Two Cheers for Clean Coal
I think it’s terrific that the Coen Brothers are making funny, effective ads against relying on “clean coal” as part of the US energy program. But I worry that the clean energy community is really missing the boat here.
Clean coal research and development is absolutely crucial in fighting climate change not for us, but for India and China. India has the fourth largest reserves of coal in the world — most of it very dirty, with high ash content. It currently imports 70% of its oil, which will rise to 90% by 2020 (this according to Edward Luce’s fabulous book In Spite of the Gods.). China, meanwhile, is both the world’s largest producer and the largest consumer of coal power.
I want them to switch to solar and wind as much as anyone else. But I have yet to see any credible estimates that India or China can grow in the way that they want to — and justifiably expect to — purely through renewables. It’s going to be hard enough for the United States to do so, and we still rely heavily on oil.
It is thus in the US interest to push for clean coal development not for us, but for India and China. Without it, they will either continue to burn dirty coal, or start competing with the west for oil supplies. Isn’t the latter good? Don’t we want the price of oil to go up? Yes, but through a carbon tax, not through giving more money to the Saudis or the Iranians (and then borrowing from the Chinese to pay for it).
It is reasonable — and necessary — for the United States to get rid of dirty coal plants. But we can’t expect two poor countries to bear the cost of getting rid of dirty coal for a global public good like climate change mitigation. That means the United States needs to invest in carbon sequestration technology — and in a big way. It doesn’t mean that we should build more coal-fired plants, but as the MIT Future of Coal study noted, the federal government does need to substantially increase its R & D, and coordinate these efforts far better than it has done in the past.
India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has noted that “the quest for energy security is second only in our scheme of things to our quest for food security.” New Delhi (and presumably Beijing) will not stop burning coal just because we want them to do so. We need to help. Rejecting a sensible investment strategy here is going in exactly the wrong direction.
Cross-posted at the Reality-Based Community: www.samefacts.com
Reader Comments
One Reply to “Two Cheers for Clean Coal”
Comments are closed.
About Jonathan
Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic – Land Use, the Environment and Loc…
READ more
The U.S. already spends far more for public and private coal R&D than wind or solar. That trend should have been reversed long ago.
When policy development anticipates and supports growth rates of 6, 8 even 10 percent, is it really objective to use classic monetary descriptors as “rich” and “poor?”
That India has the dirtiest coal could support forward-thinking arguments for R&D investment away from that resource.
Even if sequestration and underground gasification were one day deemed safe – and neither can be to date – would the proud folks of San Fernando Valley still go about their pleasant days if millions of pounds of explosives were being detonated around their homes everyday, if their water sources were poisoned, if their entire cultural and environmental heritage was wiped away. Policy makers in this country refuse to even mention, yet address, the true costs of coal extraction in this country, let alone what it is and will be elsewhere around the planet if its use continues to increase.
Discussion about the true costs of too-cheap, coal-generated electricity in this country and everywhere else has yet to be broached, and won’t be as long as the banks and other investors supporting coal producers and power companies keep the focus solely on carbon reduction and not coal reduction.
Let’s face it, this race is incapable of having meaningful policy discussions about long term resource use and allocation, philosophy of consumption and what it might really mean to be a “rich” or “poor” country.