http://www.beff.co/prog.html

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Its President, Wong Tack, said the report prepared last January was meant to be handed to Lahad Datu Energy, the company that would build the power plant, before it was sent to the Department of Environment (DOE) for verification.

After reading thorough the report, Sepa found the contents to be full of wrong information while several important details were also not included “on purpose to confuse the public.”

“We have our own panel who went thorough the report which we considered as more in favour of the proposed coal-fired power plant.

“We (Sepa) want them to know that we are among those who do not accept the accuracy/authenticity of the information in the said report and ready to take serious action to object it,” he said.

He said Sepa will take a legal action if the DOE approves the proposed coal-fired power plant and would also lodge a police report because “there are negative impacts than good will come up in the long-term (if the plant is built and operational).”

He said the Sandakan Anti-Coal Committee fully supports the effort by Sepa against building a coal-fired power plant not only in Felda, but throughout Sabah.

He said Sepa was not alone in this but had a good relationship with international-based NGOs which are serious in environmental protection.

Published on: Friday, May 21, 2010

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

SESB will submit the “Detailed Environment Impact Assessment (DEIA)” report for the proposed coal power plant which has now been suggested in Felda Sahabat, near Lahad Datu. This is one of the steps under the “EIA” process required by the Environmental Quality Act 1974. If this DEIA report is accepted/approved by the Federal Department of Environment, then the construction of the coal power plant could begin.

It is already very clear that this coal power plant will bring very bad and dangerous effects not only to the environment but also to the humans. Our question here is:

Let’s say the DEIA report is accepted/approved by the Department of Environment, can the people of Sabah depend on this so-called EIA process, and the government staff of the Department of Environment (who carries out the enforcements), to protect our health and fate??

Simply put, under this EIA process, the party wishing to build the coal power plant shall:

(1) identify the possible adverse effects to the environment which would result if the project is allowed;

(2) suggest/promise to take the steps which could mitigate/reduce [but NOT eliminate completely] these adverse effects; (the Department of Environment could also add their own conditions as they deem fit);

(3) promise to comply/take the suggested steps throughout the duration of the project [i.e. throughout the operational life of this coal power plant].

However, what is the consequence if the management of this coal power plant is found to have polluted the environment/breached the conditions of the project [meaning, if they were investigated/arrested by the relevant government servants -- if all the relevant government servants really work hard and seriously, 24 hours a day, honest and trustworthy -- and if the plant's management are charged in court --- and if the offence is successfully proved in court and is punished by the court]?

The answer is:

“If any developer is found to have failed to comply with Section 34A of the Environmental Quality Act 1974, then the developer would have committed an offence whereby he could be fined not more than Ringgit Malaysia One Hundred Thousand (RM100,000) or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both together and the additional fine of one thousand ringgit every day on any offence which is continued after the Director General of the Department of Environment has given notice to the developer to comply with Section 34A of the 1974 Act.“

Which is: They would be asked to pay only RM100,000 the most – NOT as compensation/damages to the suffering victims of the pollution by coal, mind you, but as fine to the government.

Do you know that in the space of 3 months only, from December 2009 to February 2010, the net profit of Tenaga Nasional Berhad (SESB’s parent company) was more than RM855.7 million?! (Or RM9.507 million per day) This means, by using only its ONE DAY’s profit, TNB is already able to pay 95 times the maximum fine under this section of the Act!!

Our question is – is this system/process of EIA really “effective”?? Are these so-called maximum fines/laws “meaningful” at all?? Isn’t this sort of LOW fines only end up providing a “license/permit to pollute”?? (Those who can afford, can pollute!!)

(We are not accusing TNB/SESB to have the intention to purposely pollute the environment of Sabah; but when being forced to defend their profits, to what extent will they be keen on putting our environment and health as the priority?? After all, the purpose of TNB/SESB in forcing the people of Sabah to accept the coal power plant is DEFINITELY NOT to “enhance” the level of health and environmental protection of Sabah… Why would they persist in being so stubborn, if this coal power plant is not going to profit/enrich them??)

Therefore, it is not surprising that the experts from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia said this (when discussing the example of a housing developer) about this so-called EIA process:

“Further in discussing the EIA and the laws of Malaysia, I am of the view that the fine imposed on the developer who fails to comply with Section 34A of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 is low. This is because a developer who carries out the listed development activities are developers who possess very strong financial resources. Without very strong financial resources it would not be possible for a developer to develop a housing project with an area more than 50 hectares, to construct hill station or hotel which has an area exceeding 50 hectares and so on. These developers would think that if they fail to comply with Section 34A of the Environmental Quality Act 1974 it would not bring adverse effect to them because the value of the fine is low, i.e. not more than RM100,000.”

[Source/original article in Bahasa Malaysia -- see here.]

Although we do not deny that the EIA process could bring various benefits (such as to bring information about the proposed project), but if we were to hope that it would act as some sort of effective “protection” for our environment and health, then it would be really unsatisfactory.

Should the people of Sabah place the fate of our health, environment and future in the hands of this weak and ineffective so-called EIA process, the government servants from the Department of Environment (who will carry out the enforcements) and this super-rich company (TNB) who aims to maximize its profits??

To TNB/SESB – stop this “EIA” show!!

************************************************

The above quoted passages are translated and extracted from:

PENILAIAN KESAN ALAM SEKITAR “ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT” (EIA) DARI SUDUT PERUNDANGAN MALAYSIA DAN KEPENTINGANNYA

[“Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Environment and Natural Resources” 10-11th April 2002, Hotel Renaissance Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Vol 1: 603-611, Omar, R., Ali Rahman, Z., Latif, M.T., Lihan, T. and Adam J.H. (Eds.)]

http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/~rsenr3/rsenr1/P603-611.pdf

Muhammad Rizal R. dan Kadir A.

Program Pengurusan Persekitaran, Pusat Pengajian Siswazah, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Mr. Stephen Wong invite EVERYONE to come forward for a dialog & discussion with Mr. Wong Tak regarding the above DEIA report soon to be released .

Please come forward now to show your support before its too late and regretted why you didn’t come forward to help.

Date : 19th May 2010 ( Wednesday )

Time : 7.30 pm sharp

venue : Chinese Chamber of Commerce , Sandakan .

Thank You

Regards

www.savesandakan.com

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This report was handed out to the public at the energy forum in KK on saturday so i assume its ok to please spread it far & wide. I’ve uploaded it on to yousendit.com this will only be valid for 7 days from now.

I hope it will be dissected by all and will assist the Sabah and Federal governments, TNB/SESB, the IPPs, the corporate investment sectors and the general public to find solutionS and a way forward for Sabah’s decades long power woes.

TNB/SESB can not be expected to do this alone.

Please download the report here:

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=batch_download&send_id=843907389&email=46b18fb006af6a9e68567de8463cdb02

PLEASE DO SEND IT FAR & WIDE TO THOSE THAT MAY BE INTERESTED!

Also here’s a short video on Malaysiakini TV of a Prof Dr Daniel M. Kammen who headed the Berkeley team speaking…

http://www.malaysiakini.tv/video/18759/prof-dr-daniel-m-kammen-a-leading-international-expert-talking-on-energy-options-for-sabah.html

Here’s a report in today’s Star newspaper: Renewable energy from palm oil waste
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/3/22/nation/5908920&sec=nation

i STILL have questions!!!
- Whats the feasibility of Sabah state organisations (Yayasan Sabah??) setting up a grid operation company to alleviate TNB’s issue of bringing power to the grid. Assuming it has any traction, this then allows to press for connection to the west coast grid and thereby makes the coal plant permanently redundant??

- Also how come the West-East Grid that has a high transfer capability (sorry i cant remember the numbers off hand – is in the report) is currently only transfering 50MW from the West to East coast?

- Also what happened to the shelved ‘Southern Grid’ that was proposed several years ago to support the West-East Grid – should be made a priority, brought forward no?

- The Coal Plant has a life span of 25 years. Then what?

- Why also was Sarawak’s offer to sell power to Sabah turned down by TNB/SESB? According to Malaysia plan this & that the Sabah/Sarawak power grids are suppose to be interconnected into The East Malaysian Grid with further plans to connect to West Malaysia & thus create a nation wide Malaysia Power Grid, why wasn’t this grid to Sabah started years ago when it was first proposed as one of the justifications for the construction of Bakun Dam?

The coal plant to me feels like a distraction to REAL & long term power solutions.

Small localised biomass RE plants on Sabah’s east coast will ease the power woes there in the immediate future (SREP must scrap the 10MW RE cap) and DE-CENTRALISED RE plants and small mini hydro projects will also help stabilise the east coast as we wait for Sabah’s power grid to be upgraded & as we wait for the baseload Kimanis gas plant to be finished in the short term (same time span as waiting for the coal plant).

Do please share your thoughts?

Power to the People!!!

many thanks,
i-lann

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

From Copenhagen to Sabah - Does the threat of Climate Change 'change' according to Time Zones?

Dear Prime Minister Najib Razak,

Once again, we welcome your serious and determined efforts to reduce carbon emission to help halt global warming in the interests of our future generations.

Surely, the first important step to CUTTING (rather than increasing) carbon emission is to cancel the proposed coal power plant to be built in Felda Sahabat, Lahad Datu, which is very close to the various pristine, precious natural paradise of Darvel Bay, Coral Triangle Initiative, Tabin Wildlife Conservation area and so on, which make the East Coast of Sabah one of the remaining natural treasures of the world.

You have asked for our views “on what more we can do to ensure a greener Malaysia, so that we can learn from each other.” Great! Here are some. We do not dream that you would actually ‘learn’ from humble Sabahans like us, but we would be very grateful already if you could at least be consistent in your position on climate change and coal.

You have asked Sabah to accept the “dirty, environmentally not friendly” coal power plant even though:

a) Sabah does NOT produce coal, and all the coal used for the proposed power plant would have to be IMPORTED all the way from Indonesia.

We can understand why countries like China and USA use coal — because coal is produced locally in these countries; but we are puzzled by why we are forced to import toxic trash like coal when we don’t need it nor want it here in Sabah!

b) Sabah has ALTERNATIVES to generate electricity without resorting to dirty coal.

As a major palm oil producer, we — especially in the East Coast of Sabah — have plenty of empty fruit bunches left over everyday, a natural waste product of cultivating palm oil, which could be easily used for generating bio-mass power. All it takes is for your government to take steps to tap into this abundantly and easily available resource of Sabah. Yet, it does not seem that your government is serious about taking any other initiative which would save Sabah from coal.

Or, we could either use the natural gas produced in Kimanis, Sabah itself or — if your government insists on depriving Sabahans of their own natural resources by exporting it all the way to Sarawak — then at least exchange the export of our natural gas to Sarawak with hydro-electricity power from Bakun Dam, Sarawak, which your government now plans to export all the way — across the mountains, forests and even ocean — to West Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia. Anywhere but Sabah, even though it is feasible to supply to the East Coast of Sabah.

Basically, your government has:

(1) forced us to give up our own natural gas from Kimanis, Sabah,

(2) refused to at least give us clean hydro-power from Bakun, Sarawak in exchange,

(3) exporting Bakun hydro-power to everywhere EXCEPT Sabah, and then

(4) forced us in Sabah to IMPORT DIRTY COAL from Indonesia!!

Why is it that when it comes to DIVERTING clean energy sources AWAY FROM Sabah, your government is willing to leave no stone unturned regardless of how difficult it may be, but when it comes to POLLUTING Sabah with dirty, environmentally unfriendly coal, your government is determined to force it down our throats and even ask us to sacrifice?

This basically sums up Sabahans’ bewilderment with your decision to force us to accept coal:

“The bottom line is Sabah has alternatives to having a coal-fired power plant and the technology is available now, what we seem to have is a lack of will from certain parties who say that there is no alternative but this is not true, we have alternatives. Imagine what a great model for the world Sabah will be with this!”

Whether the proposed coal power plant passes the so-called “Environmental Impact Assessment” and whether there really is such a thing as “clean coal technology” are completely beside the point — because Sabah DOES NOT NEED COAL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

In Paris, when addressing the Unesco General Conference on  6 October 2009, you have said:

“…The forthcoming summit in Copenhagen must reflect a strong commitment and action to reverse serious deterioration of planet earth.

The tragedies in the region such as the earthquake in Padang, Indonesia, hurricanes in the Philippines, tsunami in Samoa and major floods in southern India “should remind us of how fragile the world we live in is, and how interdependent our world has become“.

Najib said that although the task of the policymakers and leaders in ensuring that these challenges were met was not easy, they could not afford the price of inaction.

“We need to do what is right even if it is hard. These are the challenges of our times. It can neither be left unmet nor unresolved.

“They must be addressed head on by the world community with a concerted will and common purpose drawing upon our reservoir of good will and collective experience.”"

But how can there be “the next logical extension of the national philosophy would be the concept of 1Region and ultimately 1World” when you can’t even have a 1Coal Policy? (Or is this ‘anomaly’ only peculiar to Sabah — the only Malaysian State where ALL EXCEPTIONS APPLY?)

In Kuala Lumpur, on 31 October 2009, in your keynote address at Malaysia’s electricity utility monopoly (the parent company of those who are hell-bent on setting up the coal power plant in Sabah), Tenaga Nasional Berhad’s 60th anniversary celebration, you said:

“…The government needs to revise its energy policy, ..the current one [is] obsolete and in need of a revamp… was proven to be costly, both environmentally and financially.

“I don’t like the current energy policy. It’s not right,” he told some 1,500 TNB workers attending the event.

“…coal is what we call DIRTY technology, it’s NOT environmentally friendly,”

As revealed in Najib’s maiden Budget recently, the prime minister told the media that his administration had started studying sectors like renewable energy and green technology to replace the current policy.

“It’s not a short-term solution, it’s a long one but we need to make the first step,” he said.”

Surely, the ‘first step’ is NOT to build more coal power plant, certainly not in the State of Sabah which is heavily dependent on its natural treasures for its tourism business.

On your blog on 21 November 2009, you have said:

“With nations recently meeting to discuss a climate change treaty, ahead of the Copenhagen summit in December, I’m reminded that the environment is everyone’s responsibility, and that we must all change our mindset to give it greater consideration. We should do this especially as we are custodians for future generations.

New Malaysian initiatives unveiled recently leave me feeling ever optimistic that we are doing more to preserve what we have, in order that our children and their children may enjoy our unique, natural wonders for years to come.“

And on your blog on 14 December 2009, you then said:

“Climate change is probably the most critical issue facing mankind today. To underscore our concern and our commitment towards saving Planet Earth, I will attend the forthcoming UN Climate Change Summit. I will present Malaysia’s own position, and participate working to achieve a global consensus so that collectively, nations around the world will make a positive contribution towards reducing carbon emission and in turn save Planet Earth.”

And we believe you are rubbing shoulders with world leaders in Copenhagen this week, you would continue to maintain the image that your administration is serious about reversing climate change.

Yet, very disappointingly, when you came to Sabah on 8 November 2009, all your determination to fight global warming and reduce CO2 emission completely went out of the window and you have forced us ‘SACRIFICE’  UNNECESSARILY (including our natural gas from Kimanis) and to accept DIRTY coal:

“We have to accept what is good and we have to be realistic. If we understand and are willing to sacrifice we will achieve higher level of development for Sabah,”

Even though you yourself had said earlier that coal is NOT ‘GOOD’ — it’s DIRTY, and ENVIRONMENTALLY UNFRIENDLY?

Does it mean that all the “decisive actions” and “uneasy tasks” necessary to tackle climate change could be ignored in the name of “achieving higher level of development”? Is your ‘conviction’ on tackling climate change so feeble, after all? If so, why do you think in Copenhagen, the developing world should agree to the reduction of carbon emission and to sacrifice their goal of “achieving higher level of development”?

Indeed, you have forced us to accept dirty coal despite our State leadership’s collective strong stance in REJECTING this coal power plant earlier in April 2008:

““After weighing the pros and cons, the [State] Cabinet decided to SCRAP the proposed project, because we DO NOT WANT TO RISK the WELFARE AND HEALTH of the communities in the area [in Lahad Datu] as well as any ADVERSE IMPACT on the environment… I know some say with today’s technology, the proposed plant is safe and clean BUT some EXPERTS also DISAGREE.”“

Nonetheless, despite your unfair treatments towards Sabahans on this topic, we still wish you well in Copenhagen and hope that you would “clearly demonstrates the importance that Malaysian attaches to the issue of climate change”, and make all of us proud — not just those in Copenhagen, but also those of us in Lahad Datu, Sandakan, Tawau, and Sabah as a whole:

– By being CONSISTENT, and having 1 Climate Change/ Carbon Emission policy (and 1 only) for your government, which does not change according to time zones or audiences, including when it comes to Sabah.

Please, CANCEL the coal power plant in Sabah — this would be the best leadership example and gift you could give to Copenhagen, and the future generations of the world.

Malaysia PM to offer CO2 reductions in Copenhagen

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) – Malaysia’s government will offer “credible” cuts in its emissions of carbon dioxide at the Copenhagen climate change summit in a bid to halt global warming, Prime Minister Najib Razak told Reuters on Sunday.

Najib will be among more than 110 world leaders who will meet in Copenhagen next week to attend a summit to try to clinch a deal on deeper emissions cuts by rich nations, steps by developing nations to cut their carbon pollution and finance to help the poor adapt to climate change.

“We are willing to offer our commitment, I am not just going to call on the developed world I am going to commit Malaysia and I am going to commit Malaysia to very credible cuts which means we have to spend, which we will do,” Najib said in the interview.

Najib said the cuts were still being worked on.

The United Nations has said a full, legal treaty to expand or replace the existing Kyoto Protocol is out of reach at the talks, after two years of troubled negotiations, and is likely to be agreed some time in 2010.

UN data shows Malaysia’s carbon emissions in 2006 stood at 187 million tones or 7.2 tonnes from each Malaysian.

Although that figure is far less than neighboring Indonesia, which is the world’s third largest emitter with 2.3 billion tonnes or 10 tonnes per capita, according to Indonesian government data, Najib said all nations must contribute.

“It has to be predicated on the fundamental principles of the Kyoto protocol and the UN Framework on Climate Convention,” he said.

“Amongst which the most important being the common but differentiated responsibilities that the developed world must deliver against larger cuts in terms of carbon emissions and that the developing world should be assisted particularly in terms of finanancial assistance, capacity buiding and technology.”

TIGHT BUDGETS MUST ACCOMODATE CLIMATE CHANGE

Najib said that despite the current economic turmoil, which has seen the United States and Europe plunge into huge budget deficits, the fight against climate change had to take priority.

The United Nations wants to raise $10 billion a year from 2010-12 in quick-start funds to help the poor cope with global warming and move away from fossil fuels. But few nations have offered quick-start cash.

In the longer term, the United Nations estimates the fight against global warming is likely to cost $300 billion a year from 2020, largely to help developing nations adapt to impacts such as droughts, floods and heat waves.

“If we really talking about it we must walk the talk (on funding). Otherwise we are just going to face a very uncertain future and the effects will be quite catastrophic,” Najib said.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

By RUBEN SARIO

KOTA KINABALU: An initial environmental report on a proposed 300mW coal fired plant on the state’s east coast has drawn concern from various Sabah groups, who say it is full of shortcomings.

Among others, the Terms of Reference for the project at the Felda Sahabat scheme appears to have ignored the long-term impact of the coal plant’s emissions into the pristine Darvel Bay.

This is especially important as several kilometres away from the proposed coal plant site in the bay is a sea grass area that is the habitat for the endangered dugong or sea cow.

Sabah Environmental Protection Association president Wong Tack said this was one of the findings at a first review conducted on the project’s Terms of Reference at the Department of Environment in Putrajaya on Nov 24.

“The Terms of Reference showed there was no study carried out on the cumulative effects of the coal plant emissions over a five to 15-year period.

“What is ironic is that the Darvel Bay is within the Coral Triangle Initiative which Malaysia has pledged to conserve,” he said here Sunday.

The Prime Minister had attended the summit on the Coral Triangle Initiative, dubbed the “Amazon of the Oceans,” in May and pledged USD1mil (RM3.4mil) to its protection.

Wong said at the review, state government officials had also voiced concerns that the emissions could have adverse impact on the Tun Sakaran marine park and world renowned diving haven of Pulau Sipadan over the long term.

He said the Terms of Reference was also drawn up based on climate conditions in the Tawau district – more than 200km away – and not within the Tengku area, the proposed site for the coal plant.

Wong said this was critical as the Tabin Wildlife Conservation area – home to Borneo Pygmy elephants, rhinos, orang utan and sun bears – was just 20km away.

He claimed that the consultants responsible for the Terms of Reference appeared not to have obtained feedback from state officials nor explored any alternative to the coal plant.

“Yet, we have a natural gas fired plant in Kimanis coming up and while a 300mW biomass power plant is not practical, it doesn’t mean we can’t have such smaller plants in the various districts,” he added.

Wong was among three Sepa representatives at the review that was also attended by officials from the Sabah Tourism, Culture and Environment Ministry, Wildlife, state Environmental Protection, Forestry, Fisheries and Health Departments as well as Sabah Parks and the Lahad Datu district office.

Sepa was also representing Green Surf, which is a coalition of various groups including WWF-Sabah, Malaysian Nature Society, Land Empowerment, Animal and People, and Pacos Trust, at the review.

http://www.thestar.com.my:80/news/story.asp?file=/2009/11/29/nation/20091129175502&sec=nationh

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

"Coal’s Assault on Human Health"

Washington, DC -  November 18, 2009 – Physicians for Social Responsibility has released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the human body. Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health.

This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems: the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report finds that coal pollution affects all major body organ systems and contributes to four of the five top causes of mortality in the US:  heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.

"The findings of this report are clear: while the U.S. relies heavily on coal for its energy needs, the consequences of that reliance for our health are grave," said Alan H. Lockwood, MD FAAN, a principal author of the report and a professor of neurology at the University at Buffalo.

"These stark conclusions leave no room for doubt or delay," says Kristen Welker-Hood, SCD MSN RN, PSR’s director of environment and health programs.  "The time has come for our nation to establish a health-driven energy policy that replaces our dependence on coal with clean, safe alternatives.  Business as usual is extracting a deadly price on our health.  Coal is no longer an option."

Also participating in the report’s release were the American Lung Association and the American Nurses Association.

Coal combustion releases mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health. This report looks at the cumulative harm inflicted by those pollutants on three major body organ systems:  the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, and the nervous system. The report also considers coal’s contribution to global warming, and the health implications of global warming.

Viewed in this way, the totality of coal’s impact on health becomes clear. Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S.:  heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory diseases.

• Respiratory Effects: Air pollutants produced by coal combustion act on the respiratory system, contributing to serious health effects including asthma, lung disease and lung cancer, and adversely affect normal lung development in children.
• Cardiovascular Effects: Pollutants produced by coal combustion lead to cardiovascular disease, such as arterial occlusion (artery blockages, leading to heart attacks) and infarct formation (tissue death due to oxygen deprivation, leading to permanent heart damage), as well as cardiac arrhythmias and congestive heart failure. Exposure to chronic air pollution over many years increases cardiovascular mortality. 
• Nervous System Effects: Studies show a correlation between coal-related air pollutants and stroke.  Coal pollutants also act on the nervous system to cause loss of intellectual capacity, primarily through mercury.  Researchers estimate that between 317,000 and 631,000 children are born in the U.S. each year with blood mercury levels high enough to reduce IQ scores and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.  
• Global Warming: Even people who do not develop illnesses from coal pollutants will find their health and wellbeing impacted due to coal’s contribution to global warming.  The discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere associated with burning coal is a major contributor to global warming and its adverse effects on health and wellbeing worldwide, such as heat stroke, malaria, declining food production, scarce water supplies, social conflict and starvation.

In addition to the impacts from pollutants emitted during coal combustion, the report pinpoints negative health consequences at each step of the coal life cycle.  Coal mining leads U.S. industries in fatal injuries and is associated with chronic health problems among miners.  In addition to the miners themselves, communities near coal mines may be adversely affected by mining operations due to the effects of blasting, washing, leakage from "slurry ponds," the collapse of abandoned mines, damage done to streams and waterways, and the dispersal of dust from coal trucks during transportation. Slurry injected underground can release arsenic, barium, lead and manganese into nearby wells, contaminating local drinking water supplies.  The storage of post-combustion wastes from coal plants also threatens human health.  There are 584 coal ash dump sites in the U.S, and toxic residues have migrated into water supplies at dozens of sites. While every stage of the coal life cycle impacts human health, the combustion phase exacts the greatest toll.

"Given the disease burden associated with coal as well as its contribution to global warming, it is essential that we establish energy policies based on a fundamental commitment to human health and the health of generations to come," said Peter Wilk, MD, the Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Based on the report’s findings, PSR issued five policy recommendations:

• Cut emissions of carbon dioxide as deeply and as swiftly as possible, with the objective of reducing atmospheric carbon levels to 350 parts per million, through 1) strong climate and energy legislation that establishes hard caps on global warming pollution coming from coal power plants, and 2) strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act.  
• Reduce fossil fuel power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides so that all localities are in attainment for national ambient air quality standards.
• Establish a standard, based on Maximum Achievable Control Technology, for mercury and other hazardous air pollutant emissions from electrical generation.
• End all new construction of coal-fired power plants, so as to avoid increasing health-endangering emissions of carbon dioxide, as well as criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants. 
• Develop the capacity to generate electricity from clean, safe, renewable sources so that existing coal-fired power plants may be phased out without compromising the nation’s ability to meet its energy needs.

Download the report:
Executive Summary (pdf)
Full report (pdf)

Download by chapter:
Front Matter (pdf)
Chapter 1 Introduction (pdf)
Chapter 2 Life Cycle of Coal (pdf)
Chapter 3 Respiratory Effects (pdf)
Chapter 4 Cardiovascular Effects (pdf)
Chapter 5 Neurological Effects (pdf)
Chapter 6 Global Warming (pdf)
Chapter 7 Policy Recommendations (pdf)

ABOUT PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (PSR) – Founded in 1961 by physicians concerned about the impact of nuclear proliferation, PSR shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War for building public pressure to end the nuclear arms race.  Since 1991, when PSR formally expanded its work by creating its environment and health program, PSR has addressed the issues of global warming and the toxic degradation of our environment.  PSR educates and advocates for  policies to curb global warming, ensure clean air, generate a sustainable energy future, prevent human exposures to toxic substances, and minimize toxic pollution of air, food, and drinking water.  More information is available at www.psr.org.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/118711

Joe Fernandez
Dec 1, 09

The Sabah government has warned a coalition of environmentalists against continuing to publicise their anti-coal option campaign, insisting that they should "use the proper forum" to express dissatisfaction.

Since the weekend, Green Surf (Sabah Unite to Re-power the Future) and Sabah Environmental Protection Association (Sepa) have been selectively leaking the proposed terms of reference (TOR) for the Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIA) on the coal plant.

State minister for tourism, culture and environment Masidi Manjun (left) today issued a thinly-veiled threat, proffered as "friendly advice".

"Green Surf or Sepa should consider whether it is appropriate for them to air their differences (on the coal plant) in public and through the media, even before the TOR have been finalised," he said.

He conceded that "it is fair for the public to have access to the final TOR" but noted that these are still being drawn up at a series of meetings in Putrajaya and Kota Kinabalu.

"They (Green Surf) can forward their opinions and grouses during the next meeting (in Kota Kinabalu).

"Perhaps it would serve their interests more effectively if they refrain from making public, at this point of time, every one of their disagreements on the TOR. Instead, they should concentrate on arguing their points during the meetings."

Masidi stressed that the invitation to Green Surf to attend the meetings is proof that the state government values their input.

"To engage in the media on the TOR even before these are finalised would make it even more difficult for the various parties to engage in a professional exchange of opinions.

"All parties should attend the meetings with an open mind. They should be ready to accept with humility that their preconceived notions on certain aspects may not necessarily hold water."

Masidi clarified that the DEIA report would cover water quality, wetlands, ecology, land use, solid waste management, hydrology, drainage, flood analysis, landscape and visual aspects.

Other issues are the terrestrial ecology, flora, fauna, biodiversity, conservation, marine ecology, fisheries, coastal process, phytoplankton, coral reef and sea grass, climate, air quality, air quality dispersion modeling, environmental cost benefit analysis, public and workers’ health, environmental health risk assessment, quantitative risk and hazard assessment emergency response plan, coastal hydraulic and hydrodynamics, and thermal and chlorine dispersion.

He denied Green Surf’s allegation that the TOR would be filled with "predetermined and conclusive statements without scientific backing, facts and figures".

Shortcomings detected

Green Surf remained undeterred by Masidi’s "damage control" move, maintaining that "the TOR is sub-standard and totally unacceptable".

"The TOR appears to ignore the long-term impact of the proposed coal plant’s emission into the pristine Darvel Bay," said Sepa president Wong Tack.

He disclosed that Green Surf had three representatives – including himself – at a Department of Environment meeting in Putrajaya on Nov 24 and discovered that the TOR are being drawn up without external consultation.

"Given the various shortcomings in the TOR, these should have been rejected then and there in Putrajaya," stressed Wong.

"We are very concerned about the limited scope of study in the TOR. These should not have contained conclusive statements."

Wong also alleged that the TOR does not comply with the Sabah Development Corridor planning requirements or with other state guidelines, such as shoreline development, fisheries and tourism.

"The TOR also acknowledges that no study was carried out on the cumulative effects of the coal plant emissions over a five to 10-year period," he said.

"Even state government representatives have voiced concern on the adverse impact of the emissions on the Tun Sakaran Marine Park and the world-renowned diving haven of Pulau Sipadan over the long term."

Green Surf alleged that a key weakness of the TOR is that these were based on climate conditions in Tawau, and not the proposed site near Lahad Datu, 200km away.

Tawau was the second site selected after the initial location in Sandakan was abandoned on a wave of public protests.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.