Global Warming News

As the new home of WISPIRG's environmental work, Wisconsin Environment can be contacted with any questions regarding this report.  

MADISON—Energy companies are planning to build over 150 coal-fired power plants in locations across the United States, according to a report released today by WISPIRG. If built, the plants would increase total U.S. global warming pollution by 10 percent and lock in decades of excess emissions.

“ Wisconsin was on the right track this year when it passed Act 141 to get 10% of our energy from renewables and protect money for energy efficiency from legislative budget raids,” said Jennifer Giegerich, WISPIRG State Director. “However, if we now go forward with building a series of new coal plants, we will more than undue all the good work we’ve done.”

Here in Wisconsin, four new coal-fired power plants are planned, threatening to increase state global warming pollution by twenty-nine percent.

"In the race to power our future, building new coal-fired power plants is like entering a horse and buggy in a NASCAR race,” said Jennifer Feyerherm, Toxics Specialist with the Midwest Office of the Sierra Club. “We'd lock ourselves into the dirtiest 19th century technologies possible and eliminate the demand for investments in cleaner, safer technologies like energy efficiency and renewables."

The WISPIRG analysis, based on information from the U.S. Department of Energy and published reports, documented the potential impacts of completing the 150 plants proposed across the U.S. Among the impacts would be the following:

• A 10 percent increase in U.S. global warming emissions . This increase would occur amid urgent scientific warnings about the dangers posed by global warming and growing consensus that, to avoid the worst consequences, America and the world must achieve steep cuts in global warming emissions by the middle of this century.
• A 30 percent increase in U.S. coal demand, which would require the opening of new mines and expanded infrastructure for delivering that coal to power plants. The increase in coal demand would exacerbate the environmental devastation caused by coal mining, which has already denuded more than 7 percent of Appalachian forests, buried 1,200 miles of streams in fill, and resulted in the release of hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic chemicals. It would also increase the likelihood of future cost increases for coal.
• $137 billion invested in dirty, outdated coal-burning technology . Despite recent hype about the promise of “clean coal” – including the prospect of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants underground – only 16 percent of the proposed plants nationwide would use coal gasification technology, and none would incorporate carbon capture and storage. The rest would use older technologies that are already responsible for massive global warming emissions and the release of large quantities of pollutants responsible for human health problems.
• Lost opportunity for investment in cleaner technologies. Investing the $137 billion slated for new coal-fired power plants into cleaner alternatives would yield economic and energy security benefits for the United States. If invested in energy efficiency, those funds could reduce U.S. electricity demand by about 19 percent in 2025 vs. business as usual – obviating the need for the all of the coal plants on the drawing board. If invested in wind energy, the United States could develop 110 gigawatts of the best wind energy locations in the western U.S., which could produce electricity at an overall cost comparable to coal.

“Companies that build coal-fired power plants today are gambling with their investors’ money,” said Leslie Lowe of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of investors promoting social responsibility. “They are betting that operating coal fired power plants will continue to be cheap, despite the near certainty that global warming pollution will be regulated within the lifetime of the plants.”

“We could substantially reduce our contribution to global climate change using existing technologies in energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass,” said Tom Wilson, a member of the Chippewa Valley Sustainable Energy Association, an organization that is concerned with Xcel Energy's consideration of the Tyrone site, near Durand in western Wisconsin, as a possible location for a new 800 MW coal plant. “What’s more, these steps would benefit America’s economy; reducing the hemorrhage of energy dollars from our communities, creating well-paying jobs and improving our nation’s productivity. Staking our energy future on coal is a loosing proposition for us all,” Wilson concluded

WISPIRG calls for several steps to stem the “coal rush.” First, our leaders should join Idaho officials in establishing a moratorium on new coal plants in Wisconsin, in order to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts. Second, our leaders should establish a cap on carbon dioxide pollution, to be lowered over time; third, public money should not be spent on coal technology; and finally, our leaders should dramatically expand programs to develop energy efficiency and renewable energy resources.

At the federal level, on June 20, Rep. Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. It would require the U.S. to reduce its global warming pollution 15 percent by 2020 and by 80 percent by 2050. To achieve these targets, the bill calls for improved energy efficiency and a greater reliance on clean, renewable energy sources, while providing companies flexibility in meeting the pollution-reduction goals through a “cap-and-trade” program. Senator Jeffords of Vermont introduced a similar bill in the Senate this week.