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

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….

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.