged so far.
MacMillan Cancer Support helps cancer sufferers with everyday challenges, including struggles with heating fuel poverty. (image: northwitts-communityweb.com)
“Across the country families and disabled people living on low fixed incomes are struggling to afford to heat their homes, which could be leaving the health of many at risk,” said Jonathan Stearn, energy expert for Consumer Focus. “The Warm Home Discount scheme will help to reduce these risks, but it should aim to cover all those who need help the most, not just older people on low incomes.”
“We are deeply disappointed that they have ignored calls for terminally ill cancer patients to automatically receive the rebate,” commented Mike Hobday, head of policy for MacMillan Cancer Support.
VT Leaders Convene to Protest Proposed LIHEAP Budget Cuts
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with Obama last year (image: thefeministwire.com)
Vermont’s congressional delegation will meet today to voice their opposition to President Obama’s proposed budget plan to reduce home heating aid for low-income families by more than half, according to the Associated Press.
Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy will meet with Rep. Peter Welch in Burlington to protest the potential cuts to LIHEAP, which provides crucial heating assistance to over 20,000 Vermont households. LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, helps eligible families, especially those with children, the disabled, and senior citizens on fixed incomes, pay their home heating and cooling costs.
Sanders, Leahy, and Welch have all worked to increase funding for LIHEAP in the past. Since 2008, its budget has remained $5.1 billion – the new proposed budget would cut that by $3 billion.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) (image: nytimes.com)
By targeting “non-defense discretionary spending,” Obama’s proposed budget seeks to reduce the national deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next ten years, the Huffington Post reports. Since the proposed budget was released last week, Obama has faced serious scrutiny from citizens and Democrats, and even Republicans representing colder, Northeastern states, expressing concern that the proposed cuts will primarily affect the working poor, students, and middle class. Last week, backed by Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Scott Brown, Sen. John Kerry wrote a letter to Obama asking that he reconsider slashing the LIHEAP budget, citing historically harsh weather in Massachusetts.
A record number of American households experiencing fuel poverty have qualified for LIHEAP assistance this year, due to high unemployment, severe winter weather, and rising energy costs. Obama will reveal his new budget plan early this week.
Proposed Budget Would Cut $3 Billion in Heating Assistance
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is one of several GOP leaders pushing for budget cuts for LIHEAP. (image: kentura.net)
As part of a list of proposed cuts aimed to reduce spending by $35 billion, Republican leaders announced intentions to chop the budget for LIHEAP, the federal heating assistance for the poor, by more than half, the National Journal reports.
LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, was created to help qualified families with their home heating, cooling and energy costs. They also offer services to aid home weatherization projects that keep homes warmer and heating costs lower. Overseen by the department of Health and Human Services, the program focuses on assisting families with children, the disabled, and senior citizens on fixed incomes. LIHEAP’s budget for the past few years has been $5.1 billion, and GOP leaders are seeking to reduce that allocation by $3 billion. Since its formation in 1981, LIHEAP’s budget has slowly risen to keep up with the rising cost of heating fuels.
In recent months, President Obama has come under intense pressure to reduce national spending, and pundits and insiders believe the cuts to sensitive programs like LIHEAP would let his administration demonstrate how serious he is about reducing the deficit. However, approving the budget reduction would almost certainly mean substantial backlash for Obama from both citizens and political allies who view LIHEAP’s function as essential.
Because of bitter winter weather, unrelenting unemployment rates, and high energy fuel prices, the number of household qualifying for federal aid is at a record high. The National Energy Assistance Director’s Association expects nearly 9 million American households experiencing fuel poverty to request government funding to help pay their heating bills. And, last month, Congress approved LIHEAP’s release of an extra $200 million in home heating funds to the states when winter storms left many Americans struggling to stay warm.
John Kerry (D-Mass.) is one of many Senators opposing the cut. In a letter to Obama written yesterday, Kerry stated, “We simply cannot afford to cut LIHEAP funding during one of the most brutal winters in history. Families across Massachusetts, and the country, depend on these monies to heat their homes and survive the season.”
Senator John Kerry requested that Obama not approve heating assistance budget cuts during a historically harsh New England winter. (image: treehugger.com)
“I understand that difficult cuts have to be made,” he wrote. “But in the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of millions of Americans, especially our senior citizens. I request that the administration preserve LIHEAP funding at least to the Fiscal Year 2010 funding at $5.1 billion when it submits its FY12 budget proposal to Congress.” To read the entire letter, visit the Huffington Post’s website.
According to the Boston Globe, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) remarked that all the reductions would help meet “our pledge to the American people that we will cut spending. All of this will help create an environment where we’ll have more jobs in America.”
At Heat USA we believe having a warm home is a basic human need, especially in the Northeast and other chilly regions of the country. We support all measures that help provide home heating aid to those who need it.
Coal-Fired Boilers Losing Steam
Coal-fired boilers aren't eco-friendly, but they do provide heat and power for millions of people. (image: energypackboilers.com)
December’s disastrous coal ash spill in Tennessee brought national attention to an issue that environmental activists, coal industry insiders, and government policy makers have been grappling with for years. Pressure to use less coal and cleaner, more efficient fuels to heat and power our buildings is mounting, but is anyone really taking action? Are any of those ideas coming to fruition?
Statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration reveal that currently, coal-fired boilers produce nearly 50% of the world’s electric supply, completely dominating every other fuel. Obviously, such widespread use will be slow to change. However, as coal resources diminish and more Americans educate themselves on clean energy alternatives, we’re finding other ways to heat and power our businesses, schools, and even individual homes.
The raised awareness of coal’s reputation for being dirty and unsustainable is beginning to produce results. A decade ago, the Sierra Club reported that over 150 coal plants were set to be built in various locations nationwide. Now, only 41 are planning to continue development and construction. From a more small-scale vantage, a recent situation at Purdue University illustrates the slow but important changing trend:
In July, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management granted the University permission to proceed with plans to replace a 50-year-old coal-fired boiler with another coal-fired boiler. The $28 million replacement would be a somewhat cleaner burning upgrade, lowering campus emissions of mercury and soot. Many locals argued that sticking with coal wasn’t the best solution, and the approval of the plans was quickly met with strong opposition by activists, students, and the Sierra Club.
“If Purdue pushes forward with this, it’s proving that it’s stuck in the past and abandoning its commitment to innovation and leadership in the energy field,” Indiana Sierra Club co-chairman Steve Francis told the Associated Press.
After months of debating, last week Purdue’s Board of Trustees announced their decision to halt plans on the replacement coal-fired boiler and instead request state officials to approve plans for a natural gas boiler. The University’s press release cited lowered gas prices and concern over future environmental regulations for coal among its reasons for rejecting the original plan.
What makes coal a “dirty” fuel?
Industrial coal-fired boilers burn pulverized coal (also known as coal dust or powdered coal) to push steam through large turbines, creating thermal energy. Since coal doesn’t combust, or burn, perfectly, it emits toxic emissions like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Coal plants are America’s largest source of human-generated mercury pollution.
Plus, it’s harvested through mountaintop removal mining, an invasive process that severely alters landscapes and has contaminated water in multiple regions. Coal-fired boilers produce millions of tons of toxic ash that must be dumped in landfills or storage ponds.
The Natural Resource Defense Council classified coal as our country’s single leading source of global warming pollution, and reported that health problems associated with coal pollution such as respiratory disease, birth defects, and childhood asthma account for nearly 25,000 deaths every year.
Clearly, coal-fired boilers aren’t the ideal catalysts for creating the electricity we need. But if organizations and individuals continue taking real steps (even if they’re baby steps) towards phasing it out, coal may eventually be a fuel of the past.
Heating Oil Users: Beware of Misleading Rebate System for Energy-Efficient Heating Systems
The Energy Star logo. (image: wikimedia.org)
By Josh Garrett, Editor of The HEAT Zone
To his credit, President Obama has made energy-efficiency a major priority in his agenda. Between appointing Nobel Laureate Steven Chu as Energy Secretary and repeatedly voicing support for energy efficiency and green energy advancements, he has helped lay the foundation for a US “energy revolution” in the coming years.
Perhaps most notably, Obama’s economic stimulus bill (which he signed into law in February) included the Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program, which provides sizeable tax rebates to consumers who purchase energy-efficient appliances. By offering the rebate (30 percent of the cost—including installation—of energy-efficient appliances, up to $1,500), the government encourages consumers to invest in slightly more expensive, energy-efficient appliances by enticing them with a rebate that will offset the increased cost of choosing a more efficient air conditioner refrigerator, or other everyday fixture. As more Americans buy energy-efficient appliances, less energy is consumed, which benefits the environment, reduces US imports of foreign oil, and saves citizens’ money on electricity and other energy bills. While this tax rebate does extend to heating oil equipment such as boilers and furnaces, the details of the rebate program are somewhat confusing and, some might say, unfair to heating oil users.
Read More »
US and China to Collaborate on Green Energy Research and Develoment
A Chinese worker inspects solar-powered street lights. (image: Alexander F. Yuan / Associated Press via nytimes.com)
This morning, the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, the United States and China, announced plans for a joint Clean Energy Research Center, according to the AP. Operations are set to begin by the end of 2009.
The US Department of Energy says the Center “would facilitate joint research and development on clean energy by teams of scientists and engineers from the U.S. and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country.” U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the Center – which will have headquarters in both countries – will focus on the current priorities of energy-efficient buildings, clean coal including carbon capture and storage, and clean vehicles. The U.S. and China together pledged $15 million to support initial activities.
The creation of the Center marks a compromise between these two countries, though concessions and qualifications of the program are still being worked out. A major point of contention between Beijing and Washington is how to balance restoration of the global economy while simultaneously preventing inevitable environmental destruction from climate change. Read More »
Climate Change Coalition Waffles on Support for Emissions Bill
(image: earthwillremain.files.wordpress.com)
The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that climate change legislation now working its way through Congress in the form of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) is encountering increased resistance from industry as changes are made to the bill. Some of the objections are coming from prominent members of The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a broad group of businesses and environmental organizations that was instrumental in building support for capping U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases in the first place.
In January of this year, USCAP issued “A Blueprint for Legislative Action”– a detailed framework for legislation to address climate change. USCAP CEOs testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee to discuss their efforts to advance climate legislation with a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system in 2009. USCAP members, according to the coalition’s website, “have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change”
It’s interesting that even though USCAP recommended that the U.S. set emissions standards, the provisions some of its members are having trouble with, according to the Journal article, are the very ones having to do with those standards. Caterpillar, for instance, objects to the standards for off-road heavy equipment like its bulldozers. It also objects to a provision which would impose tariffs on goods from countries that don’t match U.S. efforts to combat climate change. Read More »
Inadequate Electrical Grid Forces Pickens to Indefinitely Delay Massive Wind Project
Wind energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens has a lot to think about. (image: nytimes.com)
Forbes reported last Wednesday that Texas oilman, T. Boone Pickens, has announced that he will delay, or perhaps cancel, plans for a giant wind energy project in the Texas panhandle.
Pickens’ project was supposed to be the largest wind power field in the world at a rated generating capacity of 1,000 megawatts per hour — about the capacity of the average nuclear power plant.
Its demise came when Pickens discovered he couldn’t raise the money to build his own transmission lines to carry the energy from his remote 200,000 acre site. Hoped-for new lines to the area from Texas utilities didn’t materialize either. Pickens, Forbes said, is now stuck with $2 billion worth of GE turbines which he hopes to move to smaller projects throughout the Midwest and Canada. He says he’s now decided to wait for the government to build the needed transmission lines in Texas.
He may have a long wait. According to a related article in the Dallas Morning News, the Texas Public Utility Commission created a plan to build $5 billion in transmission lines to bring wind power from several areas of West Texas to North Texas and the Houston area. The lines will reach as far as the Panhandle but won’t go to Pickens’ remote location. Still, Pickens went ahead and ordered the initial round of wind turbines, which GE will start delivering in the first quarter of 2011. He has about 18 months to find a place to put them, the article said.
Forbes calls this a cautionary tale, and says its lessons should not be overlooked by anyone considering major alternative energy projects. Transmission is a critical and often overlooked component to making green energy work, particularly because potential wind and solar sites are often in remote areas. Read More »
