The coal, hard facts

Okay...okay. That was a lousy pun. It seemed appropriate after perusing this article from the CS Monitor, however. The gist of the article is this: the Kyoto Protocol (or the expected emissions reductions from Kyoto implementation) were doomed by design.

With the Kyoto classification of India and China as developing nations, the sacrifices made by developed nations to reduce emissions are overwhelmed by coal-fired industrial growth in these two rapidly-growing, mammoth states. Coal is cheap and China has lots of it. If they can find a way to achieve energy independence (regardless of pollution costs), they're going to take advantage of it.

As the Monitor says:

"Environmental optimists were assuming the world was going to switch to gas, but when you're short of gas you use your own coal," says Philip Andrews-Speed, a China energy expert at the University of Dundee, in Scotland. "What you're seeing with China and the others is the cheapness and security of coal just overwhelming the desire to be clean.

To a certain extent, the debate over Kyoto has come down to idealism vs. realism. The economic realism in China, India, and the United States remains this: energy independence will only be achievable, in the near future, using coal.

Without energy independence, the United States must rely on a stable supply of oil and natural gas from unstable regions of the world. Realists are naturally going to ask these sorts of questions: is it better to accept the notion of global warming while supporting governments who achieve stability only through oppression? Is it better to allow the United States economy to become less competitive in contrast to India and China? How many jobs are Americans willing to sacrifice in the name of emissions reductions that are so easily overwhelmed by increased emissions from "developing" nations? And how much additional growth in those economies will we spur by slowing our own? How much will that additional growth lead to further coal emissions in those countries? Wikipedia documents the U.S. Senate's take on Kyoto:

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

I think in the short term, the U.S. is best served by a policy of reliance on locally procured fossil fuels, additional R&D on emissions control measures, and a healthy amount of government-sponsored research into fossil alternatives that are commercially viable. We must decide how to power our nation until these alternative measures can be employed on larger scales. Do we remain tied to Middle Eastern, African, and Russian autocrats or do we break that cycle of dependence by looking for better domestic sources?

We're not alone in arriving at this conclusion:

"There has been an abrupt about-face," says Robert McIlvaine, who heads his own Northfield, Ill., information company that tracks the construction of coal power plants globally. "Utilities that would not consider a coal-fired plant a year or two ago are now moving forward with coal-fired projects."

With natural gas prices expected to continue rising, 58 other nations have 340 new coal-fired plants in various stages of development. They are expected to go online in a decade or so. Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey are all planning significant new coal-fired power additions. Germany also plans to build eight coal plants with 6,000 megawatts capacity.

This tells us two things, really. Firstly, for the time being, industrial growth in the developing world will defeat efforts by developed nations to meaningfully reduce emissions. Secondly, the development of a means of power generation that is environmentally sound, less dependent on limited resources, AND cost-effective must take greater priority over token emission reductions right now. Winds of Change.Net has an excellent article discussing international efforts to develop these alternative sources.

Considering the (lack of) success most Kyoto signatories have had in meeting goals, it would seem that those who signed the treaty are as skeptical about its effects as those who did not:

The EU, the self-appointed trailblazer of Kyoto, isn't doing so well itself. Despite a stagnating economy, greenhouse gas emissions in Europe have been rising recently. "If we don't do more, we'll miss our Kyoto targets," former European Commissioner for the Environment Margot Wallstrom said last year. According to a forecast made by her agency, only 2 of the then-15 EU member states would meet their Kyoto criteria. Thirteen would fail, including Germany.

Then, of course, there's the emission trading system built in to Kyoto that has more loopholes in it than Swiss cheese. Industrialized nations get extra credits if they invest in feel-good clean-energy projects or efforts to save carbon dioxide-absorbing forests in developing nations. As a result, Kyoto is attracting an increasing number of critics.

Personally, I think the U.S. is better served by local and state efforts such as those listed in this article. Of course, the U.S. would also be better served by highlighting such efforts as these. The rest of the world needs to understand we are making the effort - even if we will not sign what has become in many ways a lame duck treaty. The United States cannot remove itself from what is a global discussion without serious repercussions further down the road.

So what can we do as individuals, you ask? Check out this site from the EPA. Every little bit adds up. As hikers and adventure racers are fond of saying: ounces make pounds.

Environment