ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Nothing to hide? | Main | Coke settles benzene lawsuit »
Subsidies for dirty energy
According to the Washington Post, a New Deal program intended to spur investment in rural electricity production in the 1930s continues to shell out billions in low-interest loans for building coal-fired power plants. Though some have tried to eliminate the antiquated subsidy under the argument that most rural areas in the States now have easy access to electricity, the program has proven quite resilient. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association insists that cheap loans will help to keep electric rates affordable in rural regions, warning that any congressional action that jacks up energy prices could result in political suicide.
At the same time, concern over global warming has pressured lawmakers to search for solutions. Investment in coal power will only increase US greenhouse gas emissions, and could offset the positive effects of new vehicle efficiency measures.
Yes, subsidizing dirty energy will reduce electric bills—but at what cost? Our health suffers from mercury, particulate matter, and other pollutants spewed out of smokestacks, leading to higher medical bills and a lower quality of life. Our planet suffers from carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to the economic and social consequences of climate change. Acid rain produced by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions speed the deterioration of buildings and paint, pollute soil and water sources, decrease visibility, and damage human health. Finally, subsidizing coal costs taxpayer dollars; it’s a program that I definitely don’t want my tax money going to support.
If we really want to build an efficient energy infrastructure, we need to start looking at the true cost of our actions rather than the number of cents per kilowatt. The latter figure dismisses the hugely expensive consequences of cheap and dirty energy production.
I have no love for coal-fired power plants or the way the government subsidizes and promotes their continuation. But more of the blame for air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions needs to be placed on the American public. We find more ways to consume energy than any other population on earth. Our government points its finger at China and India for slowing progress on climate change legislation. But the fact is that per capita Americans are responsible for five times the carbon dioxide emissions of Chinese and ten times more than those in India. While on one hand, we are demanding that government and utility companies reduce carbon emissions, on the other we stubbornly resist altering our life styles so that the demand for energy is less. Environmental protection is not just "out there" in the hands of government and big business. It's also very much an issue of personal responsibility. As Ghandi said, "When the people lead, government will follow."
It is interesting to compare the proposed subsidies for coal to liquids as compared to funding for other energy research. Go to
http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/06/subsidies-for-coal-to-liquids-compared.html
just published this morning. It will blow your mind! We would be spending the majority of our energy research funding on a energy source that would increase CO2 in the atmosphere and push us two steps backwards in our attempts control climate change. More frightening is the fact that only a token % of federal funds are spent for green energy research.