When we close a coal plant down in the United States are we actually just opening a new one up in the developing world?
A number of recent articles and reports suggest that while we may be making strides in the United States to transition away from coal, our efforts to curb global warming pollution are being nullified overseas. In one case, as Beth Daley reported earlier this summer in the Boston Globe, a coal fired power plant that was disassembled in Massachusetts was sent piece by piece to be reconstructed in Guatemala. The plant was needed to power a textile factory that made clothing for, you guessed it, the U.S. market.
Coal plants aren’t the only polluters being shipped overseas. Click here for a video that takes a look at the growing market in exporting our pollution.
By thinking primarily about decreasing our domestic carbon emissions and less about creating global solutions, are we shooting ourselves in the foot?
More likely, we’re shooting other people’s feet.
The growing international demand for energy, especially in booming markets like China and India, is driving up the price of coal around the world. This year, China has become a net importer of coal for the first time. In Japan, the price of Australian coal is likely to rise as high as 22 percent in the coming months. The demand prompted Goldman Sachs to worry there may be a shortage of coal next year (source).
Rising prices mean rising profits for the struggling U.S. mining industry. Australia and South Africa have traditionally supplied the necessary coal to power Europe’s and Asia’s needs, but with demand outreaching supply, foreign utilities are turning to the U.S. market. Currently, practically all exported coal is metallurgical (for steel production), not energy generation. But that may be changing. Overall exports have increased from 49 million tonnes of coal in 2006 to nearly 58 million tons this year (source). As the market for coal decreases in the U.S., coal companies may be able to stay alive by exporting their product and the pollution that comes with it.
The consequences of exporting our pollution are clearly devastating. First, the process undermines any of our efforts to curb global warming. There is little reason to shut down a power plant here in the U.S. only to have it reconstructed in a developing country. Indeed, we have more of a chance of limiting the pollution of an old plant here than citizens do in many other countries.
Second, the environmental justice consequences are undeniable. Are we simply recreating the NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) of the 1970s and 1980s, when dirty power was relegated to low-income and minority communities, on a global scale? A good percentage of China’s pollution already comes from manufacturing products for consumption in the United States. The same is clearly true for other countries, as the Guatemalan example shows.
How attune are we in this country to the needs of the global community? As I look over some of the anti-oppression materials provided by the Campus Climate Challenge and the Energy Action Coalition, it seems like many of them are U.S. focused. For example, the multi-cultural quiz that was given out by the coalition includes twenty questions about race and class in this country, but no questions about global inequality. This isn’t to say people aren’t conscious about the need for global justice. The EJ principles adopted by the Coalition clearly make a case for universal protection from environmental harm. And the young people I know involved in the environmental justice movement are some of the most globally attuned activists I have ever met. But, movement wide, I don’t believe it is integrated into our work as completely as it could be.
This is understandable. It is challenging to effectively fight for environmental justice on the global scale, especially when working on a college campus. There is a pervading sense that the best we can do for the rest of the world is to get our house in order here at home. But taking out the trash won’t do much good if we’re only dumping it in another country. We need to put an end to the exporting of dirty energy and rapidly increase the exportation of clean and renewable energy sources. It’s time for a bill in Congress that bans the exportation of coal from this country. And now, more than ever, we need to strengthen/create a global movement to take on global warming. Not In My Country-ism won’t get us anywhere.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Jamie,
I think we are on the same wavelength here, I wrote about this in response to a New York Times article:
In China, Global Environmental Injustice Kills Millions.
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2007/08/26/in-china-global-environmental-injustice-kills-millions/
This is why we can’t just focus of domestic legislation…we have to fight for a strong mandate in Bali as a first step, build a clean energy economy to export, and develop a clean import standard.
I think I totally agree with the overall point of the article. But the implication that by stopping coal here we are transferring that coal to another country is way off base.
YES, coal is a huge issue outside the US. But in a global economy – if coal is cheap one place it is cheap in another. If the technology for coal is widespread (thus, manufactured on a large scale), then it is cheaper. If the costs for the physical components of a coal power plant are too expensive, or simply are being produced in fewer numbers because we are stopping them here – they will rise in price on a global scale, making other countries less likely to use coal as well…
And conversely – when we stop a coal plant here we are pushing for the alternative of renewables and efficiency. This increased use of clean energy options further brings the price for those technologies down and provides much needed support to bring those technologies to scale, making them a more economical option for other countries as well.
“By thinking primarily about decreasing our domestic carbon emissions and less about creating global solutions, are we shooting ourselves in the foot?”
I disagree. While YES, we absolutely need to create global solutions – our reduction in emissions does not necesarily translate to simply sending those emissions overseas. Our real impact on emissions globally is our demand for consumer goods – i.e. China’s coal boom is largely due to manufacturing for US exports. Part-and-parcel of US citizens working to reduce their domestic emissions should (and usually does) entail reducing our demands for goods that were shipped around the world, that were ineffecient to produce, or that are simply wasteful. Domestic reductions should also entail reductions in our demand for cheap consumer goods – which will encourage international emissions reductions as well….
While I fully support global solutions – putting our eggs in that basket (as we have done for the past 20 years) has produced very little results. Global agreements like Kyoto are absolutely important – but I feel local organizing is essential. Even at the federal US level – people are spinning their wheels trying to create meaningful change. Real progress is happening at the local, state, and market – evidenced by many governors public stating that the Feds are moving too slow – and that most major countries are failing to meet their Kyoto targets anyway….
Jamie, thank you for bringing this here. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot? I agree with Matt Leonard’s point that, of course, we are driving clean technologies closer to that magical “economy of scale” destination. Of course, Jamie, I also agree with you that it would be super-sweet to pass a law banning the exportation of coal. Is this doable?
Jamie
Very intersting perspective on coal usage for power and exporting. Coal according to the Union of Concerned Scientists accounts for 54 % of US Power generation. I don’t know the % used for manufacturing but I would assume it will also be greater than gas or oil.
I think these percentages are going to track in China, India and Brazil. that being the case and considering the US imbalance of trade and current unemployment nubmers, it seems detrimental to the US to reduce the export of Coal