Podcast: Download (Duration: 14:45 — 16.9MB)

Interview – Brad Campbell :: Purgen One_Part 2

Right Click for Mr. Campbell’s Power Point Presentation delivered to the Linden Town Council

***UPDATE*** On Tuesday Oct 20th, the town council of Linden voted 4-7 against granting the land use request to SCS Energy.  Round 1 goes to the environmentalists.

We continue our interview with Bradley Campbell Lead Council to the proposed Purgen One CCS Coal Plant in Union, NJ

C: HIGH PROFILE ENDORSEMENT CLAIMS

I was actually in attendance for your presentation to the Linden Planning Board in Sept, and I have a couple questions about some things you said.

AL GORE

In closing you said: Al Gore someone who normally opposes coal “… has spoken publicly and favorably about this project (Purgen One).”

We contacted Mr. Gore’s office and received this statement from his Press Secretary:

“To date, Vice President Gore has not endorsed any particular CCS project.  That said, he does not oppose the research and development of CCS technology.”

They also refered us to his recent Repower America speech where he said publicly “The answer (to the climate crisis) is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.” Coal is a carbon-based fuel.

• Mr. Gore supporting R&D is not the same as his supporting deployment. Mr. Gore’s office is refuting your claim that he supports this specific project. Your statements could mislead people to think leaders of the environmental movement expressly support this project when in fact they do not.  How do you respond to that?

• The Reuters article referenced by Mr. Campbell as support for his claim of Mr. Gore’s public support.  At no point in that article is Mr. Gore quoted a stating his support for this plant. To date we have been unable to find any published report of his support for this plant, and as we reported Mr. Gore’s office has stated he has not taken a position on this project.

MR. Campbell cites the support of 4 National Environmental Groups:

Clean Air Task Force (CATF) received an $845,000 grant from the Doris
Duke Charitable Foundation in 2008 to promote CCS; and a grant of
$787,500 from the Joyce Foundation in August, 2006 to promote CCS,
for a total of $1.6 million to promote CCS.

Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) received a grant of $437,500
in 2006 from the Joyce Foundation to promote CCS, and a $750,000
grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation in 2008 to study ways
to use money raised by a carbon cap-and-trade program to promote
“clean energy.” The Doris Duke Foundation uses the euphemism
“clean energy” to mean coal plants with CCS. For example, see
here and here. Source for this information, NRDC CCS Policy Doc

UCS (Union Of Concerned Scientists) – The position of the UCS as I was able to ascertain is very similar to that of the Sierra club, what I would call reluctant acceptance.  The group seems to encourage the pursuit of proven, clean, renewable energy over experimental revisions to coal consumption.

EDF (Environmental Defense Fund) – The EDF is not a hard line environmental group.  Their mission as stated on their site is to “partner with businesses, governments, and communities to find practical environmental solutions.

Other National Organization’s Positions on CCS
National Wildlife Federation Urban Effects of GW Doc

————————————————————

Growing Opposition

Of the 3 front-runner candidates for Governor – 2 of them, Chris Christie and Chris Daggett have stated that they are opposed to the Purgen plant.  And in a press conference earlier today a coalition of environmental groups announced the formation of the Arthur Kill Watershed Alliance with the goal of fighting this project.  Currently in the Alliance are:

Tremley Point Alliance

NJ Sierra Club

Edison Wetlands Association

NJ Environmental Federation

The NJ Environmental Lobby

And Environment NJ

They have also been joined by Linden Council President Robert Bunk.

You have experience in permitting in the State, what do you make of this considerable opposition movement and how do you think it is going to effect your ability to secure the necessary permits?

SIERRA CLUB

You stated the National Chapter of the Sierra Club Supports this project “If there is sequestration that is acceptable to us”. In reviewing the Sierra Club’s official position it sounds to me like their position is that every dollar spent on CCS is a dollar that can’t be spent on proven renewable energy sources like wind and solar.  That’s not exactly the endorsement you were alluding to is it?

SIERRA CLUB POSITION STATES : …As a nation, we should focus our resources on seizing the cheapest, cleanest, quickest, most reliable methods to displace carbon emissions while meeting our energy needs.

Are you taking the position that Purgen One meets the Sierra Club’s requirements of being the Cheapest, Cleanest, Quickest, and most reliable method to displace carbon emissions?

The official position of the Sierra Club:

While carbon sequestration is a potentially important tool for meeting our energy needs without worsening global warming, the calculations for net reductions of carbon dioxide from CCS must account for the additional energy requirements—and increased carbon dioxide emissions— necessary to power CCS systems. Additionally, the retention capabilities of geologic formations are uncertain at best, and the U.S. currently lacks any regulation or monitoring system to track the effectiveness of long-term storage.  Current scientific studies have only projected the permanence of these storage options on a timeline of up to 1,000 years – after which we have no idea if the ground can contain the stored carbon.19

If U.S. global warming policy depends on this technology to remove huge quantities of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide leaks from its storage sites, the net result could completely negate our efforts to curb global warming. Further, geologic sequestration does not reduce the significant environmental impact that results from current destructive coal mining practices such as mountaintop removal.

As a nation, we should not unwisely depend on geologic sequestration to solve all of our problems. Nor should we wait until sequestration is commercially available and cost-effective before moving to make deep cuts in carbon emissions with reliable tools like energy efficiency and renewable energy.  Under almost any scenario, coal-fired electricity with captured and stored CO2 will be an expensive and energy-intensive proposition.

____________________________

Groups Publicly in Opposition to Purgen One:

“We, the undersigned organizations, oppose the proposed PurGen One plant in Linden, New Jersey because of its negative environmental and public health impacts.  We need clean, renewable energy in NJ, not more fossil fuels.”

Tremley Point Alliance

Linden Society for Sustainable Development

Environment New Jersey

Sierra Club – New Jersey Chapter

NJ Environmental Federation

Environmental Research Foundation

Edison Wetlands Association

Clean Ocean Action

Essex Greens

Physicians for Social Responsibility

New York/New Jersey Baykeeper

Jersey Coast Angler’s Association

New Jersey Federation of Sportsman’s Clubs

BlueWave New Jersey

New Jersey PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility)

Cornucopia Network of New Jersey

New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance

Northeast Sustainable Energy Association

Green Party of Monmouth County

People’s Organization for Progress, Central Jersey

Green Hearts Environmental Movement of Bloomfield College

Green Faith

350.org

Other National Organization’s Positions on CCS

Gubernatorial Candidates:

Chris Christie

Chris Daggett

Greg Pason (Socialist Candidate)

Oct. 24th, the International Day of Climate Action, 350.org

Other Stats:

150 Proposed Coal Plants, 101 have been delayed or scrapped

POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:

(Comment edited out)With respect to Mr. Campbell’s statements about air quality and the impact of the Purgen Plant on Union County.  He stated that Purgen will be cleaner than the truck traffic that would come with an alternate proposal to build warehouses on the site.  I’d like to point out that just because one polluting proposal is claimed to pollute less than another, that doesn’t necessarily mean that either of the proposals are in the best interest of the overall health of the community

I would like to note that our interview with Mr. Campbell originally ran over a hour.  In the interest of time we have edited it down.  We have been careful to preserve the context of his comments. To make points clearer we also added some clarifying comments not in the original interview.  If you would like a copy of the full interview please email us through newlygreens.com and we will be happy to send you a copy.