Bank of America and Duke Energy — two of Charlotte’s leading “corporate citizens,” one of which even employs the mayor — are deeply involved with the coal industry, which is contributing mightily to global warming. It’s time for those two companies to change their policies.
The list of environmental debacles we will experience if we don’t get a lot more serious about global warming isn’t even up for debate anymore, except perhaps in Fox News la-la land. Our region is already withering from a drought greater than any we’ve seen in living memory. Atlanta is running out of water, while New Orleans is drenched by huge, freakish rainstorms. Temperatures are up worldwide, and arctic regions are melting at rates that are scaring the bejesus out of normally unflappable scientists. Even the normally slow-on-the-uptake mainstream media is beginning to ask whether New York, Miami, Charleston and other coastal cities will still be here in a hundred years. Needless to say, the Outer Banks and other Carolina beach destinations are as good as gone if global warming keeps getting worse.
Environmental scientists say the one surefire way to fight global warming is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of CO2. But, even though 30 percent of this country’s CO2 emissions come from coal-fired power plants, Duke Energy wants to build a new such plant in Cliffside, about an hour west of Charlotte.
Duke has been spinning the facts in order to claim that the plant is a step toward cleaner energy. It’s installing “state of the art” pollution controls at the Cliffside unit, they say, which will lower pollution. What they don’t mention is that although the new controls will indeed reduce soot particles and such, the amount of CO2 released will actually be more than that from older model plants — nearly six million tons of CO2 belched out into the air every year.
The fact, though, is that Duke’s “contributions” to global warming via coal burning wouldn’t be possible without massive financing. Which leads us to Bank of America. The Rainforest Action Network, which hung a large banner on a crane downtown last week to draw attention to Bank of America’s financial support for the coal industry, has the research and numbers to back its claims.
BOA has pledged to become environmentally friendly, including a commitment to lend and invest $20 billion for environmentally sustainable business practices. But, as RAN points out, BOA has also loaned money to some of the worst environmental abusers imaginable, namely companies that engage in Mountain Top Removal coal “mining.” Several MTR companies are literally destroying large swaths of Appalachia and in ways that also destroy the health and lives of families living nearby. Those companies got tons of money from Bank of America. The bank loaned the infamous Peabody Energy $4 billion last year, along with $700 million to Arch Coal, $525 million to Alpha Natural Resources (which has 27 surface mines in Appalachia), and $175 million to one of the most destructive companies, Massey Energy.
This is a go-go business town, so for once, never mind the moral implications of Duke Energy and Bank of America’s practices in these cases, as disturbing as those are. Throwing money after coal doesn’t make business sense, either. Sooner or later, the United States will follow other countries’ lead and begin regulating carbon emissions. In fact, there’s a bipartisan bill making its way through Congress that, if passed, will place mandatory caps on emissions from, among other industries, producers of electric power. In other words, polluters will pay — meaning that coal plants emitting CO2 will become financial liabilities.
Recent news reports show that coal-fired plant operators are feeling the heat of increased public opposition. The New York Times reported on a growing movement, including conservative ranchers as well as environmentalists, opposed to new coal-fired power plants on the Great Plains. They’re concerned about global warming’s effect on their water supply. In Kansas, a state regulator, for the first time anywhere, has denied a permit for a coal-fired power plant because of its future CO2 emissions.
Around the world, leaders are working together to come up with ways to cut greenhouse gases. New, cleaner energy technologies are being developed. Hundreds of American cities have pledged to reduce them (not Charlotte, because of Mayor McCrory’s opposition, as we’ve written about before). But there are also almost 150 new coal-fired plants being planned in the United States. If they’re all built, they will emit between 600 million and 1.1 billion tons of CO2 every year.
At the very least, the country needs a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. Locally, businesses like Duke Energy and Bank of America could make a big difference by cutting their links to the coal industry. It’s the most ethical, responsible and sane thing to do, and in the long run, would be less costly financially. How about a little less spin from the city’s corporate giants, and a little more public responsibility?
This article appears in Oct 31 – Nov 6, 2007.
