Contact Us
  • Comment

Coal: America's dirty shell game

Posted: August 1, 2014 - 7:02pm
Back   Photo: 1 of 2  Next
Patrick Semansky Associated Press  Wesley Simon-Parsons, a supervisor at Dominion Terminal Associates in Newport News, Va., stands amid piles of coal, much of it to be shipped to South American countries and other nations around the world.  AP
AP
Patrick Semansky Associated Press Wesley Simon-Parsons, a supervisor at Dominion Terminal Associates in Newport News, Va., stands amid piles of coal, much of it to be shipped to South American countries and other nations around the world.

NEWPORT NEWS, VA. | Coal from Appalachia rumbles into this port city, 150 railroad cars at a time, bound for the belly of the massive cargo ship Prime Lily. The ship soon sets sail for South America, its 80,000 tons of coal destined for power plants and factories, an export of American energy — and pollution.

In the U.S., this coal and the carbon dioxide it will eventually release into the atmosphere are some of the unwanted leftovers of an America going greener. With the country moving to cleaner natural gas, the Obama administration wants to reduce power plant pollution to make good on its promise to the world to cut emissions.

Yet the estimated 228,800 tons of carbon dioxide contained in the coal aboard the Prime Lily equals the annual emissions of a small American power plant.

It’s leaving this nation’s shores, but not the planet.

“This is the single biggest flaw in U.S. climate policy,” said Roger Martella, the former general counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush. “Although the administration is moving forward with climate change regulations at home, we don’t consider how policy decisions in the United States impact greenhouse gas emissions in other parts of the world.”

This fossil fuel trade, which has soared under President Barack Obama, threatens to undermine his strategy to reduce the gases blamed for global warming.

It also reveals a little-discussed side effect of countries acting alone on a global issue.

As the U.S. tries to set a global example by reducing demand for fossil fuels at home, American energy companies are sending more dirty fuels than ever to other parts of the world, exports worth billions of dollars every year.

In some cases, these castoffs of America’s clean energy push are ending up in places with more lax environmental standards, or where governments are resistant to tackling the emissions responsible for global warming.

It’s a global shell game on fossil fuels that at the very least makes the U.S. appear to be making more progress on global warming than it actually is, because it shifts some of the pollution — and the burden for cleaning it up — onto another country’s balance sheet.

“It’s not taking responsibility,” said Thomas Power, a research professor at the University of Montana who has worked for environmental groups and clean energy foundations and has pushed for a more honest accounting of emissions. “It’s shifting the responsibility to someone else.”

With companies looking to double America’s coal exports, the nation’s growing position in the global energy trade could make global warming worse, fueling the world’s demand for coal when many experts say most fossil fuels should remain in the ground to avert the most disastrous effects of climate change.

IF U.S. DIDN’T SUPPLY …

In 2012, about 9 percent of worldwide coal exports originated in the U.S., the latest data available.

White House officials say the U.S. will continue to be a small player with a negligible global footprint and the best way to address global warming is to reduce coal’s use globally. In the meantime, they’re considering adding crude oil and natural gas to the menu of U.S. energy exports shipped abroad.

“There may be a very marginal increase in coal exports caused by our climate policies,” said Rick Duke, Obama’s deputy climate adviser. “Given that coal supply is widely available from many sources, our time is better spent working on leading toward a global commitment to cut carbon pollution on the demand side.”

But as companies plan new coal export terminals, the Obama administration has resisted evaluating the global fallout of those decisions.

It says that if the U.S. didn’t supply the coal, another country would.

In Oregon and Washington state, where three proposed terminals would double U.S. coal exports, the Democratic governors are pressing the administration to assess the global-warming impact of that coal when it is burned abroad. The administration has refused to do so.

Guidance drafted by White House officials in 2010 did outline how broadly federal agencies should look at carbon emissions from U. S. projects. Four years later, that guidance is still under review.

Carbon dioxide, regardless of whether it enters the atmosphere in Germany, India, or Brazil contributes to the sea level rise and in some cases severe weather that is linked to global warming.

The nexus of the challenge, and its international conundrum, can be found in Norfolk, Va., a low-lying coastal community that exports more coal than any place in the U.S. Norfolk is already experiencing one of the fastest rates of sea level rise in the country.

“Ultimately we would like to leave the coal in the ground. That is the best place for it,” said Joe Cook, a local resident and Sierra Club activist.

As for the president, in recent speeches promoting his plan to reduce global warming, Obama has highlighted the progress his administration has made driving down emissions at home.

“Together, we’ve held our carbon emissions to levels not seen in about 20 years,” he recently told the League of Conservation Voters. “Since 2006, no country on earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States.”

But that’s only part of the story.

The U.S. has the largest recoverable coal reserves in the world. Over the past six years, as the country has cut its own coal consumption by 195 million tons, about 20 percent of that coal was shipped abroad, according to an AP analysis of Energy Department data.

Last year, global coal use grew by 3 percent, faster than any other fossil fuel, according to the 2014 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

And while less coal being burned in the U.S. has helped the power sector reduce carbon emissions by 12 percent, a growing share is finding its way to the rest of the world.

The proportion is expected to get larger as global demand for coal rises and the U.S. continues to clean up its power plants, boost energy efficiency and move to less-polluting sources of energy such as wind and solar. The latest EPA proposal on power plants envisions even less coal being used to make electricity.

‘KIND OF LIKE CRACK’

The Obama administration and the world account only for coal burned inside their own borders when charting their progress on global warming.

“Energy exports bit by bit are chipping away at gains we are making on carbon dioxide domestically,” said Shakeb Afsah, who runs an energy consulting firm in Bethesda, Md.

Pollution from coal exports has wiped out all the carbon pollution savings the U.S. achieved by switching from coal to natural gas, according to an analysis he published earlier this year. A 2012 report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in England said the carbon contained in coal exports put back half the pollution.

On the other side of the Atlantic, in a town on the edge of Germany’s coal-mining region, sits a new power plant burning some of America’s coal. The 750-megawatt Trianel power plant in Luenen relies completely on coal imports, about half from the U.S.

“American coal is simply very attractive for us because of its price, and therefore we’re using a high percentage of it,” Stefan Paul, executive director of the Trianel Kohlekraftwerk Luenen GmbH & Co. plant, told AP.

Germany is experiencing a resurgence in coal-fired power. Five German coal plants have been built since 2008, and more are coming. While the new plants are more efficient and much cleaner than older plants being phased out, they are also larger and are replacing some of the nuclear power that the country has been phasing out since the Fukushima disaster in Japan.

The result: In 2013, Germany’s emissions of carbon dioxide grew by 1.2 percent.

“When coal is available, it is kind of like crack. It is the cheapest, biggest high that an industrial consumer can get,” said Kevin Book, an energy analyst at Washington-based ClearView Energy Partners LLC.

In the U.S., the opposite is happening. Until recently, coal was more costly than natural gas, which is booming. Environmental regulations also are pushing the oldest and dirtiest coal-fired plants to retirement by adding more costs, and any new coal-fired power plants will have to capture carbon dioxide and bury it underground if the Obama administration gets its way. Few if any new coal plants are expected to be built.

But the U.S. and other countries have no problem supplying Germany and the world with coal. Last year, the U.S. exported coal worth $11 billion.

Of the top five countries receiving power plant-grade coal from the U.S. in 2013, four were in Europe: the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Italy and Germany. All have seen their coal imports more than double from the U.S. since 2008.

GLOBAL GROWTH

It’s unclear just how much pollution the U.S. is sending abroad or its overall effect on global greenhouse gas emissions.

No one, including the administration, has calculated it. It’s a complex equation that includes global demand, natural gas prices, cheaper sources of coal from other countries, even weather.

U.S. coal producers, and the companies that move and sell coal for export, are laying the groundwork for more exports. They see a growth market globally, in spite of efforts by the Obama administration to curb it. The administration has placed restrictions on U.S. financing of coal plants overseas that don’t control for carbon dioxide.

No such limits are in place for coal exporters.

The politics in the Pacific Northwest have been less favorable for coal. Three terminals proposed for Oregon and Washington would double U.S. exports, sending coal mined from mostly federal land in Montana and Wyoming to China and other markets in Asia. The plans have drawn fierce opposition from environmental groups, tribes and others.

In a 2012 letter, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber said, “The impacts of United States coal exports on climate change are an issue of national concern that merits a hard look by a federal agency.”

The administration seems unwilling.

The lead federal agency in charge of evaluating the terminals’ environmental impact, the Army Corps of Engineers, has refused to analyze the contribution that coal from the terminals will have on global warming, despite calls by the Environmental Protection Agency to consider them.

The Council on Environmental Quality, the White House office in charge of overseeing environmental matters, has stood on the sidelines, though saying that the law allows emissions abroad to be part of the analysis.

“They have sat on their hands,” said George Kimbrell, a senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety, which has sued the administration over this delay.

Changing the global system to start looking at the flow of carbon out of the ground would carry political risks, especially for the U.S., which is trying to boost energy production and exports even as it addresses global warming. America is an outlier among the top coal exporters worldwide, making the most significant public strides to combat climate change.

Secretary of State John Kerry, in a visit in February to Indonesia, the largest coal exporter in the world, told the country that if it didn’t do something on climate it would put its entire way of life at risk.

The United Nations’ climate chief earlier this year warned that three-quarters of all fossil fuels must remain in the ground if the world has any hope of containing the planet’s temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, as the international community, including the U.S., agreed to in 2009.

Activists partly blame the U.S. if the mark isn’t reached.

“This is a classic case of political greenwashing,” said Dirk Jansen, a spokesman for BUND, a German environmental group. “Obama pretties up his own climate balance, but it doesn’t help the global climate at all if Obama’s carbon dioxide is coming out of chimneys in Germany.”

THE EXPORT ISSUE

As the Obama administration weans the U.S. off polluting fuels blamed for global warming, energy companies have been sending more of America’s unwanted energy leftovers to other parts of the world where they could create even more pollution. Here are five things to know about the issue:

1. Demand rises globally. Over the past six years, the U.S. has cut consumption by 195 million tons as power plants have burned cheaper natural gas instead. The Environmental Protection Agency’s latest proposal would further cut coal’s share of electricity generation. Meanwhile, coal demand is rising globally. The International Energy Agency expects global coal demand to grow 2.3 percent per year through 2018.

2. Coal exports have soared. The U.S. exported more coal in 2012 and 2013 than any other year since 1949. Exports surpassed 100 million tons for the first time in more than 20 years in 2011. The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts coal exports to grow to 161 million tons by 2040 without policy changes.

3. Accounting for pollution. When measuring progress on global warming, countries count only pollution from burning fossil fuels. Analyses suggest U.S. exports could be reducing by half or wiping out completely the pollution savings in the U.S. from switching power plants from coal to natural gas.

4. No global toll of exports. Three terminals proposed for the Pacific Northwest would double U.S. coal exports. Despite pleas from the governors of Washington and Oregon, the Obama administration has so far refused to evaluate the global impact of those additional exports.

5. Fueling demand and pollution. U.S. coal exports make things worse for global warming only if they cause global demand to increase. It’s unclear whether that is happening. White House officials say the U.S. will likely never export enough coal to influence demand. They say the U.S. is replacing coal that would come from somewhere else.

Comments (5)

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Redrover
238
Points
Redrover 08/08/14 - 08:46 am
0
0
Premium Member

Liberals, their goal is to

Liberals, their goal is to destroy our Country and extreme Enviromentalism is the way. We pay higher price for energy while our competitors pay less using our resources. Sounds like redistribution and Socialism.

Libertariandude
3523
Points
Libertariandude 08/03/14 - 10:34 pm
0
0
Premium Member

What the heck, burn dirty

What the heck, burn dirty coal overseas instead of clean burn in USA.

avatar
1860
Points
avatar 08/03/14 - 10:09 am
0
0
Premium Member

Tinman & Snakepilot: This is

Tinman & Snakepilot: This is one of the campaign promises that our president has kept - remember, he promised that electric rates would skyrocket - and they most certainly will.

Further, I'm waiting for the proverbial other shoe to drop. You will really see our economy go into a tailspin if Obummer decides to halt coal exports. While that wouldn't affect CO2 output globally (since we only supply less than 10% of the worlds coal), it would destroy a huge industry here in the states.

Snakepilot
1690
Points
Snakepilot 08/02/14 - 10:54 am
0
0
Premium Member

Ditto tinman

Ditto tinman

tinman
2697
Points
tinman 08/01/14 - 08:04 pm
0
0
Premium Member

This is not a flaw in our

This is not a flaw in our climate policy. The administration's goal is to take more money. Period. Doing so through bogus "green initiatives" gives them the support of their constituents, thus killing two birds with one stone, but the primary goal is ALWAYS about reaching further into someone's wallet.

Back to Top

 
Sign up for Jacksonville.com's morning newsletter and get top stories each morning in your inbox.