“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.

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.

“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 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

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.

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!”

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.

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.