Sentences with phrase «coal pollution so»

The fifteen members of Congress in «Polluting Democracy» consistently vote against cleaning up coal pollution so we can breathe clean air.

Not exact matches

So we asked in our research: What would happen if current low natural gas prices or pollution control policies caused all US coal - burning power plants to be replaced by natural gas generators?

And much of the country's so - called war on pollution is centred on coal where the change in direction is just as startling.

«The effects of alpha - synuclein on mitochondria are like making a perfectly good coal - fueled power plant extremely inefficient, so it not only fails to make enough electricity, but also creates too much toxic pollution,» said Dr. Greenamyre.

«There's roughly seven million people who die globally from air pollution every year, so getting rid of coal could take a big chunk out of that number as well,» Pearce says, adding that another goal of future research is to dig deeper into the life cycles of coal production as this study only looked at air pollution - related deaths.

In a way, it makes sense that GOP politicians would be so cavalier about dismantling those Clean Air Act rules that would require better pollution controls on coal plants — after all, as a group largely comprised of affluent white men, they've probably never had to live next door to one.

China is beginning to see the costs of its rapid march towards industrialization — the heavy industry, coal - fired power plants, and numerous factories have so saturated the air with pollution that cancer is

The article notes that the shift to gas, so far, is restricted to the city, and some of the pollution from coal combustion will simply be generated elsewhere as plants outside the city pollute to supply electricity to the center of power.

We're investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants.

If someone in India dies from air pollution related diseases because India insists on cheap energy, so passes on the need for cleaning up coal combustion.

We can do so just fine with renewable energy sources, and in the process we will avoid poisoning the third world with air and water pollution and killing large numbers of coal miners.

Over a four - day period, the combination of fog and coal pollution created a smog so thick, travel became virtually impossible.

It seems that the Heartland Farmers are happy to have incompetently run coal mines with their illness - causing pollution and greenhouse gasses in Australia — so long as they are somewhere else — but they are dead - set against wind turbines near them that will harm no one.

Go and look at my post again — China and India alone are building, or planning 800 new coal - fired power plants, so all the closing of US plants by the loony extremists at the EPA will have the same effect on global pollution as p*ssing in the Pacific..

Generating power from coal emits almost twice the carbon of natural gas - fired power, so ramping it down (or installing pricy pollution controls) is a key lever to pull, especially for seven states that get 70 percent of their power from coal: Kentucky, West Virginia, Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Utah.

China is certainly anxious to clean up its power generation because of the pollution, but it is now clear that the 3 per cent coal tariff was aimed not so much at reducing emissions but to try and make Australia agree to free trade agreement concessions — which it should not do.

Anathema to environmentalists because it creates so much pollution, coal still has the undeniable advantages of being widely available and easy to ship and burn.

By doing so we not only effectively rein in coal - fired power plant pollution, we also stop export plans before they even start.

The ad said that according to the U.S. Department of Energy, «new coal - based power plants built beginning in about 2020 may well use technologies that are so advanced that they'll be virtually pollution - free.»

Note that many of these steps would have limited impact: Coal plants have already made costly investments to curb mercury pollution, so scaling back that Obama rule wouldn't do much.

To do so, we must first determine the amount of carbon pollution that will be released from BLM's recent coal leases; this analysis will focus on coal that has been leased during the Obama administration.

So comparing it to nuclear or coal is misleading because wind serves a different purpose; every time it blows there's a substantial decrease in carbon emissions, volatile fossil fuel costs, water for cooling, manufacturing and pollution.

Air pollution benefits aside, these so - called «coal bases» are the largest fossil fuel development in the world.

So if we internalize into the price of the coal the external costs of climate emissions, localized pollution from rail shipping, costs to other commerce from longer waits at RR crossings, probable loss of the Cherry Point Herring stock, and degradation of quality of life from those affected by these impacts, the effect will be to raise the price.

The project would be the first LNG export facility ever built so close to so many homes, the first built in close proximity to Marcellus Shale fracking operations, and a potential trigger of more global warming pollution than all seven of Maryland's existing coal - fired power plants combined.

What Lloyd and Cumming are implying, but not saying, is that the coal - fired power stations are so poorly designed or managed that they can not reduce their rate of pollution, even when they are generating less power.

In «Make a carbon tax part of reform effort» (Concord Monitor, 9/19/11), Holtz - Eakin argues for comprehensive tax reform to include a carbon tax so that more of the «true cost of burning a fossil fuel... in the form of air pollution, a negative impact on human health, harm to the environment or climate change [is a] component in economic decisions [such as] include whether to invest in a coal - fired power plant or a wind farm.»

Things are so bad that a recent study found that life expectancy was about 5.5 years shorter in the parts of the country where coal pollution is more concentrated.

Matt Yglesias points us to a new study, which finds that pollution reduces working productivity — and acts as a drag on the economy: We already know that emissions from coal plants and factories cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damage to the economy annually, in the form of health care costs (not to mention causing tens of thousands of deaths, respiratory illnesses, missed school and work days, and so forth).