The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Thursday, May 23, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

What Obama's Reelection Means for Coal, Climate Change, and America's Energy Future

Mary Anne Hitt, Director, Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign
November 08, 2012  |  14 Comments

President Obama's victory yesterday was a victory for clean energy, one that gives us a fighting chance to slash coal pollution and turn the corner on climate change, in the wake of a devastating hurricane that brought global warming into sharp, painful focus for millions of Americans.

As the Sierra Club's Michael Brune said on election night,"We did it." Fossil fuel billionaires had spent at record levels to defeat Obama in this election, and Romney had returned the favor, promising to open the floodgates on more mining and drilling if elected. But then Hurricane Sandy hit the Eastern Seaboard, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed President Obama as the candidate most likely to lead on climate change, and Romney's dismissal of rising oceans as a laugh line in his GOP convention speech became an especially chilling out-of-touch episode, in a Republican presidential campaign that had no shortage of such moments. 

Ironically, the coal industry had pinned its hopes on Romney — the consummate businessman — to protect the industry from the harsh realities of the free market. Now, the coal industry will have to stop hiding behind inflammatory slogans like "the war on coal," and will have to grapple with a marketplace and an American public that are turning away from coal in favor of cleaner, cheaper sources of energy. Coal will only produce 37 percent of America's electricity this year, down from 50 percent just five years ago, and those trends show no signs of reversing.

In reality, the decline of coal and the rise of clean energy have more to do with Main Street and Wall Street than with Pennsylvania Avenue. Over the past four years, in almost every state in the nation, hundreds of thousands of people have worked together to retire polluting local coal plants, get more wind and solar power on the grid, and use energy more efficiently. Today, 125 coal plants — out of over 500 nationwide — are now slated for retirement. As a result, U.S. carbon emissions are at their lowest level in two decades, clean energy is coming on line at record levels, and tens of thousands of Americans now have clean energy jobs. 

The marketplace and the American people have spoken, and there is no amount of grandstanding by coal barons that will turn this tide. By the end of Obama's second term, the Beyond Coal Campaign plans to:

  • Secure the retirement of one-third of the nation's coal plants.
  • Power the nation with record amounts of clean energy and energy efficiency.
  • End mountaintop removal once and for all.
  • Close additional coal pollution loopholes, including long-overdue protections for carbon, soot, smog, coal ash, and water pollution.
  • Prevent increased coal exports overseas to places where it will be burned with fewer pollution controls and no climate safeguards.

Making this happen will require the continued energy and dedication of our Beyond Coal grassroots movement. While the coal industry did its best to paint President Obama as their sworn enemy during the election, in fact, in Obama's first term, he was a centrist when it came to energy. On one hand, his administration took historic measures to clean up some of the most dangerous pollution from coal — mercury, arsenic, lead, and other toxins — while also putting a carbon standard in place for new power plants. The Obama White House also helped jumpstart clean energy, creating tens of thousands of new wind and solar jobs and helping to ensure that America will be a lead innovator in the clean energy revolution that will power the nations and economies of the twenty-first century.

On the other hand, some of the worst abuses of the coal industry continued. Mountaintop removal mining operations are still blowing up mountains, burying streams, and causing serious health problems across Appalachia. We don't yet have carbon standards for existing power plants, which are our single biggest source of greenhouse gases. There are still no national protections for the dumping of toxic coal ash. And when it comes toclean energy and energy efficiency, this country is still far behind much of the rest of the developed world. 

No, coal's decline has less to do with President Obama and more to do with the fact that, after 100 years of heedlessly dumping air and water pollution onto the American people, the day of reckoning has come. Investors know that our fleet of coal plants is outdated, and they are putting their money into cleaner twenty-first century energy technologies like wind and solar — not into propping up coal plants that are reaching the end of their lifespan. Meanwhile, town by town, city by city, and state by state, local leaders are making the decision to retire aging coal plants, get rid of the pollution and health problems, and ensure their communities aren't left behind in the clean energy revolution. 

I live in West Virginia, so I'm not surprised that coal mining areas of the U.S. voted overwhelmingly for Romney in this election. As coal is eclipsed by other forms of energy, people in coal country are justifiably concerned about their livelihoods and their future. Perhaps the results of this election will finally push some of our leaders to start talking honestly about the challenges we face and the need to diversify coal state economies — in short, to provide some leadership. Our region's decision-makers would be doing a far greater service to their constituents by using their political clout to bring federal resources that will help Appalachia and other mining regions make a transition, rather than digging in their heels and refusing to acknowledge that the world is changing.

In Appalachia and beyond, one thing is certain — President Obama's re-election means that for four more years, the marketplace and the American people will continue to move away from coal, and the coal barons won't have a crony in the White House to try and stop that inevitable shift. 

From the streets of New York ravaged by Hurricane Sandy to the mountains of Appalachia ravaged by mountaintop removal, and from the mother watching her son struggle to breathe to the grandfather watching his granddaughter sleep and worrying he is leaving her a dangerous, unstable planet, Americans are ready to move beyond coal. 

President Obama can only help lead the nation there. We are going to have to do the hard work ourselves. But his re-election means we have a fighting chance.

This story was originally published on the Huffington Post Green Blog and was republished with permission.

Lead image: Spirit of America via Shutterstock

14 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
November 12, 2012
@m-simon-251919: Please explain how your market based solutions worked out for the Atlantic cod. A fishery that once produced food so proflifilcly that they could be caught in a bucket. Did price scarcity save the fishery? Why would fossil fuels be any different? Cod has plenty of substitutions. Fossil Fuels do not... especially with it taking decades to bring other technologies to speed...

@cliff-claven: As usual you are spouting a lot of nonsense. Why are you on this site? Just go away, please, your posts are so tiresome (and always basically the same

NG will be the death of coal. Thank god. One of the key problems with the "market" philosophy is that it does not take into account externalities. The coal industry has been unbelievably good at not paying for any of the massive externalities (dirty air, respitory problems, acid rain, ruined water sheds, etc. etc.). Now that they are having to account for just a fraction of the environmental damage they do in purely preventative fashion (SO2 emissions and such), it is faltering on a market basis against NG. Would these fools like cliff and simon just remove all regulations and let coal plants be built with no emissions standards in the middle of population centers? The market would dictate that we should.
Brad Snipes
Brad Snipes
November 12, 2012
Posengalt - I am not anti renewable energy, but I am again Obama's Policies.

m-simon - have some numbers for you to crunch. the National Buoy Data Center publishes a map showing the locations of all floating buoys in the oceans. quoting from their website-
"1185 IOOS Partners,International Partners,Marine METAR,NDBC Meteorological/Ocean,NERRS,NOS/CO-OPS,Oil and Gas Industry,TAO,Tsunami stations deployed
900 have reported in the past 8 hours"
Please note that most of the data is in the northern hemisphere and there are places in the pacific ocean where the distance between buoys is several thousand miles.
The data set is meager. Only 900 weather buoys have reported in the past 8 hours ( on 11/12/2002 )
The IPCC Scientists have extrapolated, interpolated, and removed biases from this data to fill an imaginary grid. They then present their findings with no margin for error. Their findings are the basis for the THEORY of man caused Global warming.
I contend that, with the available data set, even today, they could not determine the average temperature of the Earth within a half a degree. I am a Mechanical Engineer - now retired ( 37 years experince as an Engineer. I always strived to be as accurate as I can but I have never felt comfortable enough to present my work with no margin for error. I believe the IPCC scientists are dishonest.
I do not have a degree in science. I have a BSME. A degree in physics would require a few different electives.
As engineers, we interpret the science and make it work in the real world.
Please look at the data set. Tell me how I am wrong
My opinion - Man-caused Global Warming is junk science.
Climatology is a science in its infancy. All Climatolgist are dependent on government funding for their existance. If they did not fabricate this problem they would not have a job.
Evaluate the data and prove me wrong. thanks
Brad Snipes bradfordjsnipes@gmail.com
Delroy Leslie
Delroy Leslie
November 12, 2012
For those of you that seem to be anti renewable energy, the policies of President Obama are not the main demise of the coal fired power plants, it is natural gas. Natural gas is not only cleaner than coal but is also much cheaper, so companies are making the change.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
November 10, 2012
@m-simon

"Obviously you are numerically challenged"

If only I were so lucky

That way the trillions of dollars literally squandered over the last 30 years on what can only be called The Department of War would not bother me.

My aggravation over your comments is that the amount of money invested in renewables is less than the amount of interest you would gain if you invested just one weeks worth of the waste of our national wealth that goeing into the Capital of Crony Capitalism known as Afghanistan.

Perhaps as a Libertarian you would agree that this activity is not appropriate for a heavily indebted former world power hell bent on keeping its empire alive on a charge card.

But as for the Libertarian philosophy.

Its radicalism is every bit as severe as what we got from Karl Marx

It's just on the other extreme end of the scale

So far from the realistic middle that it has always and will always fail to attract more than a handful of true believers.

Even the King of the true believers had to embarrass himself by hitching his wagon to a political party well on its way to joining this empire in being reduced to a footnote in history just to be temporarily relevant.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
November 10, 2012
"Progress depends upon recognizing reality and limits, not living in a sophomoric fantasy world where one's favorite things are accepted uncritically as green and good, and one's unfavored things are trumpeted as dirty and evil."

Good start Cliff

Now how do we get a consensus on how we remove or weaken the 'forces' most benefiting from the problems they create and get moving.

Your quote above goes both ways. "DRILL BABY DRILL" is every bit as silly and foolish as "GREEN ENERGY WILL SAVE THE WORLD".

So how do we move to the middle?

I have to partially agree with you on solar on the grid.

I work in this arena every day and the more I install the less I like it.

We are essentially feeding high value energy into a grid that at best is antiquated and the end use of the power is only slightly more efficient than it was when Edison first installed the Pearl Street Station in lower Manhattan over 100 years ago.

My preferred option is to have PV used where it can do the most good and that is in efficient homes that also use solar thermal and the most appropriate heating system and lighting. Also light commercial is a good option. They should use the grid as simple backup and when they overdo their use should be required to live withing their energy means.

Fossil fuels should be used for heavy industry ,transportation where appropriate or the only option and as a transition fuel.

PV can, if installed with inverters that track power factor rather than deliver at unity help stabilize the grid. Also when AC Coupling is added as a 'no brainer' option we would not now see so many folks on the east coast needlessly crying like a Bangladeshi beggar " ELECTRIC ALMS for the Poor". Most doing this begging are nowhere near poor but they allow themselves to be no less dependent and vulnerable as the truly poor beggar.

So Cliff you bring up the water issue.

I have friends in Pennsylvania whose water is permanently poisoned by Fracking.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 10, 2012
A first positive change that is necessary is to put emotional rhetoric and agendas aside and actually look at the costs and benefits of each form of energy. That includes all the externalities of health and environment, which will surprisingly damage the "clean" and "green" credentials of alternative energy as much as conventional energy. When we look at the necessary huge capacities that modern civilizations require, we will see that the only universally good option is increasing efficiency in both energy consumption and energy production. That leads us to use fuels for fuel and food for food, and not cross the streams. It also leads us to use the highest EROI energy sources we can rather than to leave them unused or to cripple them by down-converting them into lower or negative energy balance options like biofuels. When we look at hard data instead of hype, we will see that wind and solar can work off-grid in suitable applications where power is consumed on-site, but they bring everyone down when put on the national grid. Every energy inefficiency we force upon ourselves in the name of "alternative energy" actually accelerates our use of fossil fuels because they are providing 82% of all the energy we use in America. And if the alternative energy efforts didn't sponge off the high EROI of fossil fuels, they would be stillborn. There is nothing that developed nations can do to significantly change the trajectory of anthropogenic CO2. If all OECD nations zeroized CO2 emissions today, the rest of the world makes up the difference in five years on the same exponential curve. Those who really know the score are not worried about energy and CO2, they are worried about water. Progress depends upon recognizing reality and limits, not living in a sophomoric fantasy world where one's favorite things are accepted uncritically as green and good, and one's unfavored things are trumpeted as dirty and evil.
M. SIMON
M. SIMON
November 10, 2012
"Each time you post this you appear more and more foolish or should I say more and more Conservative Republican."

Obviously you are numerically challenged. Or a benefactor of the subsidies. aka a crony capitalist. Look at the subsidies per KWh delivered. They all rip off the taxpayer. But solar and wind are several orders of magnitude above the rest.

And I'm no Republican. I'm a libertarian. And I CAN run the numbers. I'm an engineer. I get paid to run the numbers.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
November 10, 2012
@cliff-claven

Just as Cliff Claven would sit in a somewhat inebriate condition and loudly and annoyingly pontificated on all manner of things without actually postulating a practical alternative as one of the characters in the popular show Cheers,our man cliff seems to avoid offering much as an alternative also.

Yes much of your statement is factual in some form.

But what do you suggest we do about the real issues others have brought up?

Is the alternative to simply bury ones head in a pile of Right Wing Conservative Delusion and Fundamentalism and hope it all goes away?

Appeal to an almost extinct and very rare creature pejoratively known in right wing circles as a liberal thinker?

Can the more moderate and rational among us actually solve some of our problems?

In our very limited and shaky democracy we are only 'given' limited choices. Generally those choices serve as a means of placating the 'unwashed' so as to avoid any real change.
Those choices are also created by the same folks who most fiercely fight any change that adversely affects their portfolios.

So Cliff and all the others who want to see positive change, what do we do?

Simply proclaiming the obvious and then going about our business is not change.

The answers to just about all these problems is staring each of us in the face every time we look in a mirror.

The real problem as I see it is not a lack of real choices but a lack of real will to make any of them happen.
lawrence elliott
lawrence elliott
November 10, 2012
m-simon 251919

"Translation: "mandate for clean energy" = "continued theft from the taxpayers."

Give it up simon

Each time you post this you appear more and more foolish or should I say more and more Conservative Republican.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
November 10, 2012
Ms. Hite paints a folksy but completely false narrative of what is happening with coal. US communities are not voting to close their local coal plants, the EPA is crushing them with emissions standards so tight, that more pollution falls in the US today from Chinese coal plants on the other side of the earth than from US plants (this is the same asinine EPA that put MTBE in our drinking water and alcohol in our gasoline, and now refuses to allow the 80 MPG Volkswagen Polo to be sold here). US pollution from foreign sources is only getting worse as our factories also go overseas to China. The global use of coal has DOUBLED since 2000 (http://wtrg.com/Energy_Blog/Coal_CO2.html) and China is leading the way despite all the rhetoric about them investing in clean energy. Coal is how 400M people in India are going to get electricity in the next decade. In a free market, coal would be a key player in America's recovery. But it is likely Obama will continue to subsidize negative energy balance alternatives like biofuels and wind and solar that spend money borrowed from China to create green temp jobs at the rate of $500,000 to $1.5M apiece that all evaporate with the bankruptcy of the start-up once the subsidies end. In 2010, Obama subsidized wind at $33 per barrel of oil equivalent energy and Solar at $60 per BOE. All the subsidies for oil and coal added up to $27 cents and $38 cents per barrel respectively. This is Ms. Hite's "free market."
David Curtis
David Curtis
November 10, 2012
The melting of land ice, diminishing glaciers and rising sea levels is caused by higher temperatures. It is ludicrous to say otherwise. Maybe its time for the Coal and Oil industries to hedge more of their funds into clean renewable energy. This would hasten the energy transformation that is in progress and only create more jobs including peace and prosperity. Who knows if Romney had scrutinized the other side of the coin more he may have been elected as President. God speed renewable energy, God speed mankind's progress to change for the better of all.
Anthony DeCristofaro
Anthony DeCristofaro
November 8, 2012
There is a solution to the coal industry problems that would greatly enhance our ability to achieve oil independence. Every powder coal plant that is retired as NG solar wind geothermal comes online should be purchased by the DOD and converted to a CTL refinery. The DOD is the largest consumer of petroleum fuels in the country. Every drop of diesel and jp8 needed domestically by the armed forces should be sourced from US COAL! The plants already have the rail infrastructure to ship coal in and liquid fuel out. If we start producing a surplus it can be added to the SPR for any use.

So we get closer to oil independence AND the people in coal country get to keep their jobs blowing up their mountains and despoiling their rivers and streams. This is a far better option than shipping our coal to china so they can dump the CO2 and toxins into the atmosphere.
Brad Snipes
Brad Snipes
November 8, 2012
The renewable energy industry is entirely too dependent on government. Obama's attack on the coal and petroleum industries will soon help to destroy our economy. Remember about 60% of our electricity come from coal. Government subsidies and regulation create a false economy. Governments want to control and regulate solar energy and the entire energy sector of our economy. It is for this reason that the false and unprovable hypothesis of mancaused Global Warming was made up. IPCC scientists are scientist with an agenda. They rely on government grants for funding. They are employes of the governments of the world. They have prostituted their degrees for political and monetary gain.
Please know that prior to 1985, when this group was formed, their was very little historical temperature data. Most of that available data came from weather stations on land that were mostly located in the industrialized nations. Almost no data was available for Africa, The North and South Poles, SouthAmerica, etc. Data from the Oceans came from a very few floating buoys and from ships.
I can not accept the gross manipulation of a very meager data set. Prior to 1985, there were places on the earth that were thousands of miles from the nearest temperature recording station.
So, after extensive manipulation of the data, which included extrapolation of the meager existing data set to cover areas thousands of miles from the nearest data collection and removing biases (to suit their agenda) They have concluded that the world's temperature has increased by half a degree. And then they extrapolate that finding to project the sea level will rise to flood coastal areas. Give me a break.
I contend that, even today, after many more temperature data sites have been placed, they cannot determine the wolds average temperature to within a half of a degree.
They also cannot prove the contribution of a few parts per millon of CO2 in the atmosphere to the worlds temperature.
M. SIMON
M. SIMON
November 8, 2012
Translation: "mandate for clean energy" = "continued theft from the taxpayers."

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Mary Anne Hitt

Mary Anne Hitt

Mary Anne Hitt is director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, which is working to eliminate coal's contribution to global warming and repower the nation with clean energy.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • US, Australian Companies Taking Giant Steps for Global EGS Geothermal
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 15
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Quickscrews International Corp.
  • Unirac, Inc.
  • CleanEdison
  • Solar Power International 2013
  • Navigant
  • Greenpower Capital
  • Enphase Energy
  • Rotork plc
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information