A Way to Save Coal? – We Should Tax Carbon and Use the Money to Fund the De-Carbonization of Fossil Fuels
Opinion by Thomas Wills – Herald Editor and Co-Publisher
As we move deeper into the 2016 presidential election cycle it is troubling that one political party seems to be uniformly for practical action on human-caused climate change while the other, just as completely, seems to be in denial of the basic very well established science. This is unfortunate and is ironically due to heavy lobbying, and funding denial of the science, by the fossil fuel industry that is probably shooting themselves in the foot on the issue while catching the rest of us with the ricochet.
In my opinion, after several years of deep immersion in mainstream climate science I have concluded that not only should we tax carbon to encourage a move towards renewables, but that we should use the money to fund the de-carbonization of fossil fuels outputs and thus try for a soft landing both from climate change impacts but also from the eventually depletion of fossil fuels.
Living in an area, the North Fork Valley, which has a long history of coal mining and now some gas development, the issue of climate is much discounted by those who directly or indirectly would be affected by governmentall regulatory action on fossil fuels. This is unfortunate since such actions could not only include such things as taxing carbon but also encouraging or funding aggressive research into improved methods of carbon capture and storage, which if made practical could be the planet’s best hope to not only avoid the worst effects of excess CO2 buildup but also to avoid drastic negative impacts to the world economy. In my opinion, after studying the issue deeply for the past two years, is that it is very unlikely that we can practically switch from fossil fuels to renewables (or nuclear energy) within the two or three decade window necessary to avoid a three to six degree higher world within a century. The alternative is to figure out how to use fossil fuels without releasing most of the resulting CO2 into the atmosphere. We already have the basic technology to do this but so far have been unable or perhaps unwilling to put enough money and effort into the science to bring costs down. I suspect that eventually we will have to use CCS technology anyway despite the costs ,so we should have a crash program as soon as possible to make it the most economically practical it can be.
And if that is not enough there are other good arguments for other benefits of decarbonizing fossil fuels, mainly coal at the generation plants.
Economics. Mining, including coal mining, is by nature a site specific activity. We can move a widget factory to China but we cannot move a coal mine to China. Mining is one of the last major industrial activities along with centralized electrical power generation left in the U.S. Much of our heavy industry, the majority, has already been moved abroad. So, it could be argued that moving away from coal will have the effect of moving our last major industries to China and other low wage countries, since that is where solar panels and other equipment will be made in a free market along with other things such as wind turbines, insulation, etc. And many of those things will be manufactured using energy from coal. In China. So we might not have gained much.
Yes, the solar panels will be shipped back here for use here but once they wear out or are weather damaged (a real possibility with a changing climate) they will then be replaced with more Chinese panels. And so on. Until solar panels can be produced with mostly solar energy and wind turbines with wind energy, or other renewables, the gains in decreased C02 emissions will not add up to much. The challenge is how to keep our high energy input economy and not eventually destroy ourselves as a result.
I suggest that it would be a better idea to heavily subsidize the development and implementation/ installation of carbon capture and storage technology and keep our mining, railroads, and electrical generation plants here. This could actually be financed by a tax on carbon emissions collected at the extraction point, addressing two issues at once. This would raise the price on fossil fuels to reflect the external costs, economically encouraging the development renewables and nuclear, while benefiting the fossil fuel industry itself. The users of fossil fuels would then be paying the cost of solving the problem of fossil fuels while encouraging the eventual transition to renewables that would have to take place eventually regardless. And once the tax money was no longer needed to develop the CCS technology the funds could transition to paying for the costs of decarbonizing itself thus lowering the price of decarbonized fossil fuel generated electricity. This would seem the best bet for a softer landing since it seems nearly impossible to physically and politically transition fast enough from fossil fuels to non (new)-CO2 emitting energy sources (including nuclear and bio-fuels) fast enough to avoid a future global temperature rise of well over two degrees.
I believe that if we wake up and move quickly with an open mind perhaps we can not only dodge the bullet of the worst of climate change but also continue to grow our economy. This will not only take CCS technology but also a wide menu of renewables and conservation measures like dramatically more efficient, transportation, homes and buildings. Decarbonizing fossil fuels may be the key to the transition. Maybe I am being too optimistic but what we cannot do any longer is tolerate cynical, willfully ignorant climate science denial to delay meaningful actions that rapidly reduce world CO2 emissions.
One step that you can personally take, besides writing to your present elected officials, would be to question all candidates for State and Federal and even local offices on their acceptance of climate science. If they quibble, vote for someone who understands the facts and supports taking action.
Carbon Capture and Storage info links:
http://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/
http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/global-status-ccs-2014/executive-summary
Tags: carbon capture, coal, Thomas Wills