The fight over American coal exports continues to be dramatic.  Yesterday, energy company Kinder Morgan announced that it is dropping plans to build its Port Westward Project near Port of St. Helens, Oregon. The export terminal would have transported 15-30 million tons of coal from Wyoming and Montana to Asian nations.

While the company attributed its decision to the logistics of the site rather than larger global energy dynamics or community opposition, environmental groups noted that residents of the region were stridently opposed to the terminal. “It’s clear that our citizens have no interest in seeing their region turned into a conduit for dirty coal,” as an advocate for Columbia Riverkeeper said.

Less than a year ago, six coal export terminals were under consideration in Oregon and Washington, but as of yesterday only three remain. These are: the Gateway Pacific Terminal near Bellingham, WA; the Millennium Bulk Terminals in Longview, WA; and the Morrow Pacific Project near Boardman, OR.

Coal exports from the United States to Asia are controversial for many reasons. One of these is that the coal that would be shipped abroad is primarily taxpayer-owned coal, from public lands in the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. This region produces approximately 40 percent of our nation’s coal. Recently, concerns have been raised that coal companies may not be providing taxpayers with a fair return for the extraction of their minerals, and are “dodging” royalty payments. This allegation has prompted an internal investigation at the Department of the Interior, interest by the chairman and ranking member of a key Senate committee, and concern from the governors of Oregon and Washington.

Additionally, moving the coal from the Rockies to the west coast requires significant new infrastructure, including trains that can be up to a mile long. Communities along those routes have worried about the noise, air pollution, and water contamination that come with transporting vast amounts of coal by trains. As one rancher whose property would be crossed by a new rail line put it, “They call us radical environmentalists because we want the laws enforced.”

In 2012, U.S. coal exports were expected to reach their highest levels since 1981, and the potential for continued growth is high considering that the U.S. has more proven reserves that any other country. And, Wyoming recently mined its 10-billionth ton of coal, to which the Executive Director of the Wyoming Mining Association responded, “The industry looks forward to supplying power from Wyoming coal–affordably, reliably—for the next 100 years.”

But, WyoFile’s Dustin Bleffizer recently pointed out an important paradox regarding coal exports and climate change that will be important for policymakers to keep in mind:

Read more

(Credit: IBTimes)

The coal that will likely be developed just in Australia could take up 75 percent of what the world can still burn while staying under two degrees Celsius of global warming. That’s according to the latest report from the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI).

This finding comes on the heels of CTI’s report that $6 trillion in fossil fuel investments worldwide could be wasted globally if carbon emissions are brought under the two degree target.

Building off additional work by the International Energy Agency, the CTI determined that for the world to have an 80 percent chance of staying under the two degree target until 2050, no more than 200 to 360 additional gigatons of carbon emissions can be produced by burning coal. The Australian coal reserves already owned by companies account for 51 gigatons, and the remaining goal reserves that the CTI expects to be exploited would add another 100 gigatons.

In short, the coal that Australia alone is expected to provide the world all could chew up as much as three-fourths of what we can still burn without driving ruinous climate change:

Just in 2012, the Australian economy invested $5.71 billion in Australian dollars to develop coal reserves that can’t be burned if we’re going to adhere to the two degree target. Globally, the investment in unburnable fossil fuels has reached $674 billion in U.S. dollars per year. Either that money goes to waste, or the climate will be catastrophically destabilized.

Australian coal export expansion was also one of 14 “carbon bombs” — anticipated projects that could push global warming past the two degree threshold — listed by Ecofys and Greenpeace in January. If the expected expansions of the country’s coal exports occur as planned, global carbon dioxide emissions could rise by 1.2 billion metric tons a year. And that’s just one of the fourteen examples.

That said, awareness of the problem is certainly growing in the country: Australia just endured a summer of record-breaking brush fires, heat waves, and flooding — which the government’s climate commission determined can be linked to climate change. The government also recently passed a carbon tax, and studies suggest Australia’s power supply could go 100 percent renewable by 2030.

But starting in 2015 the price the policy puts on carbon is scheduled to be pegged to the European Union’s carbon trading scheme — and the E.U. carbon price has been rather dysfunctional as of late. The good news is that the price of wind is already outperforming fossil fuels, even without the assistance of government policy, and solar isn’t far behind on that trend.

By Lifeng Fang, courtesy of Greenpeace East Asia

China’s air pollution crisis is more evident than ever. A new research report, conducted under the World Health Organization’s Global Burden of Disease project, shows that over 1.2 million premature deaths were caused by PM2.5 pollution (fine particles like soot, mostly resulting from fossil fuel combustion). That accounts for 15 percent of the total deaths in China during 2010 and 40 percent of global air pollution-related deaths. The data also showed that Chinese people’s average exposure to PM2.5 increased 50 percent from 1990 to 2010, compared to 10 percent globally.

Burning coal is a leading cause of air pollution in China, coal fired power plants release dangerous pollutants such as SO2, NOx and particulate matter that contributes to PM2.5 pollution. Of course, burning coal is also a major source of the carbon pollution that is changing our climate.

The crisis was especially severe in Beijing earlier this year, when air pollution levels soared, “hitting pollution levels 25 times that considered safe in the U.S.”

After this so called “airpocalypse,” Chinese government officials and the public are paying increased attention to air pollution and the impacts of coal fired power plants. Seven high level government officials (including several vice ministers) issued a joint proposal during the annual political conference in March 2013, calling for a cap on coal consumption in key regions to clean up air pollution. The Beijing government has also released a plan to reduce air pollution.

It’s clear that addressing China’s air pollution crisis will require reducing coal consumption. In response to the air pollution crisis, Deutsche Bank issued a report on measures needed to bring air quality to acceptable levels. Their conclusion was that to meet national air quality targets even by 2030, China’s coal consumption will need to peak and decline within this decade. That would have big impacts on the global coal market – as Bloomberg News reported, “Global shipments of thermal coal could be 18 percent lower than forecasted by 2015 should China, the biggest importer, toughen measures to curb air pollution to safe levels.”

In fact, this trend has begun, and a note from Goldman Sachs predicts that “2013 will represent a watershed event for the seaborne market” because China’s thermal coal imports will fall this year, the first time that has occurred since the financial crisis in 2007-2008.

Read more

New Interior Secretary Sally Jewell’s first day was today. One of the first things that will cross her desk is a letter asking her to halt coal mining leases on public lands in the Powder River Basin.

Coal is the largest single source for U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Domestic coal use has leveled off and coal companies want to export it to other countries. But we as taxpayers can stop this from happening because we own much of the coal still in the ground.

The Powder River Basin stretches from Wyoming to Montana. Each of the top ten coal mines in the country are in the Basin, and most coal deposits on public lands are mostly located there. This area holds 1 trillion tons of coal — though only 25 billion tons of it are economically feasible to actually pull out of the ground.

The letter (full text found here) points out that those 25 billion tons would not only be unfeasible, they would be disastrous:

Coal remains the largest single source of climate pollution in the United States. Coal mined in the Powder River Basin alone (80 percent of which is federal coal) is the source of 13 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions. As the steward of one of the world’s largest coal reserves, Department of Interior can no longer ignore the enormous climate impact of new and existing coal leases….

Absent a moratorium and reform, Interior is poised to approve 3.5 billion tons of new coal mining, which would be an unprecedented expansion of federal coal extraction. DOI cannot facilitate these massive extraction projects without undermining President Obama’s commitment to address climate change.

The climate argument should be all that is needed in this debate, but there is even more to the story. American taxpayers subsidize coal through tax breaks, public lands loopholes, and railroad subsidies. In January, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) asked Secretary Jewell’s predecessor Ken Salazar to investigate if U.S. taxpayers were getting bilked by coal companies mining public lands and selling their product to foreign markets.

This is important because the Bureau of Land Management, which administers the lands and leases, is supposed to “ensure that the development of coal resources is done in an environmentally sound manner and is in the best interests of the Nation.”

Read more

As of two weeks ago, five terminals to export U.S. taxpayer-owned coal to Asia were proposed for Oregon and Washington.  But in the face of fluctuating international energy demand and environmental opposition, one of those terminals—Coos Bay, in Oregon—has been shelved after its last financial backer dropped out early last week.  The three backers (Metro Ports of California; Mitsui & Company, a Japanese trading company subsidiary; and Korean Electric Power Corporation) have now all pulled out.

Declining demand for electricity from coal has caused large coal producers to look towards international markets, particularly Asia.  The Coos Bay project would have shipped “up to 11 million tons of coal a year to Asia,” according to Oregon Live. Nearly all of that coal is owned by U.S. taxpayers because it comes from public lands in the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming.   As the outlet reported last year (before two proposals were dropped):

Arch [Coal Inc.] and other Powder River Basin coal companies are pursuing space in at least six ports in Oregon and Washington to export as much as 150 million tons a year to Asia. The Northwest has no coal export terminals now, and the proposals are hugely controversial.

As seen in the graph below, the Powder River Basin is key to U.S. coal production.  Data from the Energy Information Administration also show that all of the top ten highest-producing U.S. coal mines are in Wyoming and Montana.  This has major climate change consequences—one government analysis estimated that 13 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from coal mined in the Powder River Basin once it is burned.

Recently, concerns have been raised that U.S. taxpayers are not receiving a fair return for their coal that is sold to Asia.  For example, Reuters reported that “By valuing coal at low domestic prices rather than the much higher price fetched overseas, coal producers can dodge the larger royalty payout when mining federal land.”  Following these reports, Senators Ron Wyden (D) and Lisa Murkowski called for an investigation in the Department of the Interior’s coal leasing process, which was echoed last week by governors Jay Inslee (D) of Washington and John Kitzhaber (D) of Oregon.

In addition to mining, transporting coal from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Northwest necessitates additional rail capacity, as well as trains that can be up to a mile long.  In just one example of how the fight over coal exports is manifesting, the Sierra Club recently announced plans to sue railroads and coal companies based on alleged Clean Water Act violations.

The four remaining proposed coal export terminals are: the Gateway terminal near Bellingham and the Millennium Bulk Terminals of Longview in Washington, and the Morrow Pacific Project at Port of Morrow and the Port Westward Project at Port of St. Helens in Oregon.

By Kristin Meek, via World Resources Institute

New data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reveals a troubling trend: Coal-fired power generation — and its associated greenhouse gas emissions — were on the rise as 2012 came to an end.

According to the data, which was released this week, natural gas prices have risen significantly since April of 2012, prompting a rise in coal-fired electric generation (see figure below). This increase marks a dramatic change from the trends we’ve seen in the United States over the past several years. U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector had been falling, mostly due to more electricity being generated by renewables, slowed economic growth, and a greater use of low-cost natural gas, which produces roughly half the CO2 emissions of coal during combustion.

The new uptick in gas prices and coal use suggests that we cannot simply rely on current market forces to meet America’s emissions-reduction goals. In fact, EIA projects that CO2 emissions from the power sector will slowly rise over the long term. To keep emissions on a downward trajectory, the Administration must use its authority to prompt greater, immediate reductions by putting in place emissions standards for both new and existing power plants.

What Happens if Market Forces Continue Changing?

Over the past several years, low natural gas prices, along with increased gas extraction, have contributed to the power sector shifting away from coal-fired generation toward natural gas-fired generation. In fact, the U.S. produced less than 40 percent of its electricity using coal for most of 2012. The last time this occurred was for a very brief period of time in 1978.

However, the most recent data from EIA shows that natural gas prices for the power sector have increased by more than 50 percent since April 2012. Over the long-term, EIA expects that natural gas prices for the power sector will increase by about 3.4 percent each year from 2012 through 2040. On top of these price increases, electricity demand is expected to grow by 28 percent by 2040. EIA projects an increase in both natural-gas fired generation (30 percent), as well as coal-fired generation (18 percent) between now and 2040 to meet this demand. Without additional regulations, these trends are poised to increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA Regulations Can Help Prevent a Backslide in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The good news is that the Obama Administration has the tools to not only prevent an increase in CO2 emissions, but to put the country on track to achieve its goal of reducing emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Emissions standards for new power plants, like those proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last year, can help ensure that our climate’s future is not subject to the vagaries of fossil fuel markets, and that new coal plants will not be built unless they contain greenhouse gas emissions controls like carbon capture and storage.

Read more

By Li Shuo

Amid all the news about coal and pollution problems in China you might have missed this one: According to new statistics from the China Electricity Council, China’s wind power production actually increased more than coal power production for the first time ever in 2012.

Thermal power use, which is predominantly coal, grew by only about 0.3 percent in China during 2012, an addition of roughly 12 terawatt hours (TWh) more electricity. In contrast, wind power production expanded by about 26 TWh. This rapid expansion brings the total amount of wind power production in China to 100 TWh, surpassing China’s 98 TWh of nuclear power. The biggest increase, however, occurred in hydro power, where output grew by 196 TWh, bringing total hydro production to 864 TWh, due favorable conditions for hydro last year and increased hydro capacity. In addition, the growth of power consumption slowed down — in Chinese terms a modest increase of 5.5 percent — influenced by slower economic growth, and possibly the energy use targets for provinces set by the Chinese central government.

Coal still accounts for 79 percent of electricity production in China, but fortunately that dominance is increasingly challenged by competition from cleaner energy, as well as government policies and public concerns about air pollution. The Chinese government’s 12th five year energy plan (2011-2015) aims for coal to be reduced from 70 percent to 65 percent of energy production by 2015. In contrast, the Chinese government has ambitious targets for wind, solar, and hydro, and plans to increase the share of non-fossil fuels to 30 percent of installed electricity generating capacity by the end of 2015.

Expansion of the coal industry does not have many friends in China anymore. Major increases of coal power in recent years have created not only record climate emissions, but an unprecedented problem of air pollution and water overuse, triggering increased concern among the Chinese urban population and the central government. The record air pollution in January this year has changed the discussion about coal, and now prominent policymakers and opinion leaders, even vice-ministers, call for capping coal use, especially in the eastern populated and industrial areas of China. The air quality targets the government set for 2016 will require cutting coal pollution. Already last year the government set new strict standards for coal power emissions, requiring costly investments in filters. This year the government set new water use targets for provinces, which do not give much room for increased use of water for coal use in key provinces. Now the discussion is around controlling the total consumption of coal, in addition to emissions trading and resource taxes. The coal industry is surrounded by challenges.

There is another, very sobering side to the story, though: additions to coal power capacity, even if they have been slowing down in recent years, still stood at 50 GW last year, even more than investments in wind. So it seems that some of the total coal capacity was not used last year, due to higher coal and transport costs, and increased costs of environmental protection. The economic slowdown, and slowing growth of electricity use, has forced coal to compete with cheaper hydro and even wind. Companies will push to use that new coal capacity this year, so coal power could see some more growth this year than in 2012, unless there are strong mechanisms to cap the growth.

So while some of the conditions that helped new wind power production pass coal may not repeat this year, it is also clear that the coal industry will continue to be challenged and undermined by clean energy and by China’s new policy priorities to address the air pollution crisis.

Li Shuo is a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace East Asia, Beijing.

Photo credit: Conservation Action Trust

A report issued yesterday from Conservation Action Trust and Greenpeace India outlines the health cost of coal. Via ClimateWire:

As many as 115,000 people die in India each year from coal-fired power plant pollution, costing the country about $4.6 billion, according to a groundbreaking new study released today.

This report, by the Mumbai-based Conservation Action Trust, is the first full study of “the link between fine particle pollution and health problems in India, where coal is the fuel of choice and energy demands are skyrocketing.”

The findings are stunning. In addition to more than 100,000 premature deaths, it links millions of cases of asthma and respiratory ailments to coal exposure. It counts 10,000 children under the age of 5 as fatal victims last year alone.

“I didn’t expect the mortality figures per year to be so high,” said Debi Goenka, executive trustee of the Conservation Action Trust.

115,000 people die earlier than they should because of coal pollution — 10,000 children.

Millions of cases of breathing problems from fossil fuel addiction.

$4.6 billion is about 250 billion rupees (coincidentally the amount that India gave its oil refineries last month to compensate them for selling fuel below cost to help curb inflation).

Yes, “stunning” would be the word. You can watch the emissions rampage across the subcontinent by looking at the report (note, the page may take some time to load due to a multitude of animated graphs). The authors had to model their own data because India does not provide good open-source monitoring information at the plant level.

The report does not focus specifically on climate impacts (it does estimate 665.4 million tons of CO₂ emissions in 2011 and 2012), but it does outline the critical importance of navigating India away from reliance on dirty fossil fuels and investing in clean renewable energy. Climate impacts health, and so does the dirty fossil fuel that causes climate change.

As the report concludes:

India’s emission standards for power plants lag far behind those of China, Australia, the EU and the USA. … Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved, and millions of asthma attacks, heart attacks, hospitalizations, lost workdays and associated costs to society could be avoided, with the use of cleaner fuels, stricter emission standards and the installation and use of the technologies required to achieve substantial reductions in these pollutants. These technologies are both widely available and very effective.