Mine workers wait at the entrance of a coal mine as rescue works continue after an explosion late Thursday in Mustafa Kemalpasa town, Bursa in western Turkish, early Friday. Dec. 11, 2009. Nineteen miners were killed and several others were injured after the explosion. (AP Photo/Zafer Akpinar, Anatolia Agency)
An explosion at an underground coal mine in Turkey early today killed 19 workers and injured several others. There is press coverage from The New York Times, Aljazeera, and from Turkish Weekly.
There’s also this video from ITN News:
Of course, the big international news related to coal continues to be the climate talks in Copenhagen … and frankly, I continue to find the amount of media coverage a bit overwhelming. It’s hard to know where to start.
Today’s headlines include a Washington Post story about a key group releasing its draft climate plan, a piece in the Guardian about proposals by the U.K. and France to help developing nations, and coverage of the street protests from The Associated Press.
NPR did a piece about Saudi Arabia trying to stall any emissions reductions, and USA Today did a story about concerns regarding how to verify emissions cuts. Grist offered this look inside the youth movement at Copenhagen.
Workers load coal dust onto a cart near a brick field at Kolaghat, about 75 kilometers (47 miles) west of Calcutta, India, Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009.
The AP also offered a take from American billionaire George Soros, who said the $10 billion a year proposed by rich nations to help the poor adapt to climate change is “not sufficient” and the gap between what’s offered and what’s needed could wreck the Copenhagen climate conference.
One of the interesting things to me in trying to read up on what’s going on in Copenhagen is how little I know about the rest of the world. I wonder if most Americans share that ignorance, and if it’s reflected in what seems to be our unwillingness to think about and see climate change through the eyes of anyone but ourselves. I’d be especially interested in links readers want to suggest to coverage by the international press that offer a different view than what we see in the U.S. media.
Looking around today for more stories, I stumbled on a piece the great Elizabeth Kolbert wrote for the Yale Environment 360 blog, The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Sobering Update on the Science, about an effort by leading climate scientists to update their findings since the 2007 IPCC release. Kolbert writes:
Their conclusions? Ice at both poles is melting faster than predicted, the claims of recent global cooling are wrong, and world leaders must act fast if steep temperature rises are to be avoided.
Along those lines, the U.K.’s Independent reported on a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which found that seal levels may rise three times faster than the IPCC expected.
Other commentary or news that caught my eye this week included this piece from The Wonk Room, which provides a timeline for how conservative media and right-wing organizations tried to hype up the “ClimateGate” e-mail issue, and this statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
The vast preponderance of evidence, based on years of research conducted by a wide array of different investigators at many institutions, clearly indicates that global climate change is real, it is caused largely by human activities, and the need to take action is urgent.
Also, federal government scientists this week published a new study in the journal Nature (subscription only) that concluded the climate may be 30 to 50 percent more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long term than previously thought.
Perhaps more to the point concerning coal, the was an editorial this week in the magazine Popular Mechanics called, “The Myth of Clean Coal.” It started out:
Coal is pretty amazing stuff. A single fist-size lump of bituminous coal contains about 12,000 Btu—enough energy to power a 75-watt bulb for two days. It’s relatively easy to dig out of the ground and dirt-cheap: about one-sixth the cost of oil or natural gas per Btu. Most of the modern industrial world we see around us was built with coal power.
The editorial runs through a long list of questions about coal, and about CCS, and then says:
Sadly, although it might make little economic or scientific sense, the political logic behind clean coal is overwhelming. Coal is mined in some politically potent states—Illinois, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming—and the coal industry spends millions on lobbying. The end result of the debate is all too likely to resemble Congress’s corn-based ethanol mandates: legislation that employs appealing buzzwords to justify subsidies to a politically favored constituency—while actually worsening the problem it seeks to solve.
The focus on mythical clean coal is particularly frustrating because practical, cost-effective alternatives do exist—and I don’t mean just wind and solar power. Natural gas is plentiful in the U.S., and gas-fired power plants produce only about half as much CO2 as coal. Not only that, but once it’s ready, the CCS technology envisioned for coal plants would be even more effective if used with natural gas. Tiny gas-fired cogeneration plants in individual homes could also help. Because these mini electrical generating systems use their waste heat to drive the homes’ climate control systems, they avoid the huge energy losses involved in making power at distant facilities. This technology exists today. Nuclear power is another proven, low-CO2-emitting option—and despite public fears, U.S. nuclear plants have been paragons of safety compared to the harm done by coal-fired plants.
The cleanest energy option of all is also the closest at hand: conservation. As clean-energy guru Amory Lovins has shown, its almost always -cheaper to save energy than to mine or drill for it. And there are still massive efficiencies to be found almost everywhere energy is used. Boosting incentives for insulation, next-gen LED lights and ultraefficient smart appliances could do more than carbon sequestration to reduce CO2 emissions in the coming decades.
Let’s be clear. We should continue research into making coal cleaner—that fuel will be a vital part of our energy mix for decades. But let’s not allow clean-coal myths to divert us from real-world energy alternatives that work today.
And as part of a special issue of The Nation focused on Copenhagen, writer Holly Wren Spaulding did a piece called Searching for CCS (subscription required):
But of all the ideas that are being considered, carbon capture and sequestration stands out because it might, just might, not be totally nuts. CCS involves a complicated process through which carbon dioxide is removed from fuels like coal and oil–or even from the air–and is then forced into spent oil wells, porous rock formations or under the ocean floor for long-term storage. Already there are a smattering of small CCS projects around the world. Most of them involve oil companies that pump CO2 into active oil wells to help force up more petroleum in a practice known as enhanced oil recovery. A few companies use the CO2 for industrial purposes, like carbonation of drinks.
… The biggest problem with CCS is not so much its expensive, experimental, high-tech aspects but the twisted political discourse surrounding it. These days CCS functions as a canard, a misleading ruse, set afloat by the coal industry to greenwash its image. Billboards around Appalachia read, “Coal: cleaner greener power for the people and protection for the environment.” The political class happily falls in line behind the marketing because coal states are swing states. As a result, candidates from both major parties bloviate about their commitment to “clean coal”–a thing that manifestly does not exist. CCS also offers middle-class consumers the salve of hope: it suggests that we can carry on with our profligate ways–that we can have our fossil fuel and burn it too.
… If implemented, could Waxman-Markey or Kerry-Boxer or their hybrid really create industrial-scale CCS? If all plants built after 2009 eventually had to sequester half of the carbon they emitted, would that have much impact? A study by the Norwegian NGO Bellona set out to discover the potential of this technology and found that CCS could eventually capture 236 billion tons of CO2–or 33 percent of global emissions– by 2050. Yet much about CCS is speculative, and there may be years of expensive research to do before it will even begin to make good on its promises. For now, the usual suspects remain deeply invested in cheap fossil fuels and the massive subsidies these fuels receive. CCS remains on the horizon, a shimmering, blurry possibility, and a mirage-like suggestion of hope that we can pull back to somewhere below 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 concentrations before it is too late.
CCS is not the solution to the climate crisis. As one proponent of geoengineering admitted, it “is simply a temporary ‘stay of execution.’ We will still have to work for a pardon.” And that comes in only one form: radically and rapidly reducing emissions.
Meanwhile, West Virginia Public Broadcasting covered the story of a group of military veterans who are touring the country to raise awareness about climate change and the threat it poses to the nation’s security.
The fine folks at Public Broadcasting also reported earlier this week that CONSOL Energy may resume pumping wastewater from its operations into Dunkard Creek, and reported just today on the new consumption advisories issued here in West Virginia.
Over at The Huffington Post, Jeff Biggers has new commentary about Copenhagen at Home, focused on clean energy in Kentucky, the defeat of a new coal-fired power plant proposed for Ohio, and a planned lawsuit over water pollution from a strip mine in Illinois.
Here in West Virginia, Ry Rivard at the Daily Mail still hasn’t really explained the court ruling concerning Fola Coal to his readers. But, Ry did an interesting story headlined, Clay County copes with bad news, about the potential layoffs of nearly 500 Fola miners. The story pointed out:
Consol’s Bickmore operations had been having problems before the permit was thrown in doubt by Chambers’ ruling.
Those problems mostly came from the low prices and low demand for coal, a product of fair weather and the manufacturing downturn.
Recently, as much as 1 million tons of coal had piled up at the mine site, including coal loaded into unmoving train cars, said several people familiar with the situation.
Consol also cut workers’ time for several weeks earlier this fall from four days on/four days off to four days on/10 days off. The workers had just gone back to full time, apparently because demand had picked up, when the layoffs were announced.
Consol said the layoffs were due to the market and “nuisance lawsuits and appeals of environmental regulations” in a Tuesday statement. But market conditions might have brought layoffs even without the ruling. Business conditions also men that even if the company does get its permit, the mine complex might not re-open immediately.
At the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., Ralph Dunlop reported that the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration hired an inspector last year who had been accused by Kentucky officials of failing to perform his duties while he was a coal-company supervisor in an electrical accident that injured a fellow employee.Fellow iPhone users may want to check out the Copenhagen App, described by Joe Romm at Climate Progress here.
At our house, we’re big fans of the They Might Be Giants CD, “Here Come the ABCs.”So I was interested to see Brad Johnson of The Wonk Room’s post on Climate Progress, “The Consequences of Global Warming from A to Z.” A few examples:
A — East Antarctica, long stable, is now losing ice.
B — Bolivia needs $1 billion over the next seven years to build reservoirs, as the glaciers that hold the nation’s water supply are shrinking rapidly.
C — Leatherback sea turtles that spawn on the beaches of Costa Rica are threatened with extinction by warmer temperatures and rising seas.
Finally, in honor of MX2 and other climate skeptics among the Coal Tattoo readership, here’s They Might Be Giants doing, “Fake Believe,” from that CD … because of course, global warming is all a fake …
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
So, looks like Popular Mechanics has come around to my way of thinking.
They say:
“Sadly, although it might make little economic or scientific sense, the political logic behind clean coal is overwhelming.”
Back on 8/29/2009 ( http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/08/20/aep-seeks-federal-funds-to-expand-wva-ccs-project/ comment #24), I said:
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that CCS is an expensive bet compared to ramping up already proven technologies. The *only* reason CCS is even in the mix is because of political considerations, not scientific ones.
CCS is incredibly resource intensive–it requires resources that we will inevitably run out of. It is a short-sighted solution compared to renewable technologies that can power humanity not just for a decade or two, but for centuries (if not millennium).”
Popular Mechanics is right on when they say:
“The end result of the debate is all too likely to resemble Congress’s corn-based ethanol mandates: legislation that employs appealing buzzwords to justify subsidies to a politically favored constituency—while actually worsening the problem it seeks to solve.”
Also, this is a critical quote you’ve provided (from a different piece):
“CCS is not the solution to the climate crisis. As one proponent of geoengineering admitted, it “is simply a temporary ’stay of execution.’ We will still have to work for a pardon.” And that comes in only one form: radically and rapidly reducing emissions.”
Amen to you comment Clem!
[...] Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette – » Friday roundup, Dec. 11, 2009 blogs.wvgazette.com – view page – cached Mine workers wait at the entrance of a coal mine as rescue works continue after an explosion late Thursday in Mustafa Kemalpasa town, Bursa in western Turkish, early Friday. Dec. 11, 2009. Nineteen… Read moreMine workers wait at the entrance of a coal mine as rescue works continue after an explosion late Thursday in Mustafa Kemalpasa town, Bursa in western Turkish, early Friday. Dec. 11, 2009. Nineteen miners were killed and several others were injured after the explosion. (AP Photo/Zafer Akpinar, Anatolia Agency) View page [...]
Just to mention the bigger picture on CCS — the scientists and economists at the Pew Center, NRDC, and the British government think, to name a few, think that CCS may be technically, not politically, necessary to save humanity.
They are not just making this up up — and Popular Mechanics is not a persuasive authority to the contrary.
I know there are folks in and out of the coalfields who are, for good reasons, skeptical about the economic and technical promise of CCS. In fact, skepticism is warranted, and even tentative answers await the results of at least a decade of implementation.
Any how, these pro-CCS people could be right, and because so much is at stake, their positions deserve a lot of weight.
Clem is right, too — it looks pretty clear that to get climate legislation we are going to have to accept all kinds of stuff we’d rather not — big nuclear, offshore drilling, and yes, for some folks, CCS.
Politics — sausage-making — oof!
Tom,
I don’t disagree that Popular Mechanics is not the be-all, end-all word on CCS. I posted that only because it was interesting that they editorialized on the issue, and of course that publication is very widely read … so its views reach a lot of people.
I go back to the long story I did on CCS a month or two ago … there are many, many questions. We don’t know if it will work or be economical. We don’ t know if it will work in time to be a major player in reducing carbon dioxide.
But, it is the only hope for coal in a carbon-constrained world. And it may be the only thing that gets certain members (Byrd, Rockefeller) to vote for a climate bill.
Many smart people think those are good reasons to support it. We shouldn’t discount their views. But many other smart people think it’s not the answer, and we shouldn’t discount them either.
Ken.
Ken,
Here is my take on the view of the countries in the developing world to changes in co2 emissions proposed for them. The problem of excess co2 has been caused by emissions generated by the developed world in the last 150 years. Those increases arose from the use of fossil fuels to produce inexpensive power which with the exploitation by colonialism and otherwise allowed a vast increase in that world’s standard of living , eliminating grinding poverty and permitting a growth in life expectancy and other qualities of life unimaginable in the rest of the world until very lately.
In the last half century, by use of the technology and inexpensive energy , and taking advantage of the end of colonialism, much of the developing world has achieved, for the first time, a majority of its population living above the world poverty line of more than $400 a year in per capita income. For the first time in history, starvation, on a vast scale, in not an ever present danger, and basic education is a possibility for most. Life expectancy exceeds 50 years.
However, that status is fragile. Hundreds of millions yet live below that poverty level. The scars of colonialism and devastating wars in which the developing world had little interest but in which they suffered great damage have not healed. Giving up access to inexpensive power threatens both the achievement of basic human necessities for hundreds of millions, and the maintenance of them for an equal number. Agreeing to do so is a political impossibility and hugely unfair. The Chinese representative characterized the developed world’s demand the Chinese reduce their emissions as like those who came to a dinner on time and consumed happily the first five courses demanding of those who arrived too late for anything but desert that they pay and equal amount for the meal.
It is difficult to expect the developing world to agree to cut its emissions of co2. Thus, a Copenhagen agreement which contains only what the developed world now proposes will result in CO2 emissions increasing in the near term, at least. Can anyone in good faith predict agreement to greater reductions on the part of the developed or developing world? I think not.
The good news is that there are alternatives which might work. Despite the media talking only about CO2, in fact it constitutes only 50% on the greenhouse gases measured by warming effect. The others are not as politically difficult to deal with. Moreover, there are technical ways to deal with atmospheric contents of excessive greenhouse gases. CCS may be a technological solution .
The bottom line is that the mandatory reduction of CO2 emissions sought by many who frequent your blog are politically unlikely, not because of conservatives or deniers here, but because of the devastating harm effective reductions will have on the developing world and we need to turn to other solutions to problems likely caused by CO@2 emissions because they are going to continue.
Forrest