Skip to Navigation
Skip to Content

Support PSR!

Make a difference in the challenge to confront global warming and prevent nuclear war and the development and use of nuclear weapons.

Donate Now »

Take Action

Tell local, state and federal agencies to reject a proposal for the largest coal export terminal in the U.S.

Using the Media to Highlight Coal’s Threats

Posted by Barbara Gottlieb on February 10, 2009

Working with environmental allies in the "SC Says NO Coalition," PSR is using the media to educate South Carolinians about the deadly pollutants and global warming gases of a proposed coal-fired power plant.

Our efforts to date have resulted in a Feb. 9 op-ed in The State, news coverage in the Charleston Post and Courier, a 13-minute interview on AM radio, and back-page placement of our "Code Black" ad in the Myrtle Beach Alternatives, among other media hits.

Our success in securing media coverage reflects the strengths of strategic collaboration:  PSR provides specific, factual information about the impacts of coal combustion on health, while our collaboration with such allies as the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League opens the door to local newspapers.

Health concerns are a foremost concern.  The plant, proposed to be built on the Pee Dee River between the town of Florence and the popular tourist destination of Myrtle Beach, would emit over 60 different hazardous air pollutants.  These include mercury, dioxins, arsenic, heavy metals, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter -- substances which are known to be carcinogens, teratogens, neurotoxins, and/or cardiopulmonary irritants. 

Even without additional health burdens from a new coal plant, South Carolina ranks as one of the worst-performing states in terms of health, ranking #48 out of 50, according to America's Health Rankings.

South Carolina's coastal rivers are already heavily contaminated by mercury.  Mercury "advisories" issued by the Environmental Protection Agency urge residents to limit their consumption of local fish.  Regardless, many poor people fish the rivers, relying on their catch to supplement their diet.

The plant would also release carbon dioxide and increase global warming.  The South Carolina coastal plain is particularly vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding, both of which are likely to increase as the planet continues warming.

The permitting application for the proposed plant fails to quantify the amount of CO2 it would emit.  The lack of projected CO2 emissions, and the failure to identify the technologies that would be used to reduce them, is one basis on which the plant's air quality permit is being challenged.

Do you live in South Carolina?  Email me at for easy ways to educate your community about coal's threats to health.  


Leave your comment

Enter this word: Change

Action Alerts

  • Tell President Obama: Ban Oil Trains

    Tell President Obama and the US DOT to stop oil trains carrying diluted tar sands and fracked shale oil from the Bakken formation—both are more toxic, more explosive, and more carbon-intensive than conventional crude.

  • Tell EPA: Public Health needs a strong Haze Rule

    The EPA must improve the Regional Haze Rule so polluters are held accountable and everyone can experience healthy air at our national parks and wilderness areas.

More action alerts»


In the Spotlight

  • March 25, 2016
    What now, after the Supreme Court stay?
    The Supreme Court in February 2016 issued a "stay," or a temporary suspension, of the Clean Power Plan while a lower court reviews this legal challenge. This situation raises many questions.