After a brief bubble of enthusiasm a few years back, the prospects for Northwest coal exports have dimmed dramatically. But despite wave after wave of dismal news for would-be exporters, the developers of massive coal export terminals in Washington and British Columbia keep marching forward, bound and determined to see their projects approved, built, operational, and channeling upwards of 100 million metric tons of coal from Wyoming and Montana westward across the Pacific each year.
Just for argument’s sake, let’s assume that would-be coal exporters succeed in building these coal terminals, despite the long odds. Just how much climate-warming CO2 would be emitted into the atmosphere as a result?
There’s no easy answer. On the one hand, an influx of US coal into Pacific Rim markets might prompt export cutbacks from Russia, Indonesia, or Australia, partially canceling out the climate impacts of US exports. On the other hand, abundant US coal supplies at stable prices could also spur Asian nations to build new coal-fired power plants, or run existing coal plants more intensively. And adding huge amounts of US coal to the Pacific Rim could even curb efforts to boost energy efficiency, or undermine the development of solar, wind, or other low-carbon alternatives to coal. Any of those outcomes would increase coal demand and boost long-term emissions.
A few years back, the International Energy Agency (IEA) took a stab at predicting how these two countervailing forces—supply substitution vs. induced demand—might balance out in practice. (See Box 5.2 of the agency’s 2013 Medium Term Coal Market Report.) The agency used comprehensive data on global coal supply costs, coupled with a model of the global energy economy, to estimate how the injection of massive Northwest export capacity might affect the overall consumption of coal in the Pacific Rim and across the globe.
The IEA’s conclusions got surprisingly little attention when first published, given how sobering they were. The agency found that the proposed Northwest coal ports—such as the massive Gateway Pacific and Millennium projects in Washington, or the smaller projects such as Fraser Surrey Docks—could boost long-term climate-warming emissions by 20 billion metric tons.
Insert your best Dr. Evil impression here.
Adding PRB coal to the global market boosts aggregate demand. Fig 5.4 from Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2013 by International Energy Agency
How much is 20 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide? At last count, Washington’s economy emitted about 92 million tons of carbon per year. So by IEA’s estimates, over the long haul, Northwest coal ports could be responsible for more than 200 times as much carbon pollution as the entire state of Washington emits in a year.
Even more shockingly, 20 billion metric tons is about two-thirds as much CO2 as the entire globe emitted from fossil fuels in 2010. That Dr. Evil laugh is starting to sound pretty accurate right now.
Should we trust the IEA estimates? To a first approximation, I think we should.
Admittedly, the agency gets all sorts of forecasts wrong. Take, for example, the way they’ve consistently underestimated the growth of solar and wind power for well over a decade.
Still, IEA’s coal export estimates are broadly consonant with the analysis from Power Consulting, who examined the same questions. They’re also somewhat consistent with a recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a new coal mining project proposed in Montana, which attempted to study how abundant US coal exports could affect global coal demand.
Regardless of whether the IEA got its numbers exactly right, they’ve certainly made an important contribution to the debate over Pacific Northwest coal exports. By looking at the interplay of supply and demand, they’ve offered a glimpse of the climate-warming pollution that might be unleashed by the construction of Northwest coal terminals.
So if you like the idea of boosting global climate-warming emissions by the equivalent of 8 months of fossil fuel consumption by the entire globe, you’ll love Northwest coal terminals. But if you actually want to live here on planet earth, you might think that pumping that much carbon into the atmosphere is an irresponsible, unjustifiable, and generally crummy idea.
jan
Could you answer this question: how much climate-warming CO2 would be emitted into the atmosphere as a result of a BombTrain explosion at Shell in Anacortes, given that the Blast Zone includes two petroleum refineries, a chemical plant, an “industrial gases” plant, three gas stations, thousands of boats with fuel in the tanks, and two car dealerships (with hundreds of fueled cars on the lot)? Boy, I hope our “leaders” have an effective evacuation plan for getting tens of thousands of people off Fidalgo and the San Juan Islands, since Highway 20 (the main route off the Islands) would be the epicenter of the Blast Zone. I’ll use your answer in my Shell EIS Scoping comments (due by 11/5). Thanks.
John Abbotts
Hello Jan,
In my opinion, your questions above are appropriate to include in your EIS Scoping comments. If I understand the process, the regulatory agencies request public comments on the scope that the EIS should cover, before they begin preparing it. So questions on the consequences of an accident, the capacity of emergency responders, including evacuation plans, and issues that Eric has raised, such as the adequacy of a railroad’s liability insurance to cover accident consequences, all seem appropriate for the regulatory agencies to address in an EIS. And the regulatory agencies should ask the corporations proposing the project to provide the answers.
So it seems to me that your questions above can stand on their own to include in EIS Scoping comments, and that the responsibility for answering them belongs to Shell and the EIS preparers.
Best wishes,
Steve Erickson
Jan:
Determining this is exactly something that should be studied and disclosed by the EIS. If that cannot be done a worst case scenario should be assumed.
197-11-080 WAC 197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information.
(1) If information on significant adverse impacts essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives is not known, and the costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, agencies shall obtain and include the information in their environmental
documents.
(2) When there are gaps in relevant information or scientific uncertainty concerning significant impacts, agencies shall make clear that such information is lacking or that substantial uncertainty exists.
(3) Agencies may proceed in the absence of vital information
as follows:
(a) If information relevant to adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, but is not known, and the costs of obtaining it are exorbitant; or
(b) If information relevant to adverse impacts is important to the decision and the means to obtain it are speculative or not known;
Then the agency shall weigh the need for the action with the severity of possible adverse impacts which would occur if the agency were to decide to proceed in the face of uncertainty. If the agency proceeds, it shall generally indicate in the appropriate environmental documents its worst case analysis and the likelihood of occurrence, to the extent this information can reasonably be developed.
(4) Agencies may rely upon applicants to provide information as allowed in WAC 197-11-100.
Carl
Increase in “long-term” emissions of 20 billion metric tons? How do you define “long-term”? Just curious, as this phrase is a bit vague.
Clark Williams-Derry
Great question, Carl. Unfortunately, IEA doesn’t actually provide much clarity about what they mean by “long-term.” They describe a ” cumulated [sic] coal demand of roughly 380 Gt until 2050,” but don’t specify whether “long-term” means through 2050, or some other time period. Sorry I can’t be more helpful; I just wish the IEA had been clearer in its report.
Jason
Climate is changing sooo much, we have to do something, im terryfing!
followers team
Shirley
I personally think that western world is becoming more and more aware of this “giant bomb”, however China don’t give a damn about that, they are only interested in growing their economy no matter what. binary zeus