A new report by the Environmental Integrity Project documents that 49 coal-fired power plants have contaminated groundwater at 116 coal ash disposal sites in the United States.

Microsoft, Amazon and Apple are dirtying your data. Let's ask their CEOs to clean-up and quit coal.

About 77% of the country’s primary energy is provided by coal. Of that, 53% is used for electricity generation and 15 of the utility’s 27 existing and incomplete power stations are coal fired. South Africa’s dependence on fossil fuels is fast depleting our energy sources and is slowly resulting in a substantial depletion.

Friday, the 2nd of December Earth Life Africa held an anti-coal seminar at the Centre for Civil Society, University of KwaZulu-Natal (Howard campus).

The coalition of civil society organisations challenging the authorisations given to mining company Limpopo Coal (Pty) Ltd’s proposed Vele colliery outside the Mapungubwe National Park and World Heritage Site, has resolved to commence direct formal negotiations with Limpopo Coal and its holding company Coal of Africa (CoAL).

Now with new and improved labeling! In reality, there's no such thing as clean coal. Check out this hilarious ad directed by the Academy-award winning Coen Brothers.

On 8 April 1933 a remarkable discovery was made in the Transvaal. A grave of unknown origin, filled with gold-work, was found on a natural rock stronghold in a wild region. This site was Mapungubwe Hill, which serves as the capital of the ancient Mapangubwe Kingdom, situated on the borders between South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana.

The fight to save the Mapungubwe region from the detrimental impact of coal mining has been strengthened this week, with the rights of future generations of South Africans to experience the region's cultural and natural splendour forming the basis of an expanded legal battle.

In Part 2 of the CSP Today South Africa Guide, we look at how South Africa should be readily embracing concentrating solar power (CSP) as a low-carbon, sustainable, base load energy alternative to coal. So why do its energy authorities remain unconvinced?

Energy continues to be big news. In South Africa, there's a focus on our future energy mix: that is, to say how much energy we should be generating from fossil fuels, nuclear or renewable energy resources. It's a critical issue, not just from an environmental perspective but also from an economic viewpoint. Surprisingly, we've heard little from business on the issue and arguably current Government deliberations aren't to business's liking.

The Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), Government's framework for meeting SA's future energy needs, is being finalised. Under this scenario SA will require far more energy than is currently available and, the IRP proposes, up to 70% is to be sourced from fossil fuels (primarily coal-based energy), 14% from nuclear and 16% from renewable sources by 2030.

While the reduction of fossil fuels from its current 95% of SA's energy sources is to be applauded, there will still be an increase in fossil fuel usage in absolute terms and a concurrent increase in associated greenhouse gases. Eskom's two new coal-fired power stations ' Medupi and Kusile ' will provide an additional 9 500MW of energy to the grid. Medupi alone will be the world's fourth largest coal-fired power station. Antiquated stations such as Komati, Grootvlei and Camden are being revived, indicating that Eskom remains well wedded to coal to meet SA's future energy demands.

business needs to be challenged

Business needs to be challenged on whether that's in its best interest. There are numerous reasons why I'd argue it is not. First, Government committed SA to conditional, but ambitious, greenhouse gas reduction targets at the Copenhagen climate change talks in 2009. Against a 'business as usual' growth trajectory, SA aims to reduce greenhouse gases by 34% by 2020 and by 42% by 2025. With the help of some innovative legislation, Government must expect business to meet these targets on its behalf. This will be difficult if SA brings on line additional fossil-fuel based electricity.

Second, Government appears set on the idea of carbon taxes. A discussion paper released by the National Treasury in December last year mooted levies from R75/t of CO2, rising to as high as R360/t. Business will find that expensive, especially when bolted to increased electricity costs.

Third, companies are setting their own carbon reduction targets. Some of these are in absolute values, such as FirstRand's 11% reduction between 2008 and 2011. Those targets are publicly declared and in this day and age of integrated reporting are gaining prominence. Such targets will be difficult to achieve without significant reduction in fossil-fuel based power and the availability of alternate clean resources.

meeting reduction targets

Finally, business faces various forms of compliance, including the submission to the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) of their carbon footprints and achievement (or not) in meeting reduction targets. The CDP has proven extremely successful in publicising business's performance and that's often picked up by the media. There's an inherent reputational risk for companies whose carbon footprints increase but are unable to achieve stated reduction targets.

So why the muteness from business when the issue of carbon and energy is of such direct concern to it? One could surmise it's because business believes it's more beneficial to engage with Government behind closed doors. However, that would strike a blow for transparency and misses the opportunity to join forces with other clean energy voices.

Cynically, perhaps, it's because fossil-fuel based energy is perceived as the cheapest alternative ' which it currently is ' and business wants the least expensive option, even if that's contrary to national or corporate carbon targets. But such a viewpoint would be short-sighted of business. With taxes and other instruments in the offing, fossil fuel energy will become increasingly expensive and, if climate change is a concern, then business should be unequivocally calling for a rapid replacement of such energy with cleaner alternatives.

By Alex Hetherington. Source

Greenpeace has identified  our national energy supplier's addiction and  named it coal. How do we get them to rehab? Greenpeace found it suitable to nudge them towards the sober path by dumping five tons of coal on their headquarters' doorstep.

The Australian company Coal of Africa Limited (CoAL) recently announced that it had been awarded 'unconditional new order mining rights' for the Vele Coking Coal Project in Musina, Limpopo, by the South African Department of Mineral Resources.

South Africa is warming up three times faster than the rest of the world. While there is currently furious debate about South Africa's energy development path, the country continues to be perceived as one of the world's biggest coal-based economies. Relative to our size, we contribute far more than most countries to climate change.

Earthlife Africa Cape Town and friends will hand Minister Pravin Gordhan a sheaf of research that confirms that a 'No Nuclear, No Coal, No Price Increase' future is possible and will deliver improved work and livelihood opportunities for South Africans, improved health and lower energy costs over time. This to commemorate Chernobyl Day (26 April), the anniversary of the single largest nuclear disaster in history where many people died.

'This is a tragic decision,' said David Parry-Davies, environmentalist and editor of the yearly landmark publication Enviropaedia, about the news that the World Bank had approved a loan of US3,75-billion to Eskom to build a coal-fired power plant at Medupi, northern Limpopo.

Shockwaves rippled through the South African green community, as David verbalized what many hard working fighters of global warming are feeling. The World Bank decision seems to fly in the face of all reason, if the bigger picture of climate change is taken into consideration. Africa is a place of intense suffering due to climate change ' and such a decision will simply be exacerbating an already dire situation. Read about the BBC's World Services Trust Africa Talks Climate report here.

'This is a tragic decision,' said David Parry-Davies, environmentalist and editor of the yearly landmark publication Enviropaedia, about the news that the World Bank had approved a loan of US3,75-billion to Eskom to build a coal-fired power plant at Medupi, northern Limpopo.

Shockwaves rippled through the South African green community, as David verbalized what many hard working fighters of global warming are feeling. The World Bank decision seems to fly in the face of all reason, if the bigger picture of climate change is taken into consideration. Africa is a place of intense suffering due to climate change ' and such a decision will simply be exacerbating an already dire situation. Read about the BBC's World Services Trust Africa Talks Climate report here.

'This is a tragic decision,' said David Parry-Davies, environmentalist and editor of the yearly landmark publication Enviropaedia, about the news that the World Bank had approved a loan of US3,75-billion to Eskom to build a coal-fired power plant at Medupi, northern Limpopo.

Shockwaves rippled through the South African green community, as David verbalized what many hard working fighters of global warming are feeling. The World Bank decision seems to fly in the face of all reason, if the bigger picture of climate change is taken into consideration. Africa is a place of intense suffering due to climate change ' and such a decision will simply be exacerbating an already dire situation. Read about the BBC's World Services Trust Africa Talks Climate report here.

In the life of any nation there are rare moments of historic opportunity when great decisions can be taken that will shape the future for generations to come. We are going through one of those moments now, but it all ends this week at a crucial meeting of the board of the World Bank. Will South Africans let the future be decided in that boardroom?

No country should be building new polluting coal-fired power stations, and the World Bank should certainly not make it possible by financing any fossil fuel projects,' stated Bishop Geoff Davies, Executive Director of the Southern African Faith Communities' Environment Institute (SAFCEI). 'The World Bank should only fund clean renewable energy generation and that does not include nuclear.'

In just days, the World Bank will vote on a proposed R29 billion loan to Eskom to build the fourth-largest coal plant in the world -- a climate disaster. At the same time, Eskom plans to effectively double electricity rates over the next three years. Big polluters are getting cut-rate electricity while ratepayers would be left to pay back this disastrous loan.