The Bay State Push to Move Away From Coal

The Mount Tom coal plant in Holyoke, Massachusetts poses an interesting ethical quandary. On the one hand, it annually pumps about 1 million tons of toxic CO2 into the increasingly fragile atmosphere. On the other hand, it generates 146 kilowatts of much-needed electricity, keeps about 50 people gainfully employed, and contributes nearly $2 million to the community in taxes.

What’s the best course of action in this case? Shut down the plant and cut electricity, jobs and tax revenue? Or keep it open and contribute to global warming?

A new bill introduced in Massachusetts says the answer should actually be neither. Rather than forcing the state to close the coal plant, its supporters want Mount Tom to switch to renewable energy sources or natural gas. Peter Vickery, one of the bill’s proponents, and the creator of a petition on Change.org, puts the mission simply: “Keep Mount Tom open, but minus the coal.”

This highly sensible tenet is one of many in the so-called Act to Phase-Out Coal Burning in Massachusetts, which also asks for the closure or conversion of all other Bay State coal-burning plants (there are currently two others alive and kicking, one of which is already scheduled for closure). For instance, the deadline it sets for change is 2020—giving plant owners a more-than-reasonable time frame to figure out logistics. And if a plant gets shuttered rather than converted over, it asks for a Community Repowering Fund to help laid-off employees and the local community get back on their feet.

In an op-ed, Vickery also tackles the inevitable question of will it work? He provides detailed examples of other plants that have successfully made the toxic-to-green leap, including four in Colorado, one in Minnesota, and one in Mount Tom’s backyard.

But what’s really reasonable about the legislation is its central motive: prevent coal from wreaking havoc on the ecosystem. Vickery notes that coal makes up roughly one-third of the U.S.’s total CO2 output. And on her official website, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Lori Ehlrich, says virtually all of the coal burned in Massachusetts is imported from other states or countries, and is often mined under dangerous conditions.

Combating this, while also keeping precious jobs in place and the fragile economy in balance, seems like an easy win-win—which is probably why more than a thousand people have already e-mailed Mount Tom’s owners, GDF Suez, asking for a conversion. It also explains why the legislation has elicited the support of groups including the Sierra Club, the clean-energy labor organization GreenWork, and Neighbor to Neighbor, a group that serves low-income communities. Even more promising? All that support has come in advance of the campaign’s official kickoff during a public meeting February 23.

Vickery, a master's degree candidate at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst's Center for Public Policy and Administration, says the goal of the act is to spur “clean-energy innovation and job creation.” It’s nice to know there’s no reason we have to choose between the two.

Support jobs and the environment by signing Vickery's petition to support the Act to Phase Out Coal Burning in Massachusetts.

Have a story tip? E-mail us at environmenttips@change.org. Please also follow Change.org's Environment page on Facebook,  Twitter or RSS.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons