Governor Gregoire on coal exports:
“I don’t believe that we can say no to a commodity like coal any more than I would say no to a commodity like wheat,”
But why not? We routinely make distinctions about the things we encourage as commerce. We say “no” to importing commodities like heroin and marijuana. We discourage the export or sale of innumerable things, from raw unprocessed timber to caffeinated alcoholic drinks to Canadian pharmacueticals to pirated software. You could probably name hundreds or thousands of things.
It’s perfectly ordinary to encourage commerce in good things, while discouraging commerce in bad things. We do it all the time, and we should. So setting up a reflexive equivalence between coal and wheat doesn’t make sense. They’re not comparable for any number of reasons, such as:
…there is scientific consensus that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global temperatures to rise at rates that have the potential to cause economic disruption, environmental damage, and a public health crisis; The drivers of climate change are global, but the effects of climate change on Washington are local and unique…
If you can’t guess the author of that quote, I’ll tell you: it’s Governor Gregoire in a 2007 executive order. And it’s exactly right. Greenhouse gas emissions, which are caused in very large part by burning coal, will wreak tremendous harm. In other words, coal ain’t wheat.
Now perhaps the governor’s defense of coal exports was just an economist’s point: that commodities are interchangeable across markets, and local restrictions don’t much matter to final demand. But that’s a very limited point of view when you consider a more apt comparison to coal—drugs. Right now, Longview, Washington is poised to become the Cuidad Juarez of coal: a border town of sorts, endangering its own health to service foreign demand for a very destructive commodity. We should just say no.
loveAmerica1
I still have not had one single “environmentalist” answer to me this question: Our Western coal is high quality and helped clean our own environment here is the USA. How is shipping our coal to Asia to help clean their stacks going to make the environment worse? When all indicators are it would actually make it cleaner and cheaper to do so. Not one person has ever answered this… instead they change topics. If I was one of these groups I would be encouraging this port not fighting it.
Eric de Place
“Western coal is high quality and helped clean our own environment here is the USA.”That’s a good one. As I’m sure you’re well aware, burning coal is a very signficant contributor to climate change; it is incredibly harmful to the environment. And while it’s true that Western coal produces fewer air contaminants than some other forms of coal, that’s a laughably low bar. The reason for opposing coal export is quite simple: coal is bad. Shipping coal to Asia will very likely increase the worldwide consumption of coal, which is manifestly harmful for the climate, and therefore for longterm economic prospects. The better strategy—for developing Asian countries and the US alike—is to invest in energy efficiency, energy-wise infrastructure, and clean energy.
Barry
The new escape hatch for Big Dirty Fossil is GHG exports.Most GHG “bookkeeping” currently only counts/penalizes domestic emissions. So if you export your GHG to a nation that doesn’t count their domestic GHG (like, say, China), then you get to keep your destructive Big Dirty Fossil industry while still seeming “clean and green”.BC is doing the same thing. BC exports more coal GHG than it’s entire “official” GHG footprint. BC has a carbon tax…but only on domestic GHG emissions. See the game? Continue to be a major pusher and profiteer of the most dangerous environmental pollution threat civilization faces…avoid paying any penalties…and look squeeky clean by the rules.One answer is for governments to apply carbon pricing to exports as well as to imports and domestic use. Why not?BC should expand their carbon tax to include exports. That would immediately triple the revenue from it (many billions a year). All this would be “revenue-neutral” to BC citizens already because it would be paid by Chinese and others outside BC. All that money could be used to fill the looming budget gaps in programs to get BC citizens towards a safe, sustainable energy future.If Gregoire really cares about a livable climate for her state’s future, she should at least push through a carbon tax on ALL fossil fuel emissions in Washington…including exports. The state faces big budget problems and ever growing costs from climate destabilization. Start to solve both with a carbon tax like BC has had for years…but make it apply to everything.Greenlighting coal in 2011 is so unbelievably dangerous to Washington state citizen’s future it boggles the mind that anyone would allow it without even bothering to put some kind of pollution penalty on it to help cover the costs of using such a dangerous product.
civiletti
What Gregoire meant was”I don’t believe that we can say no to a powerful economic interest like coal any more than I would say no to a powerful economic interest like wheat,”This is why government is largely impotent in protecting the climate.
Barry
Re: LoveAmerica1’s question about “cleaner coal”Your question about “why not burn cleaner coal to help the environment” makes me wonder if you understand the basics of the climate threat. Climate reacts to the total fossil CO2 we add to the climate system over centuries. It is not a problem of how fast we burn it…it is only how much we burn in total. It is the quantity not the rate that determines our fate.The earth has shown over and over that it can not keep ice at the poles with CO2 levels above around 350ppm. If we lose the ice we create a number of nasty feedback loops or tipping points that will drive the climate far beyond what civilization is likely to be able to handle. The climate threat requires that we rapidly reduce the amount of fossil CO2 we add to the system until we get down to ZERO in a few decades max. The carbon math shows that we must leave most of the known coal and unconventional fossil fuels in the ground forever. James Hansen is not an “environmentalist” but he does explain the climate science very clearly in his book “Storms of my Grandkids”. I think you can find the answer to your questions in there.We unfortunately are not in a position to just burn whatever is slightly more clean. We have to stop burning most of the fossil fuels we already know about.Any politician that says it is possible to keep burning coal (without carbon capture and storage) and still meet safe climate targets is just plain lying.
deborah barnes
We are trapped in the machine we built to enable wealth based on linear principles and socially unjust attitudes. The laws and liaisons between big biz and gov’t have empowered economic bullies. In Goleman’s “Social Intelligence” the narcissists and Machiavellians (2 of the psychopathic triad -3rd is full blown psychopath) are winners as they care little for others. What is this insanity we live under?
Ted Fletcher
Maybe you would like to have a look at this example of PV as an alternative and the surprising achievements in NSW Australia.