By John Stark
Coal use in Asia will rise rapidly in the years ahead, even if the Chinese economy slumps and western governments succeed in enacting carbon tax measures, the International Energy Agency says in a new report.
Writing in his Dot Earth blog in the New York Times, Andrew Revkin sums things up bluntly:
“Anyone making the case that some magical application of a carbon price, in the United States or elsewhere, can ride to the rescue of the climate system is missing the primacy of real-time energy needs over long-term climate concerns,” Revkin writes.
Revkin is no climate-change denier. He goes on to suggest steps that could be taken to minimize the damage to the environment. But those steps are likely to be unpopular in some circles. As he sees it, attention should be focused on making coal-burning as efficient as possible, so that developing economies get the maximum amount of electric power for every ton of coal they burn.
Richard K. Morse, director of research on coal an d carbon markets at Stanford University’s Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, made the same exact point in an article in Foreign Affairs last August.
The full article is behind a paywall so I can’t link it all for you, but here is a key excerpt:
“Given how dominant coal is, one of the most promising ways to fight global warming is to make it emit less carbon dioxide, a solution that is less elusive than commonly thought. Merely installing the best available technologies in coal plants in the developing world could slash the volume of carbon dioxide released by billions of tons per year, doing more to reduce emissions on an annual basis than all the world’s wind, solar and geothermal power combined do today.”
Many months ago, I discussed Morse’s article with Eric dePlace of Sightline Institute, who has focused on environmental issues surrounding SSA Marine’s proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export facility at Cherry Point.
“I agree with part of it,” dePlace said.
It is important to talk about ways to help the developing world produce energy more efficiently, and that could mean more efficient use of coal in the near-term. Coal-burning isn’t going to stop in the next 10 years, dePlace agrees.
But he is wary of energy policies that would lock Asian economies into long-term reliance on coal.
“Even the most efficient coal plant is not very efficient,” dePlace said, adding that money invested in retrofitting older, dirtier coal plants would be better-spent elsewhere.
“Getting a 40 percent reduction in coal emissions is not nearly adequate to the task,” dePlace said. “We need, as a world, to transition off coal in the next few decades … I’m far from convinced that investing in and thereby extending the life of existing coal plants would be the smartest thing to do with investors’ money.”
In his Foreign Affairs article, Morse says alternative forms of energy are much-preferred — and the Chinese are moving actively to develop them — but in some places, no alternatives are available.
“Critics may argue that financing any kind of coal is bad environmental policy,” Morse writes. “The calculus, however, is more complicated, and it depends on counterfactuals. In places where financing coal power would crowd out cleaner sources of energy, development banks should refrain from doing so. But much of the developing world, constrained by tight budgets and limited alternatives for large-scale power generation, faces a choice not between coal and renewable energy but between inefficient coal plants and efficient ones … Indulging in quixotic visions of a coal-free world is an incoherent and inadequate response to the problem of global warming.”
Does any of this have any bearing on the debate over Gateway Pacific? That is likely one of the issues that regulatory agencies will have to grapple with soon, as they make key decisions on the scope of the environmental impact statement.
For opponents of Gateway Pacific, it’s a no-brainer: Burning coal contributes to climate change, and Gateway Pacific would contribute to burning coal. Therefore, that issue must be a part of the environmental impact statement process, and in the likely event that there is no way to mitigate for the damage caused by burning the coal, the project should be denied.
But the IEA report and the arguments from people like Morse and Revkin raise some doubts. If China and India can’t get Powder River Basin coal from West Coast ports, will they burn less coal? Is there any way to get a solid answer to that question?
And if the answer is, “No, they will not burn any less coal,” does it follow that cashing in on the inevitable is good public policy for the county, the state and the region? Does it mean that the scope of the environmental impact statement and the required mitigation should be limited to more localized concerns, such as railroad impacts?
Eric dePlace recently produced this report on the PR firms involved in promoting Gateway Pacific. (The Seattle P-I-s Joel Connelly reports here on dePlace’s report, and gets reaction comments from some of the PR people involved.) Read a collection of dePlace’s reports on coal exports here.
Blah, blah, blah. It is really not that complicated. Keeping the coal in the ground reduces carbon dioxide in the air. Not buying cheap trinkets from China reduces the amount of energy used to make those cheap trinkets. Don’t forget that if a coal-fired plant is 30% efficient, 70% of that energy goes up into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases and waste heat. The real solution is to use less energy. Of course this means worldwide recession, but there is no alternative out there which will allow the US or Europe to maintain their wasteful lifestyles. Get used to a lowered lifestyle level. The liberals are deluded and the conservatives are misnamed.
Making it easier for Asia to burn coal would make us complicit in destroying our state’s aquaculture industry once and for all, as the waters become increasingly acidic from the resulting carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere. And that’s just the most immediate, regional impact. Shall we also contemplate rising seas? Birch Bay, for instance, might want to reflect on that after what happened on Sunday. It’s nothing short of insane.
What’s interesting is that the coal terminal boosters often don’t deny these outcomes. Their rationale is some variation of: “Hey, we’re doomed anyway, so why not make a few bucks in the meantime?” Why not then specialize in selling assault weapons to wannabe mass shooters because, after all, “they’ll just get what they need somewhere else if we don’t provide it for them first.” Is this the new economic driver? Providing the raw materials for self-annihilation?
The United States could start by cleaning up its own dirty coal electrical generation facilities that were “grandfathered” exempt from the Clean Air Act. Big Coal continues to fight reasonable, cost effective regulation. The lower cost of natural gas has resulted in a large number of conversions and a slump in the thermal coal market. This caused Peabody to turn to the Asian market. It is past time for us to stop subsidizing the coal industry and build a robust low carbon energy industry.
The United States is not the only souce of coal in the world. China can get coal from other sources. Stopping the terminal won’t stop China from burning coal.
Moreover, stopping the terminal probably won’t even stop the coal from the Powder River Basin from being burned. Coal is the biggest single source of energy in the United States. If we don’t export it to China, we’ll just burn it here.
The minute somebody finds a less expensive way to generate energy than a coal power plant — that’s when the world stops burning coal.
First, let’s set aside the myth that coal will be exported from Canada if not from here. This report from Sightline is out of date, but a good summary, and what hasn’t changed, regardless of current plans for BC expansion, is 1) Canadian mines want BC terminal capacity and 2) corporations with US mining operations (I don’t say “US corporations” because it’s so unclear who really owns what any more) want 155 mil. metric tons of export capacity on the Pacific coast of North America. If they could have gotten it in BC, they would have. They can’t, which is why 5 terminals are currently being proposed in Oregon and Washington.
http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/07/canada-coal_2012.pdf
Terminal operators aren’t climate change deniers either:
“Climate change influences BHP decision
“PUBLISHED: 03 Dec 2012 18:59:00 | UPDATED: 04 Dec 2012 08:15:27PUBLISHED: 04 Dec 2012PRINT EDITION: 04 Dec 2012
“BHP Billiton has revealed that the potential for rising sea levels and more cyclones due to climate change was a factor in its decision to replace a jetty at its coal export terminal in Hay Point, Queensland.
“BHP ferrous and coal head Marcus Randolph said the terminal was built 30 years ago, when severe cyclones were less frequent.
“‘As we see more cyclone-related events . . . the vulnerability of one of these facilities to a cyclone is quite high,’ he said. “’So we built a model saying this is how we see this impacting what the economics would be and used that with our board of directors to rebuild the facility to be more durable to climate change….’”
http://www.businessinsider.com/coal-may-pass-oil-as-top-energy-source-2012-12
The developing world is on a path to consume increasing amounts of coal for the production of power, the efforts of some in the developed world to the contrary notwithstanding.
At the same time, the potential for the implementation of alternative power sources there, in the absence of a power grid, is interesting.Wind and solar will be deployed, in a scale too small for the appetite of some here, in a way that attracts investment there for the manufacture and placement of those kinds of power generation in ways that would not be practical here.
At the same time, coal-fired facilities will be constructed near rapidly-growing cities to supply the power necessary for that development.
The sensitivities of some here about the effects of fossil fuel consumption will not impact that process at all.
Coal will be mined, shipped, and consumed for the production of electricity.
Here’s a quote from the article that i think is unsupportable: “With the highest carbon emissions of any major fossil fuel, coal is a huge contributor to climate change, particularly when burned in old-fashioned, inefficient power stations.”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/coal-may-pass-oil-as-top-energy-source-2012-12#ixzz2FT8mRnVZ
Many agree with that assertion, but there is no support for it in the literature, apart from partisan arguments.
In response to Onkels’ assertion that there is no support in the literature for the claim cited in the referenced article, the US Energy Information Administration (eia) has this to say:
“The combustion of coal, however, adds a significant amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere per unit of heat energy, more than does the combustion of other fossil fuels.(1) Because of a growing concern over the possible consequences of global warming, which may be caused in part by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas), and also because of the need for accurate estimates of carbon dioxide emissions, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed factors for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide emitted as a result of U.S. coal consumption.
(1) Coal combustion emits almost twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy as does the combustion of natural gas, whereas the amount from crude oil combustion falls between coal and natural gas, according to Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1985-1990, DOE/EIA-0573 (Washington, DC, September 1993), p. 16.
Source: Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal
http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html
Onkels wrote, “The sensitivities of some here about the effects of fossil fuel consumption will not impact that process at all.” Maybe, maybe not.
It is possible that those sensitivities may prevent the export of coal from Cherry Point, and that is certainly a start.
An underlying premise of this story seems to be that Chinese and Indians are ignorant of the effects on their economies of global warming, sea level rise, and ocean acidification and are incapable of adopting new energy technologies before the tipping point for the globe. This premise seems congenial to our fossil fuel industry bosses, big funders of government lobbying, our politicians’ campaigns, the Tea Party, Peterson World, and media advertising, and a key component of the military/industrial complex which President Eisenhower foretold would be our bane.
Rather than relay this fossil fuel company line, it would seem more sensible to investigate what is happening in Antarctica as a result of past coal burning, with the changes to the circumpolar current, the ozone hole, the westerly winds, the reduced capacity of the sea to absorb carbon dioxide, the thinning of the ice shelves — like our oysters, a canary in our coal mine.
It would have been a wiser use of the resources of our International Energy Agency than this sociopathic message — “I have no responsibility for my actions because others do the same thing.”
Look who the IEA Deputy Poobah is from their website, a good old boy from Louisiana who knows fossil fuels from the inside.
Richard H. Jones took up his duties as Deputy Executive Director of the International Energy Agency on 1 October 2008. Ambassador Jones, a former American diplomat, brings to the IEA over thirty years of diplomatic and policy experience on issues ranging from Middle East politics to trade negotiations and energy security. After a rapid rise through the ranks of the US Foreign Service, he served as the American Ambassador to four countries: Israel (2005-2008), Kuwait (2001-2004), Kazakhstan (1998-2001) and Lebanon (1996-1998). He also acted as the US Secretary of State’s Senior Advisor and Co-ordinator for Iraq Policy from February-August, 2005.
During his diplomatic career Ambassador Jones gained a wide range of policy experience in energy policy. As Ambassador in Kuwait, he held discussions with international oil companies and with the Minister of Petroleum on production-sharing proposals. In Kazakhstan, he was the key liaison between the US government and the Presidency on the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline and other critical energy issues. In an earlier diplomatic posting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, he forecast, analysed and reported on changes in Saudi policy that eventually resulted in the collapse of world oil prices in 1986. In Riyadh he also reported on the development of the Saudi petrochemical industry and held talks with Iraqi officials then working to build the first Iraq pipeline in Saudi Arabia. Ambassador Jones also is well-versed in the work of international organisations. Early in his diplomatic career he served as Economic Policy Advisor at the US Mission to the OECD.
Born in 1950 near Shreveport, Louisiana, Ambassador Jones has a Bachelor’s degree in mathematics with distinction from Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, CA, and an MS and PhD in Business/Statistics from the University of Wisconsin. In addition to his native English, his foreign languages include Arabic, French, Russian and German. He and his wife Joan have four children.
It is interesting John that so far the comments to this blog are running against your conclusions (sell job, rather than conclusions, I would say) about the continued burning of coal, which burning will never be clean. I have noticed in the past week or so that the party line given out via most news sources and blogs is the one that you are dishing out – that fossil fuel use is on its way up and we are going to sell, use it, etc., global warming and the desires of all you citizens out there be d—-ed!
The fact is the facts on energy are very complicated. In that regard, when considering develping world economics and energy there is some assumption about increased energy demand that relies on past experience in the developed countries. That assumption is just that an assumption and may not be accurate. In regards to energy most nations’ are concerned about security of energy. Certainly that has been an issue in the US – lots of discussion regarding energy independence versus energy security. Which is more important? The same issue has risen in Europe over natural gas and security due to dominance of the Russian supply for numerous countries.
Talk with the China energy folks and what always comes up is security.
The DOT Eath Blog raises a very valid point of reducing CO2 via effiency. But might have missed the ineffiency of transporting low energy coal (low BTU) fro thermal electric power. If you adress that aspect, the low sulphur, high BTU Australian coal is by far more efficient.
Which may point to this is a security issue for China.
John, are you being lobbied by the Gateway Pacific folks?
Way cannot you be more like Sara Ganim, Malcome Browne, Alexandra Berzon and the many reporters who put the public good over the vested interest of the exploiters?
Are you truly satisfied with the way that you presented this story?
Did you stop your ears when the boy of nine and the other young children spoke at the Seattle scoping meeting making a plea that they be allowed to grow up and have a world in which their children could grow up? Did you ignore the Native Americans who spoke about respecting and protecting the earth for now and through the seventh generation? Did you ignore the rancher who told about the destruction of the land? Did you read the hundreds of concerns over building a terminal that will destroy the ocean waters and life within it? Do you disbelieve the many doctors who have testified about the dangers of transporting and burning coal?
Put moral considerations first and say no to greed.
All kinds of energy blew by today; but most of whatcom’s politicans are too insecure to promote clean energy jobs.
In this post I take no positions of my own. I pass along the thoughts of a couple of other people about improving coal efficiency, and I include a rebuttal from Eric at Sightline Institute. I think Dan McShane raises a good point about the “efficiency” of hauling coal halfway around the world.
Actually, David, the PRB coal would be used primarily in manufacturing, as in stuff they would then export to us to buy. Great trade plan, that, right?
If we don’t permit new terminals in the US, PRB coal won’t be exported through BC. That’s just a fact. http://www.communitywisebellingham.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ES-Coal-Train-Traffic-to-Canada-and-Gateway-Pacific-Terminal1.pdf
So while Hamsters have little control over what’s happening ’round the world, we can have a huge impact US contribution to the insanity by stopping GPT and adding to the records to help stop the other proposed terminals in OR and WA.
Let me see.. I do not know John’s last name, but if his reporting and or comments supported your position, you would not be making negative comments (whomever you are).
You mght be aware that coal is currently going through Whatcom County that does in fact go to China. Why should it cease going there? No coal through west coast ports. Poppycock (a term I seldom use).
Many folks believe they are doing the right thing by purchasing a Prius. You actually increase your carbon footprint (38% of the electricity in Bellngham is from burnt coal). As a person or family shifts from oil based energy to a current electric footprint, their carbon footprint increases (that is simple math, not misguided environmentalist math).
Instead of educating our youth to be frightened of the world, educate them to solve the world’s problem… I say this as part Native American Indian… If anyone should know this, it is a Native American Indian. Educate our children.
Again as I have suggested in the Bellingham Herald blogs i suggest you google Murray River coal mine (The largest of it’s type in the world). Chinese interests have bought into the lagest oil producing company in Canada. Two comapnies own the coal mines at Murray River (one is a chinese interest). Again, do the real math. If I am owning and shipping coal from my mine from Canada and China wants it, and I am Chinese, no coal will ever leave the West Coast… Right… Misguided envirnmentalist math strikes again.
By the way, they only 600,000 – 1,000,000 workers for their mines. No coal will ever be shipped from the west coast… I suggest you google the route to that small bdy of wate known as the Pacific Ocean from Murray River…
A few trinkets from China… It is all of your big ticket items being produced in China as well as your alleged small trinkets…
Once, the quality of cars get better in China as Japan, then the bigger ticket items will also come from China…
Fear does not help any situation. Do not spread your fear of the unknown. Look at the past…
Funny how the majority of the wonderful environmentalists (I have friends whom I do care for that are Environmentalists) that I know drive Subarus, Volvos, Saabs, Land Rovers, Hyundais, Toyotas, Fords (Canadian/Mexico) built, Chevrolets (Canadian), Volkswagens, Kias, Fiats, Jaguars, BMWs, Mercedes Benzs, Hondas, etc, etc, etc…
I am thinking that by now you get my point…
I say, “Let’s look for a win, win, win”. Only negative people look at negative, negative, negative…
Also, I do not see the Sierra Clubs name on the list of donors for the Boys and Girls Clubs in Whatcom County. I do not see their name on the list for our libraries here in Whatcom county. I do notmsee the Sierra Clubs name on the list of donors for our food banks.
I do see local and major companies names that employ people on these lists though… Thank each and every one of you companies for your continued, sustainable, and thoughtful contributions to our county. We have enjoyed and want to continue to appreciate your cumulative effect for our children, grandchildren, and citizens of Whatcom County…
Blessings to you all… Whether you agree or disagree, hether you are informed or not informed.
Merry Christmas to one and all…
To Michael Gallegos:
There is a lot that you do not see. Open your eyes and heart and see what I see.
I see that Whatcom County will be known as:
“The county that defeated SSA Marine, Goldman Sachs and Peabody Coal.”
Me thinks thou dost need to remove thy spectacles, as they are tinted too much…
You seem to be afraid to put your name on your tag…
You are afraid aren’t you…
You are afraid, as you have failed to respond to my comments…
That’s ok…
Only ten percent are truly against the project, they just scream and howl alot…
Get it, hoot owl…
Still, though blessings to you and yours and a very Merry Christ mas or is it mas Christ? My Spanish is not so good…
I really have enjoyed reading your comments overall though…
Congratulation John, for once some decent debate in the comments.
Not all are factual.
michael Gallegos: Do you have a legitimate source for says only 10 percent oppose the terminal?
I doubt it. Best information (but not totally reliable) has the number as 55 percent of Whatcom County opposed.
Perhaps you sampled Washington State? Or the USA? Or West Virginia, South Carolina, Illinois and Idaho?
Accuate polling is very expensive and neither side appears to be doing it.
Sehe gut!
…on the other hand, it was announced last week that CONOCO has signed an agreement with China to help China start fracking for natural gas in China. China has already invested in natural gas projects in this country and Canada, but now China is interested in drilling for their own natural gas, which could make the future of coal in China less promising.
Having personally knocked on about 12 percent of the homes in whatcom county… nearly 10,000 doors, I would believe that my numbers are truly more accurate than yours… Eighty percent is more accurate outside of the city limits of Bellinghams, but once educated that there are other products being shipped out and that coal trains have been passing through for twenty years, they understand that they can look at the terminal in a different light… Their positition on coal may not change, but they support a terminal shipping out other products…
I must admit though I ave met wonderful people even if we disagreed… Articulate, educated, and thoughtful people for the most part…
Coal is just one piece of the pie…
What a bout property rights?
What about intra, inter, and international commerce?
Again, I say electric cars in this county increase a coal footprint by 38 percent…
How many doors did you knock on?
Well, fracking in china is preferable to fracking here in the US… Yet the Sieera Club accepted $32,000,000.00 to resist the coal industry? I know most people once thoroughly informed on fracking, would be against it as well…
Let us hope that China does in fact reduce their coal footprint and let us ship other dry bulk commodities to China and other countries…
Hence, all the more reason to build the terminal…
I am also glad we have the ability to agree to disagree… I have been to countries whee you went through armed check points in or out of populated areas…
Forall our problems, we are still in the greatest country in the world…. Those whom do not think so, can leave at any time… I for one am staying for a while..
Happy New Year to you all…
Blessings to all of your families…
A big Hello Friend, I am writing from the beaches of, Australia. Thanks so much for the thoughtful article. It helped me a lot with my school computing assignment