I recently watched the documentary "Bhopal: The Search for Justice." From Wikipedia:
The Bhopal Disaster took place in the early hours of the morning of December 3, 1984, in the heart of the city of Bhopal, India, in the state of Madhya Pradesh. A Union Carbide subsidiary pesticide plant released 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, immediately killing nearly 3,000 people and ultimately causing at least 15,000 to 22,000 total deaths. Bhopal is frequently cited as the world's worst industrial disaster. The International Medical Commission on Bhopal was established in 1993 to respond to the disaster.
My employer, Dow Chemical, purchased Union Carbide in 2001 and has been under pressure to do something about Bhopal. From Dow's web page about the issue:
Bhopal was a terrible tragedy that none of us will ever forget. However, it is important to note that Dow never owned or operated the plant, which today is under the control of the Madhya Pradesh state government. Dow acquired the shares of Union Carbide Corporation more than 16 years after the tragedy, and 10 years after the $470 million settlement agreement - paid by Union Carbide Corporation and Union Carbide India, Limited - was approved by the Indian Supreme Court.
Although Dow never owned nor operated the plant, we - along with the rest of industry - have learned from this tragic event, and we have tried to do all we can to assure that similar incidents never happen again.
While Dow has no responsibility for Bhopal, we have never forgotten the tragic event and have helped to drive global industry performance improvements.
I understand Dow's argument: Union Carbide was a part of Dow neither when the tragedy occurred nor when Union Carbide settled with the Indian government. But Union Carbide did become part of Dow, and the settlement Union Carbide made does not seem to have adequately remedied the situation. According to the film, the site has never been cleaned up, so the pollution continues to affect the people living in the area. Though perhaps Dow has no legal responsibility for Bhopal, it seems like is does have a moral responsibility to try to make things right. If you (Union Carbide and now Dow) pay someone (the Indian government) to fix a mess you made (disaster in Bhopal) but the mess isn't cleaned up (due to either inadequate funds or failures of the Indian government), you still have a moral responsibility to clean up the mess.
This morning the TV was on, and one of the morning shows was airing some footage of some recent flooding in TX. With a certain amount of alarm, Finn said something like: "God promised not to cause a flood again, but he did!" I thought that was a good example of taking God at his word while thinking critically about whether or not he has kept it. I told him that the promise was about destroying the whole world and that this was just flooding in TX.
Yesterday we were sitting at a stoplight at the end of a highway exit ramp where a guy was holding a sign saying he was stranded and needed some money. My first urge was to look away from him. Lisa, who was driving, asked if I wanted to give him something. I said sure. I pulled out a $5 bill and Lisa handed it to him. Usually, I don't just hand out money but instead try to buy a person some food or whatever, but this occasion handing the money seemed to be the best option. As we sat longer at the stoplight, I noticed that Elliot was watching the man. We went on to Burger King. While in the restaurant, Elliot said something like "When we pass that man again, I want to give him $10." (Elliot had brought his wallet with him including the ~$100 of several years of birthday money that he has been saving and wants to spend on a Gameboy). Both Lisa and Elliot teared up at the time (and I am doing so right now). I'm really glad that we chose to give to that man and that Elliot got to see us do it.
I haven't seen it yet nor has it appeared online, but I'm told that my letter to the editor appeared in Friday's Midland Daily News. For more information about the fight against coal in Midland, check out the website of the grassroots organization MidlandCARES.
Dear Editor,
I am writing to express my concern with the coal plant proposed for Midland by Mid-Michigan Energy, an affiliate of the LS Power and Dynegy. The Midland plant is proposed to use conventional pulverized coal technology instead of the newest gasification technology called IGCC. Through large ads found in this paper and public comment made by the power plant representatives, Mid-Michigan Energy contends that IGCC technology is not an option for the Midland plant for three main reasons: poor reliability, higher emissions, and cost. I would like to take this opportunity to inform our community of what the MDEQ thinks of IGCC technology.
In a document titled "Fact Sheet: Environmental Permitting of Coal Fired-Power plants in Michigan" made public by the MDEQ on their website this summer, the following statements were made regarding IGCC technology: "The availability and reliability of IGCC facilities has been steadily increasing, and new IGCC facilities have reliabilities comparable to conventional coal-fired power plants." "Mercury control on IGCC plants is significantly more effective than mercury control on conventional coal-fired power plants. IGCC has superior sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and mercury control, resulting in significantly lower emissions of these pollutants compared to conventional coal-fired facilities." "With the advent of climate change as a national issue, the ability to capture and sequester carbon emissions has become a concern related to coal-fired power plants. As an outfall to these considerations, it has been noted that Michigan has unique geological formations which could make carbon sequestration in Michigan both economically and technically advantageous. IGCC has a much higher potential for carbon capture than conventional facilities. As climate change strategies are implemented, these considerations will serve to offset IGCC's higher capital and operating costs in Michigan more than in other locations." Document can be found here.
I urge Mid-Michigan Energy to explain to our community why their information seems to contradict that of so many other sources, including the MDEQ. I am skeptical of supporting a new coal power plant in Midland that will not be using the best technology to control emissions. At least thirteen IGCC plants are already proposed across the nation. In the Great Lakes Region alone, at least three IGCC plants have recently received permits or are in the last stages of the permitting process. Why would our community willingly settle for old conventional coal technology while so many other cities are moving forward embracing the future?
BTW, I spoke directly to the MDEQ Lead Engineer who drafted the document mentioned above to clarify what was meant by "conventioanl coal plant". He said that "conventional coal plant" describes any pulverized coal plant - subcritical, supercritical, and even ultra-critical. So the above statements certainly show the superiority of IGCC to even the cleanest possible pulverized coal plant.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer