The role of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in our energy future has sparked a vigorous discussion here at ItsGettingHotInHere and within the youth climate movement. There are hard questions about CCS that each of us must answer for ourselves, and a I feel like I’ve been wrestling with these questions within my own soul for quite a while, most recently as I look at a very real example here in the Northwest. As a renewable energy advocate and climate activist in the Pacific Northwest, I’ve been pondering what to do about this coal dilemma, and what role the region’s youth climate activists should play:
The question is this: Under what context should we fight a proposed IGCC coal plant in the Northwest that plans to be equipped with CCS to capture at least 50% of its emissions from day one?
If the new plant was going to increase emissions in the region, we’re clearly justified in opposing it. But what if the new plant was going to replace an equal amount of electricity from existing coal plants in the region? What if building this new plant let us shutter a pre-Clean Air Act coal plant that is the largest emitter of just about everything bad in the state of Oregon (and is scheduled to run for another 20+ years)? That question could very well come to the fore here in Oregon soon, as we pressure PGE to close down the Boardman coal plant, the dirtiest beast in the entire state and replace it with something else. We’re already pushing efficiency and renewables here in Oregon full throttle, we’re fighting off LNG, fighting off new pulverized coal plants (six in the last year!) and fighting off an independent IGCC plant that had no plans to sequester emissions. Where does that leave us?
I’ve worked for the region’s leading renewable energy advocacy organization for the past two years. I helped pass the Oregon Renewable Energy Act, fight off PacifiCorp’s coal plant plans and co-founded the region’s largest youth climate network, and even I wonder how far and how fast we can push renewables and efficiency?
Regional projections right now show that even with renewable energy standards in place in three of four Northwest states (25% by 2025 in Oregon for example) and with some of the most aggressive energy efficiency programs in the nation, efficiency and renewables will only be enough to meet growing electricity demand over the next 20 years. To put it another way: ramping up renewables and efficiency as fast as our aggressive renewable energy and efficiency policies requires will only hold emissions steady at current levels. In order to cut emissions 15%, 30%, 80%, we’ll need to do something to replace and close down existing coal-fired power plants serving the Pacific Northwest. The question then, is what will we replace them with?
Keeping LNG away means limiting the role of natural gas plants. Nukes are pretty much off the table in Oregon (banned in state by a statewide ballot measure!). We may be able to push renewables and efficiency farther, faster, but how far will it get us? What are we going to replace the Boardman coal plant with?…
These questions hurt my heart and my soul. That we are in a situation where we have to ask ourselves these questions is a tragedy. But here we sit, in a very deep hole (getting deeper each day), wondering how to climb out. The scale of the challenge requires us to look deeper than black or white snap judgements (which are all to easy to make), to look unflinchingly at what it will take to get from a world of ever increasing emissions and widespread energy injustice to the sustainable, just, and prosperous future we strive for. It will be a process, and we will likely need to accept temporary but necessary evils along the way. As I said, it hurts to write that, but there it is.
I’m clearly I’m no cheerleader for coal, and I never will be. I strongly believe that to call CCS “clean coal” is nothing less than a despicable affront to those who live with (and fight) the impacts of coal extraction every day.
For me, it’s a question of priorities. Solving our climate and energy challenges is the overarching goal, but as we do so, we have a tremendous potential to solve a number of other challenges and end other injustices as well - from creating new green jobs to ending mountain top removal to strengthening our economy. We should be prioritizing those solutions that solve more than just our primary challenge and de-prioritizing those that create or perpetuate other problems. In this sense, efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, etc. would be our priorities, while perhaps biomass and large-scale hydro lies in the middle and CCS, nuclear, etc. falls to the bottom.
However, given the overall scale of the challenge, which seems to deepen almost every day, I find myself unable to simply draw the line and stand staunchly opposed to any of those solutions on the list that do contribute to our primary challenge - stabilizing the climate. We may need all the tools in our toolbox, even the clumsy, ugly ones. It’s a big hole to climb out of, and we cannot fail. Look at the devastation in Burma to see what a world where we fail to solve the primary challenge looks like.
So, in my mind, should we prioritize CCS over renewables? No!
Should investments in CCS keep us from investing in renewables or efficiency? No, if it comes down to a choice, renewables clearly trump CCS.
Should we as the youth movement cheerlead CCS? No, the coal industry can do that just fine on their own.
But should we oppose it at every turn? Should we take an unflinching and hardline stance, shout down even our allies who might see a role for CCS?
If we’re serious about stabilizing the climate, shouldn’t we be tolerate investments in the development of CCS technology, a temporary crutch we may in all likelihood need on the path to carbon neutrality?
Until I’m confident we do not need CCS, I can’t bring myself to staunchly oppose it as many in our community here do.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
CCS is a complex issue, but when one things about the overall scale, the most reasonable
course of action is to develop this technology as soon as possible, since, in the long
run, that will be wise.
To Wit:
1. Current US Electrical Power by Coal Fired Electricity is 450,000 MW or
450 GW.
2. Current rate of capacity addition in the US per year is 5 GW in wind and about
3 GW in solar. Even if we double those capacity additions, the rates needed for
replacement of Coal Fired electricity are not happening fast enough. That’s the
current reality.
3. http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/ccs1.jpg> Shows the level of emission
reductions that need to be achieved, annually, in order to meet various stabilization levels.
4. http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/ccs2.jpg> Shows the most recent inventory of Carbon
intensity in the world’s top energy producing countries. As we all know, Carbon intensity
in the form of Coal is increasing in the world (due primarily to China and to a lesser
extent India). This trend is not going to suddenly reverse itself and to date the CDM
initiative has failed to entice China to switch from Coal to NG (1/2 the emissions per MW
as Coal).
So the bottom line is that Coal fired electricity will be around for at least 10-20 more
years before alternative forms of electricity production can even start to replace some
of it. Do we then spend the next 20 years belching into the atmosphere at increasing rates
or do we recognize this reality and be proactive by developing CCS.
Finally - no one really knows the overall effectiveness of CCS (unless it can be directly
pumped to depth in the ocean - this does work) - so the sooner that various pilot programs
are developed the more we can all learn about the overall efficiency of this process. Now
is not the time to simply say Hell NO to CCS - what do you gain for doing that, consider that
the Coal will continue to be burned, independent of whether CCS exist or not.
I think the problem is that you can’t remain nuetral on a moving train.
CCS, ethanol, nukes, etc. — long shot, problematic, environmentally regressive energy sources — are getting heaps more support than renewables nationally.
Gosh, if it was between the end of the world and CCS would I support CCS? yeah, I probably would.
But fortunately the reality is that the US, and especially our region (northwest), has TONS of viable alternatives to CCS. Frameworks by energy infrastructure savvy people exist to get the US 100% fossil fuel and nuke free by 2050 and even sooner. I’ve heard energy experts say Oregon could through efficiency, tide and solar power — just as examples — be fossil fuel free for it’s electricty within 15 years, before CCS was even hypothetically deployable.
The problem is that it’s not being treated as a last resort - or even a wedge for that matter - it’s being touted, by all major prez. candidates and politicians all over the place as *cornerstone* to our energy policy.
In this context, when considering:
A) that it requires a ton of money and effort to even try to make it work, money and effort that can and should instead be directed at things that DO work, and
B) that it isn’t deployable till 2030 AT LEAST so all these coal plants are a commitment of time, energy and money to dirty energy AT LEAST for the next 20+ years, and possibly forever if it doesn’t work.
We must vocally oppose clean coal and CCS.
Let’s be realistic: If we remain nuetral on this rapidly moving train, we will not be seeing CCS as a last resort or even as a part of the puzzle, we will seeing it exactly how Obama and Clinton and McCain are promoting it: as a lead role.
If we stand together against it, we MIGHT if we a are very lucky — considering the forces alligned in favor of CCS or against any meddling with coal — be successful at getting it relegated to a somewhat lower priority.
I don’t think their is room for a “nuetral, yet nuanced” view on this issue: same with Ethanol, Nuke, etc. we are either against the role of these bogus and/or seriously overhyped solutions or we are politically ambivilant, willing to see them get all the attention while efficiency, reduction of consumption, and low-impact renewables get shafted.
That is a great way to put it Brian. It should be the lowest priority on the table if it’s there at all. Let the pro CCS politicians fit it narrowly in backwoods budget bills, they always find a way. But we certainly don’t need to give them our approval (or vote) to do so.
I wasn’t aware that there were viable CCS technologies yet - Australia’s huge coal industry is working on these, but is still in the experimental stage. I expect we’ll be having the same problems in just a few years - new CCS versus some of the most polluting existing power plants anywhere in the world.
As I wrote in my post, I certainly don’t think we, as the youth movement, need to cheerlead CCS. The coal industry and our pandering presidential candidates are doing just fine at that. In fact, we may consider it a strategic decision to fight back against CCS to, as Brian put it, get it “relegated to a somewhat lower priority.” That’s one answer to the questions I want us to wrestle with, and a legitimate one in my opinion. But we’ve got to wrestle with these questions to arrive at that point.
I also think it certainly is possible for the youth movement to stay silent on this issue, if that’s our strategic decision. We can pick our battles, and considering how many battles out there, it might be smart to focus on one or two less.
BTW, if you have a credible study showing a roadmap Oregon (or the US) to be fossil fuel free in the next 15 years, I’d love to see it. I’m pretty darned skeptical that’s possible (unfortunately). But I’d love to see whatever gives you the confidence to state that. Thanks for the comment Brian. Cheers,
Jesse
George, all the technologies to do CCS exist. They just haven’t all been put together, and at a power plant scale. The proposed Wallula coal plant I mentioned is very serious about being one of several DOE CCS demonstration plants to test the technology. Washington’s Emissions Performance Standard law (SB 6001 passed in 2007) for new power plants requires that the plant sequesters enough emissions to have net emissions lower than an efficient natural gas plant, or it won’t move forward. It wouldn’t be built until about 2012-2014 I think. CCS is passed the R&D stage and ready for demonstration at this point.
Jessie,
The book “Carbon Free and Nuclear Free”
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf
is an in-depth look by an energy geek (with strong social justice concerns) at getting us off carbon in the next 30-50 years.
Talks I heard from Oregon energy geeks use similiar themes, with more of a regional focus on tide power and/or private forest lands wood-waste biomass. I haven’t seen reports, but I’ll keep an eye out and email you if I see something
For a wide vareity of geographic, social, and economic reasons that I’m sure you are aware of, Oregon is one of the easiest places in the world to follow plans like these, which is why people have suggested we could do it in less than 2 decades. I’m pretty surprised to hear you being so pessemistic about it! Yes it will take political will and require major changes - say, using money and work hours for energy efficiency instead of building coal plants — but I’ve never heard anyone suggest Oregon has substantial technological barriers to going carbon-free.
And let’s not forget that most important tactic! There is so much that can be done by reducing CONSUMPTION of fossil fuels here in america: public transit, teaching good conservation habits, expanding local agriculture, and YES teaching people the benefits (social, personal, ecological) of buying less stuff! It is so rarely quanitified, but I’d wager that agressve policies to encourage changing our wasteful culture could save at least as much energy as effective as more efficient coal plants.
Lastly, when you said “it might be smart to focus on one or two less” battles, I hear what you’re saying, but again, as you yourself have stated “clean coal” / CCS is tragically become the centerpiece of climate acton, having become in a (deeply misguided) pillar of politician’s stated approach to addressing climate change.
I would LOVE to talk less about CCS, I think it’s really boring and uninspiring.
I’d rather talk about public transporation, ideas for reducing consumption, or - on the bogus solutions front - about giant space mirrors, or why carbon trading is dumb, but Obama/Clinton/McCain made it a WAY more of a focus than those things so we sadly must too…we can’t always “choose” are battles, sometimes they are chosen for us.
You say “Should investments in CCS keep us from investing in renewables or efficiency? No, if it comes down to a choice, renewables clearly trump CCS.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t some idle question - this is by all indications (from Lieberman-Warner to Obama) exactly the direction we are moving in RIGHT NOW!
So again, we must choose whether we will stand by and watch something that should - for a variety of both practical and ecological reasons - be at best a last resort instead being a top-tier priority, while better options take a back seat or whether we speak out and fight it so that better solutions can take the fore.
What I found interesting about the IEER document is that they KEPT CCS as a backup in case the energy storage technologies needed for an all renewable grid did not pan out. Personally, I would rather see nuclear over coal (even with CCS), but IEER is an anti-nuclear organization.
In reality, we will probably need CCS to buy the time needed to test the smartgrid technologies.
I’ll second Brian’s recommendation for the Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free book by Arjun Makhijani. I heard Arjun speak here in Seattle recently and he’s very credible — a nuclear physicist who’s been in this field on and off for decades. The book is a methodical, detailed roadmap for how to get to zero carbon by 2040 or 2050, with great care taken over the economics of the transition — ie., can we afford it? It has convinced me that we are ready to move beyond “80% by 2050″ and just go carbon-free. As for CCS, both cost and uncertainty mitigate against it as a primary strategy (and other reasons, of course, too), but he points out that we may need it as a strategy for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
I was trained by Arjun Makhijani in 2005 and I have read the book. Basically, what it says is that there is a real possibility to go carbon-free without nuclear or coal, but it isn’t guaranteed and it requires a dramatic shift in policies we still have seen yet. That isn’t a surprise.
I think that in some ways our debate about CCS is really counter-productive. Coal is here and coal is coming, even through we have blunted the coal rush. We finally have a bill imposing a moratorium on new coal moving forward, but it is a long way from reality. If the political compromise is to have the moratorium except carbon capture storage that is cost competitive with other technologies (the PUC test), fine. It starts to buy us the years to develop renewable energy.
However, what I think we all agree we can’t afford is to let the coal industry become a undead industry, kept alive only by the subsidies it sucks out of a carbon auction scheme to develop carbon capture and storage to outfit their new plants (that are compatible) that is always around the next bend. Basically, we can’t let the coal industry morph into the nuclear industry.
Brian, thanks for the suggestion on the book. I’ll try to pick it up soon. I agree that Oregon and the Northwest in general is well positioned with a multitude of renewable resources at our disposal. If anyone can go carbon free, it’s the Pacific Northwest. It’s simply a question of scale, and the scale of the challenge, even in the Northwest, is giant. I’d like to think it’s not pessimism, but a little dose of reality after working every day on advancing renewables in the Northwest that makes me concerned we won’t come close to coal and nuclear free in the Northwest by 2025 or 2030. I’m not saying that we won’t, but I’m not filled with enough confidence to write CCS off the table.
I also hear you when you say this fight has come to us, on the lips of our presidential candidates pandering for votes in WV, KY, PA, etc. It’s “clean coal” this, “clean coal” that from all three candidates it seems (although McCain loves him some nukes more than he loves coal). And we cannot afford to stay silent there. I haven’t. But instead of railing against CCS as a potential technology, I’ve instead chosen to use this opportunity to highlight the atrocities of mountain top removal and push for its end. The realities of MTR stand in such stark contrast to mythical “clean” coal, that the fact that “clean” coal is in the public and national spotlight provides a tremendous opportunity to highlight what is largely a regional issue (MTR) and make it national. To a large degree, I think we’ve succeeded in that, and we’re making great progress. Ending MTR doesn’t mean we have to end CCS, and the more talk about CCS, the better chance we have in some ways of ending MTR. It’s a subtle strategic shift, but an important one I think.
I also agree entirely that CCS receives FAR too much subsidy in the Lieberman-Warner Climate (in)Security Act, especially compared to renewables. So we ARE in a situation where CCS may trump renewables, and I’m happy to fight that (and I have and will).
It’s the vehemence I’ve seen coming from members of our movement and targeted at anyone who might consider CCS a part of our energy future that prompted these posts. The insinuation that anyone who thinks CCS might be worth investing in “lacks principles” or doesn’t stand “in solidarity” with coal-state residents is simply a bit much for me to take. I’d love to live in a black and white world, but this shit is more complicated and nuanced than we’d like it to be. I’ve got my principles, and I’ve also got a clear view of the scale of our challenge, which may lead me to different conclusions than some of our allies. But we’re not enemies here. Don’t try to make me out as one. (To be clear, I’m not talking to you here, Brian)
Tragically, we are already in a very deep hole. We won’t climb out of it overnight, and we may need some stepping stools along the way. CCS may be one of them. Within our lifetimes, we WILL reach a carbon neutral, climate positive world. It WILL be sustainable, just, and prosperous. But its coming will be a process, and will take decades to complete.
Richard -
Since you worked for Dr. Makhijani, did he ever mention why he chose CCS as the backup plan instead of natural gas/LNG if the energy storage technologies did not pan out? I realize he opposes nuclear, but coal with CCS will still kill more people and disturb more land than natural gas/LNG with CCS. Was it economics or source of supply concerns?
Well said Richard.
Jesse,
I’m confused - seriously!
I hear you saying you have, we can, and we should rally against clean coal lest it become the primary focus of the politicians.
I also hear you saying we shouldn’t rally against people (or the parts of the environmental movement?) that have played a key role in enabling / encouraging clean coal arrival at the forefront by claiming it is an important (or in some cases halfway decent) solution.
That sounds extremely wishy-washy, having your cake and eating it too.
How about this:
I will stop criticizing people in the environmental movement who speak favorably of CCS if those same people start vocally speaking out against it’s prominence, and fess up to the important roles they’ve played in making it such?
Hey! Thanks for the great info. I was browsing through a bunch of green websites and blogs and I came across yours and found it very interesting. There are a bunch of others I like too, like the daily green, ecorazzi and earthlab.com. I especially like EarthLab.com’s carbon calculator (http://www.earthlab.com/signupprofile/). I find it really easy to use (it doesn’t make me feel guilty after I take it). Are there any others you would recommend? Can you drop me a link to your favorites (let me know if they are the same as mine).
Sorry if I’m being confusing. I’m not trying to be wishy-washy (and don’t think I am). It’s nuance. It’s, as a I said, a subtle strategic shift. That’s what I’m trying to point out.
The more we jump to NO THIS! or NO THAT! in ways that don’t communicate an understanding of the nuances of the situation, or appear to be knee-jerks, the harder time I think we’ll have convincing those groups who “have played a key role in enabling / encouraging clean coal arrival at the forefront” to alter their tone on CCS (and to, for god sakes, stop calling it “clean” coal!). They’ll dismiss us as out of touch with the scale of the challenge they are trying to tackle.
We also may end up picking fights we don’t need to fight, or might not want to fight at all, instead of focusing our energies where it’s most strategic.
What if our message was “Renewables and Efficiency First! CCS Later.” Or, “If you want “clean” coal, then ban MTR.” Or “We’ll trade you CCS funding for a massive investment in RE and EE.” Or “Sure you can have CCS, but not until we have a moratorium on new coal plants that don’t sequester at least 60% of their emissions from day one.” Or all of the above.
Instead, it’s “No Coal.” Period. Anybody who says anything remotely favorable about CCS is an enemy that couldn’t possible have any principles or care a lick about climate justice. There’s little sense of the scale of our challenge. There’s little sense that this will be a transition to a cleaner, more just future, or that CCS may help us phase out and replace dirtier, climate destabilizing coal plants (leading to less pollution, less mining and less climate havoc then business-as-usual). It’s that kind of response to CCS that I’m concerned about.
Ok just to clarify…(I think the confusion here speaks in part to my concern about nuance being *politically* the same as ambivilant, or even a slipperly slope to supportive…it is hard to communicate, even “internally”!)
1. You are against the *term* clean coal.
2. You are (at least marginally) supportive of the *practice* known as clean coal, and feel that it is (probably) a neccessary evil for the purposes of preventing a climate meltdown.
3. Additionally, you think utilizing clean coal (ideally under a different name) as a bargaining chip for other climate solutions is politically useful / neccessary.
4. While you don’t see it as a priority (”there are other battles”), you think the most effective way to challenge the unfortunate over-prominense of clean coal is to cease rallying for “No Coal” and to start saying (amongst many other things of couse) that “coal is a neccessary evil and should be used under such-and-such conditions”.
Does that accurately summarize your view?
ok lastly….hopefully last comment on this: I’m not asking this to provoke further debate, but I do want people to be clear on their positions.
Where do you see that this Walla Walla plant will be capturing 50% of its CO2 emissions from day 1?
There are only 4 coal-fired IGCC plants in the world- the technology itself has many hurdles to overcome and it exceedingly costly. The plant you refer to, with CCS, will cost at least $2.2 billion for 600-700 MW. Not the most efficient allocation of resources.
Also, let’s not forget that the responsibility for monitoring and securing that CO2 will eventually fall to the public. Do we really want to support a technology that transfers today’s climate pollution to future generations? We should focus on cutting emissions not look for excuses to continue burning coal.
I’ve got to say. I respect your arguments Jesse and think that your approach is well reasoned and responsible. However, I just can’t bring myself to consider this technology as anything but a really big boondoggle. When you build a coal plant, it burns coal for a very long time. 40, 50, 60, sometimes 80 years. Why would we want to make it any easier for coal companies to build new coal plants? Capturing and storing the junk from these smokestacks makes less sense to me than even trying to transport and store radioactive nuclear waste.
I know you’re not promoting CCS and just saying that we shouldn’t totally rule it out. But, why give it any airtime at all? Why not immediately turn to the myriad of other real and potential solutions out there? Sure, renewables and efficiency don’t look like they can solve our energy demand right now. To me, that means we’re going to have to find ways to come together as communities and reduce our demand. I think it’s time to set forth a principle. No more blowing tax dollars (subsidies, tax breaks, incentives, etc) on carbon-based power. Every dollar we spend to help these faux solutions is a dollar we take away from a demand-reduction program, a clean energy project, or a retrofit project. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that any of those three kinds of projects would create more jobs in the community and produce more greenhouse gas reductions dollar for dollar than any clean coal, CCS, LNG, or nuclear project.
If we’re serious about averting climate catastrophe, at some point we’re going to have to admit that if we can’t produce enough energy with wind, solar, efficiency, and other clean sources, we just shouldn’t produce that energy. If we do, we’re essentially thumbing our nose at mother nature and telling the climate to “bring it on!”
Brian, thanks for asking for clarification:
1) Yes, most heartily!
2) Yes, I’m marginally supportive of CCS for large, point-source emitters, including IGCC coal plants, natural gas plants, hydrogen reforming facilities, etc. if the alternative is climate destabilizing emissions into the atmosphere. To make that possible, I’m supportive of appropriate RD&D expenditures to develop and prove out the technologies necessary to do so.
3) Yes, I think it is politically and strategically advantageous to “utilize” conditional support for CCS in our political agenda. For example, I think we have a strong opportunity to use the spotlight on “clean” coal to our advantage in pressing for an end to MTR. “If we ever want to see anything resembling the mythical clean coal our candidates talk about, we must bad the destructive and downright dirty practice of mountain top removal,” could be our message, one that I think would gain good traction with Obama for example (who has seemed open to working on ending MTR). We could use this as an opportunity to pressure our Congress-critters who could co-sponsor tomorrow the Clean Water Act amendments currently proposed in the House that would effectively ban MTR (by banning the practice of valley infills anywhere where it would cover up a stream, even a seasonal one I believe). The real possibility of CCS in the future is also advantageous as we try to stop traditional pulverized coal plant construction, a far more immediate and real threat than the deployment of CCS. This was certainly the case in proceedings at the Oregon Public Utility Commission where I helped successfully fight off PacifiCorp’s plans for up to six new pulverized coal plants. While it wasn’t the deciding factor, the “why would we want to lock into this old, dirt coal technology when we might have CCS technology in 10-20 years” line of argument seemed persuasive with the PUC. These are just a couple cases where not taking CCS head-on can help us advance other, more immediate (and I’d argue more high-priority) goals.
4) No, don’t stop rallying against coal! Don’t stop shining the light on “clean” coal propaganda! If someone says coal is clean, show them a video about MTR and tell them it’ll never be clean. That much is certainly true, and I’ve been saying it over and over myself. You don’t need to cheerlead CCS, the coal industry can do that just fine on it’s own. But we don’t need to take CCS itself head-on. We don’t need to rally against anyone - even our friends - who might suggest CCS is something we should work. Focus your attention on battles that are of a much higher priority (as a got at above), such as:
-Banning MTR and strictly enforcing Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental regulations on mining operations.
-Stopping the construction of new unsequestered pulverized coal plants, our greatest and most immediate threat to climate stability.-Ensuring we have proper investment and support for renewables and efficiency, public transit, high-speed rail, electrification of transport, etc. The Lieberman-Warner Climate (in)Security Act gives a pittance to renewables and efficiency, for example Let’s focus on doing something about that.
Josh, thanks for the comment. You write, “If we’re serious about averting climate catastrophe, at some point we’re going to have to admit that if we can’t produce enough energy with wind, solar, efficiency, and other clean sources, we just shouldn’t produce that energy.”
I think this is why Teryn focused so much on China in his post. In the United States, we may have the luxury and ability to afford to adopt this principle. We probably have enough energy being used here that if we found a way to somehow redistribute and conserve it, we could live a very high quality of life and slash our energy use. We might not need anything fossil-based in that case. Maybe. (that transition would certainly require a fundamental political and social change in our country, but it might be possible…)
But what do we do in developing nations? Or what do they do, since they aren’t really going to ask our permission to do what they want to do to develop? Or given that fact, the real question is what do we do to help them develop?
On the other thread, some people have been saying an agrarian way of life for rural Chinese is the ideal, and they don’t need anymore energy either to develop and enjoy a better quality of life. They’ve called Teryn a neo-Colonialist or neo-Imperialist for being concerned about how the US can help developing nations pull billions out of poverty. They’ve held up images of sweatshops and fallen back on an idealization of subsistence agriculture and said we’re the ones pushing Chinese by the hundreds of millions into cities and sweatshops.
I’m pretty darned skeptical that you’d find too many Chinese working in urban sweatshops who want to go back to the farm. I’m sure there are plenty, and some who do go back home, but the vast vast majority (literally hundreds of millions of them) stick around in those damned sweatshops and those dirty cities precisely because even their (abject by our standards) conditions are preferable to subsistence farming. It’s not our choice, it’s theirs, and hundreds of millions of Chinese are choosing the factories, just as our ancestors did in our own Industrial Revolution. And if that’s the route they are choosing, isn’t it also an energy justice concern (and a simple matter of self-interest as citizens of this planet) to help them do it in a manner that doesn’t destabilize the climate and is as clean as possible?
So I guess I’m simply pretty darned skeptical that you’d find too many Chinese who’d say they are willing to adopt your principle that if it’s not renewable, we’ll just won’t use any more energy. What does that mean for the hundreds of millions in China, and the billions globally, who live in poverty? Are we going to tell them to just conserve? That seems a little ludicrous to me, given the relative energy intensity of their lifestyles.
If the developing world isn’t willing to swear off carbon-based fuels - and I see no reason to think they will - then our best option should be to use our privileged position in the US to develop as many carbon-free and low-carbon energy technologies and efficiency technologies as we can at as low a cost as we can, and then give them to the developing world for as cheap as we can afford. That’s not neo-Colonialism or neo-Imperialism. We’re not asking for anything in return except a serious effort to stabilize emissions levels. And given the scale of growth in energy consumption in BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, etc.), and the overwhelming reliance on coal to power that development, how can we take CCS off the table? These are the questions that keep me coming back to this topic. Cheers,
Jesse
Emily, as to your question, this is from SourceWatch.org:
“On May 3, 2007, Gov. Gregoire signed a Substitute Senate Bill 6001 (SSB 6001) enforcing the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. This proposed plant would attempt to meet Washington’s stringent new CO2 emissions standard by sequestering its carbon dioxide emissions.[1] Liquified CO2 would be pumped into basalt formations located about one and a half miles below the facility, where the CO2 would interact with the basalt to form calcium carbonate. The overall amount of CO2 sequestered would be approximately 65 percent, according to project spokesman Tim Killian.[2] That would enable the plant to meet the requirements of SSB 6001 that the emissions of a coal plant not exceed those of a natural gas plant.[1]
In September 2007, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was scheduled to begin injecting 5,000 tons of CO2 gas into basalt formations near Wallula as part of a 12-18 month test of carbon sequestration. The PNNL test is part of the Big Sky Regional Carbon Partnership, one of seven U.S. Department of Energy partnerships studying carbon storage in different regions of the country.[3]”
SB 6001 requires that the plant’s unsequestered emissions are lower than a combined cycle natural gas plant or it can’t be built. That means sequestering about 60-65% of it’s emissions, at least. They plan to be a DOE demo site, PNNL is working on demonstrating the chemistry of geologic storage in Northwest basalt. It doesn’t seem like they’re joking about sequestration at this plant.
I’m not asking any Chinese people to adopt my principle. I’m saying that at some point, if the science is accurate, this principle is going to be a necessity for the survival of all but a tiny cluster of the world’s population that can weather the storm.
I’m also not sure it’s a good idea for youth climate activists to worry so much about national development priorities for a country the size of China when we aren’t even really in a position to influence these decisions for our own country. I guess if you’re coming at this from a policy angle, it makes more sense. But from a movement perspective, I’m putting my eggs in the basket of stopping new smokestacks from popping up (even if they have big tubes attached to them that are supposed to smush the smoke back into the ground) and rallying people together to work within the reality of a post smokestack world.
Josh, you write:
“I’m also not sure it’s a good idea for youth climate activists to worry so much about national development priorities for a country the size of China when we aren’t even really in a position to influence these decisions for our own country.”
But Josh, our national policies can influence the the development of China and the rest of the developing world. When we develop technology, that technology can be implemented anywhere in the world. Especially with a concerted technology transfer program, something developing countries have been fervently demanding.
The coal challenge is enormous. Again, just for a sense of scale:
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that global coal consumption will double by 2030. China accounts for a staggering 61% of this increase. The EIA projects that China’s total coal-related carbon emissions will grow by 232% between 2004 and 2030. Europe may also be following this trend – European countries were recently reported to be constructing 50 new coal plants.
If we are to overcome these challenges and secure a clean and just energy future, we have to seriously grapple with these questions and devise a strategy for our movement. Our generation can afford nothing less.