Switchboard, from NRDC :: Health and the Environment

US/Canadian Proposal for Cleaner Ships Enters Final Stage Next Week

2010-03-19T04:39:12Z

Next week, the International Maritime Organization will be meeting in London to consider a proposal that would drastically cut harmful air pollution from the largest, dirtiest ships at North American ports.

If successful, next week’s meeting will be a major step forward for public health in cities and towns up and down our Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts - and even hundreds of miles inland.

Here's the background:

Only the IMO can set standards for all of the ocean-going vessels at our ports, such as oil tankers, container-carrying cargo ships, and large cruise ships. In October 2008, after several years of debate, the IMO adopted a new global pact to reduce ship emissions.

Most significantly, the new pact includes a provision that allows individual countries to create special Emission Control Areas (ECAs) to accelerate the reduction of ship pollution off their coastlines. Last March, the Obama administration and the Canadian government proposed the creation of a joint US/Canada ECA that would require ships within 200 nautical miles of our coastlines to use fuel that has 98 percent less sulfur than in current ship fuel, and will cut their smog-forming nitrogen oxides emissions by 80 percent and their cancer-causing particulate soot emissions by 85 percent, starting in 2015.

Cleaning up these floating smokestacks is critical. Most burn residual bunker fuel, which can contain up to 45,000 parts-per-million (ppm) of sulfur, and lack even the most basic of pollution controls. Sulfur is a naturally-occurring presence in petroleum, and its presence leads to sulfur dioxide and particular matter emissions (aka soot) that trigger asthma emergencies, cancer, and thousands of premature deaths across the U.S. every year. Plus, sulfur in the fuel ruins anti-pollution catalysts and filters, just as lead in gasoline was once a barrier to effective catalytic converters in cars. (In contrast to dirty ships, diesel fuel used in trucks and buses in the U.S. was capped at only 15 ppm in late 2006, leading to new diesel engines that are more than 90 percent cleaner than they were prior to that date.)

The health benefits of implementing the ECA will be huge.

Air quality will improve along the coasts and even hundreds of miles inland, with air quality benefits extending all the way to Nevada, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania - and even the Grand Canyon. EPA esimates that implementing the ECA will avoid as many as 14,000 premature deaths in 2020, and nearly five million people will be relieved from acute respiratory symptoms each year. As with all EPA's diesel rules over the past decade, these financial benefits will far, far, far exceed the expected implementation costs—in fact, EPA estimates that there will be more than $34 in health benefits for every $1 in implementation cost.

And there may be significant climate benefits too.

Scientists are increasingly pointing to black carbon emissions as an important issue in the acceleration of melting sea and glacial ice, especially in the Arctic region. Because black carbon emissions last only a few weeks in the atmosphere, cutting them today should help slow the pace of this melting. Reducing ship pollution will cut these black carbon emissions, and the benefits will be greatest for ships travelling in the northern latitudes to and from our continent. At the IMO meeting, there will also be consideration of additional black carbon strategies for shipping.

I'll be attending the IMO meeting as a member of the U.S. delegation, joining officials from EPA, the Coast Guard, and other agenices as we advocate for this critically important step forward.

I'll be posting throughout the IMO meetings, so stay tuned as this story develops.

Today's reports of spills from natural gas operations

2010-03-19T01:00:38Z

Today was quite a day. Reports of three different spills from natural gas production operations crossed my desk. Unfortunately, I expect these reports to only increase as natural gas drilling expands dramatically in many states, regulations are not updated to reflect current operations, and state agencies don't beef up enforcement and, more importantly, penalties. Here's the news:

Flower Mound, TX: 3,000 gallons of used hydraulic fracturing fluid was spilled.

Waterville, PA: substances used in drilling were seen flowing into a creek.

Bee Branch, AR: dumping of suspected fracturing fluid from a tanker in the middle of a residential neighborhood, pooling in the street. Company employees stated the substance in the tanker was "tree sap."

These are just a few examples, but I was sad to hear of them all. They emphasize the need to close the loophole in our federal hazardous waste law that allows any toxic oil and gas waste to escape waste management standards with which other industries must comply.

In related news, the Sullivan County, New York Legislature unanimously voted to ban natural gas drilling on county-owned property until its impact on the environment, safety and public roads and bridges is identified and addressed.

The Onondaga County, New York Legislature voted to prohibit hydraulic fracturing on county property until better information is available about potential effects on health and the environment.

Air Regulators, Please Adopt Our Highways

2010-03-19T00:54:35Z

The Adopt-a-Highway program has had success in removing litter from our roadways. Even though our roadways may be prettier due to the lack of litter, a harm related to roads exists that in many ways is more frightening. The harm emanates from the noxious stew of pollutants from the cars and trucks that rumble down our highways each day.

A barrage of studies have highlighted the major impacts on the health and welfare of residents associated with living in close proximity to highways. For example, a recent study from researchers at the University of Southern California (“USC”) found that artery wall thickening among people living within 100 meters of a Los Angeles highway progressed twice as quickly as those who lived farther away. Another Southern California study from the USC research team documented the impairment of normal lung development from long term exposure to highway pollution among children between the ages of 10 and 18.

This severe public health issue impacts many throughout the country. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 35 million Americans live within 100 meters of major highways. In the Los Angeles region, there are approximately 1.5 million people residing near major roadways. Thus, significant populations are suffering from the lack of action to clean up the air in our highway corridors.

But, we are seeing more and more attention given to this issue, and now it is just a matter of our regulators catching up. A recent article in LA Weekly by Patrick Range McDonald highlighted this issue through the lens of the stylish lofts that are popping up around Los Angeles near our major highways. I suppose the real question these days is how much more information needs to be generated before our agencies take serious action to protect the millions of residents impacted by living close to highways.

Fed up with a lack of action, a coalition of health, environmental, and environmental justice groups asked top environmental officials in California to take this critical public health threat more seriously. The groups asked that our lead air pollution control agencies, including the California Air Resources Board, work together to more fully monitor the levels of pollution near highways. Currently, there has been an unwillingness to even place long-term air pollution monitors near highways in California. Apparently, some fear that we might uncover a public health issue that may be difficult to solve. This approach is akin to going to a doctor and having that doctor not run a test for fear that she may have to prescribe some medicine. We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the harm highway pollution is imposing on those living close to roads. The stakes are just too high.

EPA Flea & Tick Safety Announcement Improves Labels, But Are the Products Safe?

2010-03-18T20:04:19Z

Yesterday, EPA released the results of its assessment of chemical spot-on flea & tick treatments, following the recent sharp increase in reported pet poisonings. As I mentioned in my last post, NRDC was watching closely – as we’ve been working hard to protect pets & families from toxic chemicals in products like this.

After revisiting the safety of these products the agency had previously approved, EPA announced it will increase restrictions on the products and urged consumers to use them with extra care. It will immediately start looking at labels to see which need "stronger and clearer" warnings, and it will "develop more stringent testing and evaluation requirements for both existing and new products."

From 2007 to 2008, there was a 53% increase in pet poisonings from the spot-on products, so it's really good to see EPA taking action to protect our cats and dogs from the hazards of flea-control products. The EPA actions announced yesterday may help prevent poisonings related to misuse of these products and expand the data available to EPA for further evaluations.

Unfortunately, these actions don't address the larger concerns about the safety of the chemical pesticides used in flea-control products for either pets or families. Based on EPA's analysis, not all of the pet poisonings can be explained by people wrongly using the product.

This calls into question the safety of the products themselves. A question which was not answered by EPA in yesterday's announcement. Some of the chemicals included in EPA's assessment, such as permethrin and amitraz, are known to pose serious health risks to people. Other dangerous chemicals, like propoxur and tetrachlorvinphos, are used in flea & tick collars – products still not even covered by EPA's new actions.

EPA's actions are a good start to make flea control products safer but there's a lot more work to be done.

In the meantime, check out our Green Paws website (www.greenpaws.org) for more information on the hazards of flea control products and how to protect your pet and family. There, you’ll find tips, resources & opportunities to take action like these:

• Text service for your phone – just text "pets" and the name of the product to 69866 to get a text back with toxicity information and alternatives.

• Consumer-friendly online guide breaks down products by brand and chemicals, and rates their safety – including telling you which ones to avoid at all costs.

• Easy, chemical-free tips to control fleas

• Tell PETCO & PetSmart not to wait for EPA, but to be proactive and protect kids & pets from dangerous flea and tick control products.

On World Water Day: Water and Sanitation Receiving High Level Political Attention

2010-03-18T15:59:15Z

Monday, March 22nd 2010 is recognized by the United Nations as World Water Day, a time to raise awareness of the global water crisis and focus on the solutions. The challenge is tremendous, almost 900 million people lack safe drinking water and 2.6 billion people lack adequate sanitation (or safe toilets). NRDC has fought for clean water for decades and I am happy to report that my colleagues are writing this week about water’s intersection with so many environmental and health issues.

The Obama Administration has recognized the importance of the issue and is reaching out with key events to demonstrate its commitment to global water. I just finished a call this morning with Under Secretary of State Maria Otero about water policy during which she laid out key priorities for U.S. water activities around the world.

Under Secretary Otero announced that on World Water Day, Secretary Clinton will reinforce the U.S. commitment to global water – focusing on increased access to safe water and sanitation and improving the efficiency and management of water resources. Otero said they are working toward long-term sustainable solutions to prevent water from becoming a growing source of conflict and tension. The Under Secretary’s recognition of the role of watershed management is important to highlight, and a key part of the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Report. Notably the Obama Administration plans to integrate their food security and global health initiatives into U.S. water policy, through a comprehensive approach to development and water.

Otero stated:

Water is essential to all that we do, we can’t do without it and its irreplaceable.

Lack of clean water and sanitation is the second leading cause of death of children under five around the world. We need to use water more effectively and conserve water. As people around the world are facing the impacts of climate change especially the increases of floods and droughts – we know that managing water wisely is more critical.

These comments are very welcome from the Administration, but we also need Congress to act. That is why NRDC is calling upon Congress to increase funding for water and sanitation programming and we are working with over 30 organizations to raise awareness about the water and sanitation crisis.

In Washington DC on Tuesday March 23, 2010 you can make a difference by taking action on Capitol Hill for those who lack water and sanitation.

Two ways to get involved:

Sign up for advocacy day on the hill by clicking on the link and signing up-you can participate in meetings with Members of Congress and their staff throughout the day. This event begins at 9:00 a.m. with activities lasting throughout the day, including participation in the World’s Longest Toilet Queue.
If you’ve only got one hour: Meet us at Upper Senate Park for a rally on the hill. Students, educators and politicians will gather to form a line at Upper Senate Park to make the 'World’s Longest Toilet Queue'. Our ‘Queue’ is part of a global mobilization to demonstrate solidarity with those who have no clean water or safe sanitation and show Congress that they must increase resources to solve the global water and sanitation crisis.

The line forms at exactly 1:30 and will be completed by 1:45!

Let’s show the Administration and Congress that the time is now to confront the global water crisis and win!

Another story about lax state enforcement of oil and gas drilling

2010-03-18T01:23:12Z

A recent AP story exposed that a state regulator in California fast-tracked drilling permits to help a company at the expense of proper oversight and safety for the local community.

Among other things, the regulator wrote in an e-mail to a drilling company: ''Just keep up the good work and I will TRY to keep (my boss) from hitting you guys with any more retarded fines ... Remember, I'm on YOUR side ... go PXP!''

My colleague Damon Nagami is working with local community groups in the Los Angeles area to strengthen environmental protections where drilling takes place. I have blogged before about lax state enforcement and oversight. Communities around the country have lost confidence in state regulators, who are allowing oil and gas drilling to release dangerous pollutants into the environment and threaten clean air and clean water around the country.

Climate Change "Pervasive, Wide-Ranging" White House Task Force Reports

2010-03-17T21:49:38Z

Climate change is already having "pervasive, wide-ranging" effects on "nearly every aspect of our society," a task force representing more than 20 federal agencies reported Tuesday.

"These impacts will influence how and where we live and work as well as our cultures, health and environment," the report states. "It is therefore imperative to take action now to adapt to a changing climate."

Indeed, climate change has begun to affect the ability of government agencies to fulfill their missions, reports the White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.

The group is led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It is made up of representatives from more than 20 federal agencies, departments and offices, including the Department of Commerce, the National Intelligence Council, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Pentagon. That's diverse - and it's definitive.

President Obama convened the task force in October, directing it to look into whether climate change was affecting the United States and, if so, what might be done about it.

On Tuesday, the group issued preliminary findings. As to the question of whether climate change is impacting our country, the report is emphatic.

"The Task Force has found that climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, nearly every aspect of our society and the environment," the report states. "Some of the impacts are increased severity of floods, droughts, and heat waves, increased wildfires and sea level rise.

"Climate change impacts are pervasive, wide-ranging and affect the core systems of our society: transportation, ecosystems, agriculture, business, infrastructure, water, and energy, among others," the report continues. "Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions."

Strong stuff.

When reports like this come out of a White House task force, each word is parsed, discussed and vetted by all participants. It's a consensus document, meaning it reflects the view of the group as a whole. That makes writing the report a challenge, but it ensures authenticity and weight.

Those are two things notably lacking from the raft of climate change deniers who have been having a field day of late trying to rally an assault on science with a handful of stolen e-mails and a couple of minor errors in a 2,800-page report by the International Panel on Climate Change.

These same critics will likely try to paint the task force report in partisan terms. In fact, it relies on sound science developed over two decades through four administrations – two of them Republican, and two Democratic.

The White House task force tells us the truth. Our climate is changing, and it's affecting our country in fundamental ways.

One reason is that U.S. smokestacks and tailpipes will dump roughly 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere this year alone. That's nearly one-fifth of the world total of this heat-trapping pollution.

We can do better.

The clean energy and climate legislation being drafted in the Senate can put us on the path to curbing carbon pollution. It can put Americans back to work building the next generation of energy-efficient cars, homes and workplaces. And it can make our country more secure by cutting our dependence on foreign oil in half. It needs and deserves our support.

I look forward to October, when the task force issues its final report.

A few things, though, are already clear. Climate change is happening, right here, right now. It threatens our future, our children, our way of life. It's time we face the facts and deal with what's happening right before our eyes – before it’s too late.

Blasting Rocky Top?

2010-03-17T18:20:36Z

While it's true that the vast majority of mountaintop removal coal mining takes place in West Virginia and Kentucky, make no mistake: coal companies have their eye on Tennessee’s rocky tops. Unlike those other states, the Tennessee legislature currently is considering a bill to end so-called high elevation mining. The bill is fittingly named the Tennessee Scenic Vistas Protection Act. According to the LEAF , the faith-based citizen's group leading the fight to pass this common-sense bill, the members of the Senate Environment Committee hold the fate of the mountains in their hands.

Today the Chattanooga Times Free Press weighed in on the matter with an editorial excorciating some Tennessee politicians for their stance on the issue. As the paper notes, the travesty of mountaintop removal "has not yet laid waste to much of Tennessee" as it has in neighboring Appalachian states. Thus far four peaks have been flattened although the editorial expresses "great trepidation" about the "potential wave of mountaintop slaughter", acknowledging a concern that:

"This rapacious devastation of Tennessee's beautiful mountain tops will proceed apace as surely as dew forms on spring grass unless Tennessee's lawmakers step up to the challenge of banning this environmentally monstrous excuse for mining."

The editorial then calls out Republican gubernatorial candidates, including the current state Senate majority leader, who is seen as the leading opponent of the Scenic Vistas bill. By his own admission the majority leader, Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, is not just an apologist for the practice but an enthusiastic volunteer when it comes to leveling Rocky Top. The editorial calls Mr. Ramsey's position "laughable if it were not so uniformed, absurd and propagandistic. He's wrong on the facts, the effect and the motivation of both mining companies and sensible environmental watchdogs."

The editorial enlightens its readers about what's at stake:

"Mountaintop removal mining is anything but surgical: It uses explosives literally to blow off the tops of mountains, sending avalanches of trees, boulders, dirt and debris down the mountainsides, choking and killing streams and poisoning land in the valleys below with metals and coal-laced toxins that contaminate water supplies and destroy wildlife habitat.

"The explosions are used, in place of traditional shaft mining, to expose coal veins for surface removal by huge machines that replace traditional miners, diminishing jobs and increasing profits for the companies. These companies ignore -- and pass along to the rest of us -- the cost and consequences of the environmental destruction spewed by the explosions, the debris and the toxic runoff from the mine sites. They never -- and never can -- adequately reimburse the affected valley communities for their externalized costs of environmental destruction.

"They just pocket their big profits, scrap some dirt and bunch grass back on the unstable, blown-off mountain table, and go kill another mountain and the land and streams below it."

The editorial also debunks the myth perpetrated by industry proponents that curtailing this reckless method of strip mining will increase people's electric bills, arguing:

"The issue is not whether to allow creation of electric energy. It is whether the destruction of our mountains makes sense relative to our options of traditional deep-shaft mining, reasonable environmental controls on the damage mines cause, other fuels and alternative sources, and prudent conservation regarding our use of energy."

In addition, the editorial recounts recent testimony in the Tennessee legislature by by research biologist Dr. Dennis Lemly of Wake Forest University, who told the Senate committee members that dangerous levels of toxic chemicals released by mountaintop mining practices "are just like ticking time bombs waiting to explode" and "have pretty much exploded" at the four sites in Tennessee now subject to mountain-top removal mining. "The question is how many more will be allowed to," he said.

The editorial summarizes Dr. Lemly's dire warnings to the state legislature:

"He said pollution of selenium and other heavy metals at the Zeb Mountain (mountaintop) mine in Campbell County 'is substantial and it's not going to stop.' Speaking later before the House Environment Committee, he said research shows 'increased incidence of cancers, of kidney disease, of respiratory disease and even deformities in young children and infants that are associated with increases in mountain-top miming. That's related to the entire suite of contaminants, not just selenium.'"

NRDC applauds the Chattanooga Times Free Press for its strong stance against what the paper characterizes accurately as "needlessly rapacious destruction of our mountains." We'll be watching and hoping that Tennessee's state lawmakers truly value their scenic vistas.

(Zeb Mountain, Tennessee : photo by United Mountain Defense)

EPA Takes a Closer Look at Pet Pesticides Today

2010-03-17T16:50:13Z

UPDATE: EPA has released the results of its assessment and announced it will increase restrictions on flea & tick products – urging consumers to use them with extra care. Among those changes – it will immediately start looking at labels to see which need “stronger and clearer” warnings, and it will “develop more stringent testing and evaluation requirements for both existing and new products.”

Ever spent any time in the flea control aisle of a pet store? There are boxes, cans and bottles of all shapes and sizes. Most of them are plastered with pictures of happy dogs and cats. But, the story behind the small print on the back of many of these products will keep you up at night.

In recent years, there have been a slew of reports of poisonings of both pets and people from the use of products that the EPA determined to be safe. Last spring, EPA initiated a review of one type of flea control product, known as a spot-on treatment, where a concentrated amount of the pesticide is applied to the pet’s fur. Today, the EPA is announcing the results of this review. Those of us worried about pesticides used on pets are hoping that they will take strong steps to protect pets and their families. It’s good to see EPA moving on this issue and revisiting the safety of pre-approved products, but it also serves as a reminder that just because they’re in stores, does not mean they’re safe. (Scroll down for tips to protect yourselves in the meantime.)

As part of NRDC’s work to protect families and pets from dangerous pesticides used in flea control products, I’ve spent a fair amount of time reading the labels on flea control products. Those doggy smiles advertise products full of chemicals known to cause cancer, reproductive harm and nervous system damage. They work by spreading the flea-killing chemicals over the pets’ fur. Unfortunately, this also means that pet owners, and the pets themselves, can get a harmful dose of these toxic chemicals - and that’s pretty worrisome.

Today’s announcement from EPA relates to spot-on products that go directly on the fur, but last year NRDC did a study of another pet product – flea collars – that also raised flags about the reliability of EPA testing. Our study found residue levels on pets’ fur that were much higher than what the EPA assumed in their safety assessments. In fact, when we looked into it, we found that the EPA safety assessments were woefully inadequate and the levels we found were high enough to be of real concern for both children and adults who spend time with their pets.

NRDC has been working to protect pets from these products in various ways. We petitioned the EPA and even sued manufacturers and retailers for selling these dangerous products in California without any warning labels. And now, we’re encouraging consumers to tell the nation’s two largest pet retailers (PETCO & PetSmart) directly that these dangerous products must come off store shelves (tell them yourself here). Unfortunately they’re still around, for now.

In the meantime, there are some easy ways to control fleas without using dangerous chemicals. Baths in regular pet shampoo and frequent cleaning of bedding and carpets can control most flea situations.

And for those instances when chemical control is needed, NRDC has some great tools to help you safely navigate the aisles and choose safer products:

This online, user-friendly guide breaks down products by brand and chemicals, and rates their safety – including telling you which ones to avoid at all costs.
And get the power of the guide straight to your phone – just text "pets" and the name of the product to 69866 to get a text back with toxicity information and alternatives.

Pet owners shouldn’t have to worry about the safety of products on the shelves of pet stores. EPA needs to be more diligent in assessing the safety of these chemicals that children and pets are exposed to. And dangerous chemicals, like those used in the pet collars we tested, should not be allowed. In the interim, pet stores should be proactive and get dangerous products off the shelves. Now that would be something for dogs and cats to really smile about.

Find NRDC blogging more on pet product safety here.

The Carbon Footprint of Mountaintop Mining

2010-03-16T14:25:00Z

Mountaintop removal is without a doubt the world's worst coal mining -- responsible for landscape destruction, habitat loss and water pollution throughout Appalachia. As if all that weren't bad enough, new research suggests that the global warming pollution from conventional (dirty) coal-fired power plants are up to 17% higher when greenhouse gas emissions relating to mountaintop mining operations are factored in.

That's according to a new study -- Terrestrial Carbon Disturbance from Mountaintop Mining Increases Lifecycle Emission for Clean Coal -- by two civil engineering professors, James Fox of the University of Kentucky and J. Elliott Campbell of the University of California. The crux of their analysis dealt with the life-cycle components of coal production, such as emissions during mining, refinement and coal transportation.

Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy, Fox and Campbell found that from 1997 to 2006, coal accounted for 33% per year of the total energy produced in the United States. Meanwhile, coal consumption accounted for 36% of the carbon pollution produced in the U.S. due to the burning of fossil fuels. Thus, coal is both a primary energy source and contributor to global warming pollution.

They noted that one aspect of coal production that has received less attention is "the redistribution and loss of terrestrial carbon during surface or mountaintop coal mining methods." They focused their study on the region of Appalachia covering southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and portions of east Tennessee -- in other words, ground zero for mountaintop mining. (They define this method generally as surface mining, including mountaintop removal, steep-slope mining, contour mining and area mining.) Using published data on factors such as forest and soil carbon, they calculated the carbon emitted when companies cut down trees and sheer off mountaintops to access that coal.

Through this strip mining method, some 500 mountaintops have been destroyed and nearly 2,000 miles of valley streams have been buried under tons of rubble. In addition, more than one million acres of forest have been clearcut. In fact, according to the research by Fox and Campbell, over the past two decades some 6.8% of forests have been removed in Appalachia to produce 23.3% of the coal in the United States.

Bear in mind that the forests of southern Appalachia represent the most biologically diverse temperate deciduous forests in the world. Mountaintop mining is destroying these forests at an alarming rate. As I cite in my own research paper, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that at current rates of deforestation from mountaintop removal, the total forest loss by 2012 would be 1,408,372 acres (or 2,200 square miles). The loss of forest cover this size means the loss of 3.14 million tons of carbon dioxide sequestration annually. Fox and Campbell confirm in their study that "forest disturbance" from mountaintop mining has resulted in a drastic reduction in natural sequestration (or storage) of carbon. One reason, they note, is that the trees cleared for the mining are typically burned on-site (instead of harvested), resulting in higher carbon emissions.

They also looked at regrowth on post-mined sites to determine net carbon emissions. They estimate that "reclaimed areas in the Appalachian coal belt show regrowth of only 3% of nonsoil carbon after 15 years." However, they note that so-called carbon recovery may be even lower because only 2% of land disturbed by coal mining in the United States has been reclaimed -- and existing reclamation in Appalachia "has focused on erosion prevention and bankfill stability and not reclamation with trees." To make matters worse, the natural sequestration lost due to wiping out forests means a net increase in carbon emissions. Finally, after mountaintop mining takes place, the vegetation and soil are replaced by compacted mining spoil, which inhibits plant growth and also contains "high amounts of coal fragments" that in turn emit more global warming pollution.

All told, their research concluded that land disturbance associated with mountaintop minining in southern Appalachia increases global warming pollution by 2–12%; those figures increase to 7–17% if greenhouse gas emissions produced during coal extraction and transport are included.

So, among the many environmental problems caused by mountaintop mining, the loss of Appalachian forests decreases natural sequestration of carbon, thereby exacerbating climate change.