<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Coal industry front group touts benefits of strong emissions regulations]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Sean Casten http://www.grist.org/article/A-win-win-regulation/ Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:39:46 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/A-win-win-regulation/1 Well said, Joe

And it would be interesting to see that graph going back another 10 - 15 years historically; difficult because the data probably wasn't tracked very well before the Clean Air Act, but it would make a convincing case that the reductions are only due to the CAA passage.

Re: your piano lessons comment - several years ago, I was on a panel with a MA utility executive who bragged about what a great job he did encouraging energy efficiency and and how much money his utility had spent to that end (lightbulbs, motors, etc.)  Given as that was all system benefit charge funds paid directly by ratepayers - and which he had a regulatory obligation to spend on EE - it all seemed a bit disingenuous, especially given the fights utilities raised to end-user efficiency back in the 70s and 80s.  But to your point, it does proves that if you force people to do something good, once they're done whining about the means they will happily take credit for the ends.

And in the grand scheme of things, perhaps that's not so bad.  As Truman said, you can get a lot done if you don't care who gets the credit!

]]> Well said, Joe

And it would be interesting to see that graph going back another 10 - 15 years historically; difficult because the data probably wasn't tracked very well before the Clean Air Act, but it would make a convincing case that the reductions are only due to the CAA passage.

Re: your piano lessons comment - several years ago, I was on a panel with a MA utility executive who bragged about what a great job he did encouraging energy efficiency and and how much money his utility had spent to that end (lightbulbs, motors, etc.)  Given as that was all system benefit charge funds paid directly by ratepayers - and which he had a regulatory obligation to spend on EE - it all seemed a bit disingenuous, especially given the fights utilities raised to end-user efficiency back in the 70s and 80s.  But to your point, it does proves that if you force people to do something good, once they're done whining about the means they will happily take credit for the ends.

And in the grand scheme of things, perhaps that's not so bad.  As Truman said, you can get a lot done if you don't care who gets the credit!

]]> Comment #2 by Ted Nace http://www.grist.org/article/A-win-win-regulation/ Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:01:43 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/A-win-win-regulation/2 Hidden in the numbers

The coal industry likes to lump all its criteria emissions together and then brag about the reduction in the total. But this is one of those "how to lie with statistics" tricks that allows them to hide various troublesome facts. Notice that neither mercury nor arsenic is anywhere to be found on the ACCCE's list of pollutants. But even if mercury and arsenic were included, the relatively small (but deadly) quantities of these highly toxic materials would be swamped by the millions of tons of less toxic materials such as sulfur dioxide, which have indeed decreased due to stricter regulation. Basically, the tonnages of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides so outweigh everything else that the coal industry's "77% improvement" claim is really just a measure of progress on those two pollutants. Pollutants like carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds, where progress has not really happened, are produced in the hundreds thousands of tons rather than in the millions of tons and therefore are lost in the aggregation. Note also that PM-2.5, the very fine variety of particulates that researchers now consider one of the biggest contributors to mortality from power plants, is still not regulated and is not part of these figures. According to the EPA, PM-2.5 from coal-fired power plants rose from 97,000 tons in 1990 to 116,000 tons in 2000.

Help build CoalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.

]]> Hidden in the numbers

The coal industry likes to lump all its criteria emissions together and then brag about the reduction in the total. But this is one of those "how to lie with statistics" tricks that allows them to hide various troublesome facts. Notice that neither mercury nor arsenic is anywhere to be found on the ACCCE's list of pollutants. But even if mercury and arsenic were included, the relatively small (but deadly) quantities of these highly toxic materials would be swamped by the millions of tons of less toxic materials such as sulfur dioxide, which have indeed decreased due to stricter regulation. Basically, the tonnages of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides so outweigh everything else that the coal industry's "77% improvement" claim is really just a measure of progress on those two pollutants. Pollutants like carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds, where progress has not really happened, are produced in the hundreds thousands of tons rather than in the millions of tons and therefore are lost in the aggregation. Note also that PM-2.5, the very fine variety of particulates that researchers now consider one of the biggest contributors to mortality from power plants, is still not regulated and is not part of these figures. According to the EPA, PM-2.5 from coal-fired power plants rose from 97,000 tons in 1990 to 116,000 tons in 2000.

Help build CoalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.

]]>