The first thing I saw this morning when I opened my e-mail was a press release from my good friend, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. The headline blared out at me:
Rockefeller takes West Virginia Energy and Economy Concerns to the White House; Rockefeller is leading coal state senator in bipartisan energy meetings — keeps focus on West Virginia jobs and Economy.
Geesh. You would have thought Sen. Rockefeller was predicting Dewey would defeat Truman.
My buddy Darren Samuelsohn of Greenwire has a good account of the meeting, brought to us via The New York Times, describing the event as part of a last-ditch push to get a draft Senate energy and climate bill out by the start of the spring congressional recess March 23.
Rockefeller’s press release was predictably self-laudatory:
I was the only coal state Senator in the room and I made very clear to the president and my colleagues that what we need is an energy policy that protects West Virginians, creates jobs and stimulates the economy — and that means investing in clean coal technology.
OK … I get that. Sen. Rockefeller is for coal. And given that, it’s perfectly reasonable for him to take that message to his fellow Senators and to the White House.
But when I started Coal Tattoo a year ago, I wrote that there were two conversations going on about coal:
One of them is out there in the broader world. Scientists, policymakers and even investors are becoming more and more convinced that the downsides of coal have to be addressed. One way or the other, coal-fired power’s contribution to global warming must be dealt with. To these folks, the question is: Can coal have a place in our energy mix in a carbon-constrained world?
The other discussion is happening here in West Virginia, and in other coal communities. Locally, the issues are different, and in many ways much more emotional. It’s a battle between families who rely on coal to put food on their tables and send their kids to college, and folks who live near coal mines and are tired of blasting, dust, and water pollution. To these folks, the questions are: How can we protect coal’s future or how can we shut down mountaintop removal?
One of my goals with this blog was to try to connect these two threads a bit, to have a bigger and broader discussion about the future of our coalfield communities given the scientific realities about the need to do something about climate change.
I’m afraid that not many coalfield politicians share my interest in doing that … and from his rhetoric on the issue, I’m sure that Sen. Rockefeller isn’t one of them.
Why do I say that?
Well, read his whole press release about this White House meeting. Now, understand that many West Virginia media outlets will simply report this press release as is, without adding much context to it. And note that nowhere in the press release does Sen. Rockefeller say one thing about why legislation is needed to address climate change. He doesn’t explain that the world is indeed warming, that human activities (including burning coal) are largely responsible, or that absent some action to reduce emissions, the impacts are going to be largely negative for humans and our society.
Does Sen. Rockefeller believe those things?
Well, in seeking a delay in potential EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, Rockefeller took a more moderate step than Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whose bill would have much broader impact on EPA’s efforts.
But again, read the materials that Sen. Rockefeller’s office provided to the media, especially to local media in West Virginia. The “background” attached to the press release was nearly 500 words long, and the only thing it said about why climate change needs to be addressed was to quote very briefly from EPA’s endangerment finding.
And the reaction to Rockefeller’s bill?
The Daily Mail devoted the top of its front page to a Ry Rivard story that allowed Republicans to complain the legislation doesn’t go far enough. Ry threw some stuff in at the end quoting a World Resources Institute report about why the U.S. needs to act on climate change … but it was buried in the thrust of the piece.
And, the Wheeling paper is doing its best to paint Rep. Alan Mollohan as anti-coal, again because by supporting legislation identical to Rockfeller’s, he’s not taking a hard enough stance for coal.
So, the media is part of the problem here. No question about it.
Take today’s editorial in the Daily Mail, which asserts — and cites absolutely no evidence to support — that:
… The science about ‘global warming’ is anything but settled. The accuracy of climate research has been seriously questioned …
You have to wonder why the Daily Mail’s editorial writers don’t provide even one paragraph to back up such sweeping conclusions … could it be that when they do venture into commenting on the specifics of climate science they end up exposed as not really understanding the issue very well?
That’s what most folks who do understand the science have come to expect from local media in West Virginia, though. My buddy at MetroNews, statewide radio host Hoppy Kercheval, for example, has apparently decided that Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship is a climate scientists — and he lets Blankenship say whatever he wants, without challenging him or bringing an actual scientist on the air to debunk him. (In Hoppy’s defense, the Gazette’s editorial page does much the same thing, regularly printing Blankenship’s letters to the editor, despite errors in the science. But at least the Gazette keeps publishing letters from other readers who debunk Blankenship).
The other thing about what the Daily Mail said is that it is simply wrong. Of course, the nature of science is that it is never, ever really totally “settled.” Scientists always keep studying, testing, learning, advancing what we humans know about our world.
But, despite all of the furor over the climate e-mails and mistakes in an IPCC report about how fast glaciers are melting, nothing has come out which really questions the key and consensus conclusions of the world’s scientific experts about global warming.
That doesn’t mean that the public isn’t greatly confused, or that coal and other fossil fuel interests aren’t taking advantage of some missteps by climate scientists to try to undermine public support for action on the issue. Living on Earth had a great piece about all of this last week that’s worth checking out.
Here in the coalfields, there’s no question that coal industry supporters are loving all of the coverage of “ClimateGate” or whatever it’s being called now. That’s all the more reason to wonder why some of the region’s more progressive political leaders don’t talk about the fact that the science still screams out for action.
That takes me back to this idea of two different conversations about coal issues. As I said, it’s understandable that Sen. Rockefeller wants to preach the importance of “clean coal” to other politicians in Washington. But if he and other West Virginia leaders want to win the battle of public opinion — rather than ceding these issues to Don Blankenship, Spike Maynard and the coal industry’s other voices for inaction — then they better start having a different conversation with their constituents, one that explains why the science is still sound and why action is needed.
Folks like Rockefeller and Nick Rahall simply aren’t going to be able to out-pander the Republicans on coal issues. But maybe if they tried, they could out reason them, and help the state and the industry embrace the future.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
I think there is a third conversation that needs to be had about coal, and I think you address it occasionally. That is the interest of the rest of us – whose water, air, health, and peace of mind are not affected as much by coal as those who live in the southern coal fields, but whose lives are nevertheless affected by coal’s previous domination of West Virginia’s economy, and the continuing effects of that, even in the more diversified parts of the state. Those effects, and the direct effects on coal field communities, and those immediately downwind and downstream of coal-fired plants, would be there even if climate change were not – and both sets of concerns are much easier to see and much more immediate to most people than climate change.
Ken,
I am no scientist, but my reading of them convinces me that you vastly overstate the climate change scientific argument that it is necessary for The US to immediately reduce or eliminate the its burning of coal . That argument assumes the following to be scientifically or politically accurate:
1.) The Earth’s temperature is rising. While the exaggerations and distortions of data by some scientists and recent cold spells are arguments against this conclusion, there appears to be general scientific agreement here.
2.) The cause of the warming is man rather than nature. Here, there is more robust scientific debate, but a smaller consensus concludes that the emission of “greenhouse” gasses at least substantially contributes to the measured warming.
3.) The warming will cause substantial harm if it continues. Here the scientists raise possibilities and express concerns, but have proven wrong when they have predicted disastrous events and the time for their occurrence has past. Those predicting harm also predict some beneficial changes. While the specific harms and the extent of them is far from certain, there is enough risk agreed upon to warrant the exploration of remedial steps.
4.) The most appropriate step is to substantially reduce the emission of CO2. Here, there is no real agreement. CO2 contributes one half of the estimated warming effect. Other gases, like methane, are far more potent and their release can be more inexpensively reduced.. Moreover, there are other ways to reduce the warming effect of the sun’s rays, such as seeding the atmosphere with water vapor.
5.) Action by the US, such as enacting tax(cap) and trade or EPA regulation, would have a significant effect on the level of CO2 concentration. As was shown at the Copenhagen meeting, of the major emitters of CO2 left, only the US was in favor of binding treaties requiring reduction. There is no scientific opinion, much less consensus, that unilateral reductions by the US will have a beneficial effect.. Those who urge unilateral action by the US suggest it will provide leadership to the rest of the world. That argument is too contrary to our experience elsewhere to warrant comment.
6.) Eliminating the use of coal worldwide would solve the problem. No one has said that. Scientists argue vigorously about what would happen at various levels of CO2 concentration. If coal were to be outlawed, it is possible that the global warming problem would be solved and it is possible that there would be little effect because of other sources and the continuing elimination of CO2 banks, like the rain forests.
Because the level of confidence in the science relied upon to urge the economically devastating governmental regulations now proposed is too low to warrant those regulations, Senator Rockefeller is right to urge their postponement and the Republicans right to oppose them
Forrest
Another important question to consider is, what would happen to WV if the coal industry was regulated right out of business? Would good, “green” jobs pour in to replace those lost? Or would this cause higher unemployment and a migration to jobs in other states, leaving behind an economic and environmental mess for those who stay?
Yes, mining practices and coal combustion technologies must continue to improve. A slow, careful approach to complex issues is definitely the right approach. Let’s not get impatient, the middle road is the right road forward.
Good job, Senator Rockefeller!
Greenspace, we are going to get left with an economic and environmental mess in West Virginia anyway – coal WILL play out, sooner rather than later, and when it does those jobs will vanish and never return.
I lived out West for many years and saw what happens when the extractive industries leave … they call them “ghost towns” for a reason. This is why it is important that we start planning now for a post-coal West Virginia, even Senator Byrd has come around to that idea, because if we don’t, and just assume that coal and the good money it brings will be here forever, West Virginia will end up like vast empty reaches of Colorado, Wyoming, and other states.
Greenspace and Monty – West Virginia already has an economic and environmental mess – and plenty of ghost towns.
Consider that economically, the state has fared better than most during the recent downturn. And environmentally, the air and water quality have steadily improved for years. Mining practices are better than they used to be, and the major power plants have added scrubbers. Things aren’t as bad as extremists (on both sides) would have us believe.
Continuous improvement is the path forward. A sudden change would be disastrous.
Forrest,
Thanks as always for reading and commenting … you might notice that in my post I linked to numerous previous Coal Tattoo post which, in turn, link to science that back up what I wrote.
I noticed you didn’t provide any citations or links to support your rather sweeping statements about the science … I’ll give your comment a more detailed read when I get off deadline for our print edition. But I’d ask you to, in the interest of fairness, provide some citations and links to support each of the statements you wrote. That would allow me — and other readers — to more fully judge the accuracy of what you said.
Thanks, Ken.
I’m really curious to know more about what Greenspace said: “And environmentally, the air and water quality have steadily improved for years.”
I can see where there may have been improvement in air quality thanks to SOX scrubbers. That’s only true, though if we set aside the very concerning data about global impacts of CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels. I’m also not sure about particulate levels from other sources of air pollution besides smokestacks–there’s lots of cold dust that happens during transportation and processing.
Is there any evidence that says water quality is improving?
I thought the most recent scientific studies showed that Mountaintop Removal Mining was creating all sorts of water quality issues. Are there any specific changes in mining practices over the last 10 years that have improved water quality?
There’s another conversation we need to have more of, and Monty touched on it. Coal production here is likely to be curtailed sooner than later (sooner than most people expect), for a number of reasons, and we need to begin to anticipate a future without much coal production.
Coal will be mined less. This will be due to increased regulations and taxes, to fight global warming, reduce emissions of mercury and fine particulates, better manage impounded waste at the mines and power plants, etc. As these costs of burning coal put downward pressure on its continued use, other sources of energy will be developed.
Natural gas is already being used more and more at power plants instead of coal, because it burns cleanly, without the mercury, fine particulates, waste impoundments, etc. Natural gas creates half as much carbon dioxide as coal, for the same amount of electrical power. The gas powered plants can be more easily fired up and shut down, which lets them be used when electricity rates for consumers are highest, or when windmills are not spinning or the sun is not shinning on new solar panels. Coal fired plants don’t have this flexibility to maximize profits.
The shifting trend in choice of energy sources (away from coal and toward cleaner alternatives) is about a decade old and is accelerating. Projecting the current trends forward, coal’s use to produce electricity in the USA would be seriously curtailed over the next decade. Coal production in West Virginia could decline faster than in the nation as a whole, due to higher production costs per ton here, compared to elsewhere.
Change is coming to the coal industry in West Virginia, sooner than most people think. We need to understand the coming change, why it has already started, and what drives it. I think the fall of King Coal has been and will continue to be driven by economics, at least as much as by any other reason.
Forrest,
OK … I gave your comments a closer read, and there’s much to discuss. I’m happy to do that, and I hope you’ll respond by pointing to some of the science you base your statements on … I’m not a scientists — I’m not even a lawyer — but let’s try to have this discussion anyway. I appreciate your comments.
I’ll not get much into 1 and 2 from your list, as you concede some level of scientific consensus on both of these points (That the world is warming and that human activity is at least partly to blame). The IPCC concluded that the proof of warming in unequivocal, and that they were 90 percent certain that human emissions were to blame. See this previous blog post and the links it contains, http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/04/17/fact-check-capito-climate-change-and-the-carbon-cycle/
In number 3, you opine:
The warming will cause substantial harm if it continues. Here the scientists raise possibilities and express concerns, but have proven wrong when they have predicted disastrous events and the time for their occurrence has past. Those predicting harm also predict some beneficial changes. While the specific harms and the extent of them is far from certain, there is enough risk agreed upon to warrant the exploration of remedial steps.
What science are you relying on here? What predictions of disastrous events are you talking about?
Of all the noise made about the error in the IPCC report regarding the speed of glaciers melting, most of the science I’ve seen has shown that the world is warming faster than scientists thought it would when the 2007 IPCC report was issued (Check out this report, http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport )
Also, while some commentators are focused on arguing that the IPCC has over-stated the potential impacts, a closer reading of the science — such as this one, from Joe Romm, http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/18/ipcc-lowballs-impacts-pachauri-disband/ shows that the IPCC has actually low-balled things.
Then there’s 4 on your list, specifically that dealing with CO2 is not that important, compared to other greenhouse gases. I’d like to know what makes you say that …
A Union of Concerned Scientists report asked this question:
Why does CO2 get most of the attention when there are so many other heat-trapping gases (greenhouse gases)?
And they answered this way:
Global warming is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This carbon overload is caused mainly when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas or cut down and burn forests. There are many heat-trapping gases (from methane to water vapor), but CO2 puts us at the greatest risk of irreversible changes if it continues to accumulate unabated in the atmosphere. There are two key reasons why.
CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue. CO2, more than any other climate driver, has contributed the most to climate change between 1750 and 2005.[1, 2, 3] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a global climate assessment in 2007 that compared the relative influence exerted by key heat-trapping gases, tiny particles known as aerosols, and land use change of human origin on our climate between 1750 and 2005.[3] By measuring the abundance of heat-trapping gases in ice cores, the atmosphere, and other climate drivers along with models, the IPCC calculated the “radiative forcing” (RF) of each climate driver—in other words, the net increase (or decrease) in the amount of energy reaching Earth’s surface attributable to that climate driver. Positive RF values represent average surface warming and negative values represent average surface cooling. CO2 has the highest positive RF (see Figure 1) of all the human-influenced climate drivers compared by the IPCC. Other gases have more potent heat-trapping ability molecule per molecule than CO2 (e.g. methane), but are simply far less abundant in the atmosphere and being added more slowly.
The link for that is here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html#Why_does_CO2_get_most_of_the_attention
Numbers 5 and 6 are, of course, political questions more so than scientific ones, so I’ll defer getting into those at this point — but I’m happy to read comments from others about them.
Ken.
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Coal will be obsolete sooner than you think. What about the future?
I do not see what is to be gained by waiting as the good senator suggests.Is this not just putting off the difficult choices?
Just about every environmental problem has its roots in one thing…too many people. Human beings, even those in abject poverty, have certain needs that put stress on the environment; some local stress and some with long reaching effects. Potential solutions to any environmental problem has to address population if it has ANY sucess of achieving success in the long run. Improvements in technology (scrubbers), regulation (clean air and clean water acts), and education can only go so far in curbing the BASIC demands people have for food, clothing, and shelter and the resulting effect on the environment. Population will ultimately override any improvement towards a better environment just by sheer magnitude of numbers. The US population is estimated to be at 450 million by late 21st century and they are ALL going to want the basics (not to mention most of the luxuries) we enjoy today. 7 Billion people living at current US standards of living cannot possible be sustainable on a planet of infinite resources (clean water, soil, fossil fuels, other species). If we don’t find the mettle to step up and admit that we have exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet and begin immediately to reduce our numbers in a meaningful way then I think we are doomed…regardless of education, caps on carbon, clean coal (whatever that means), switching to wind, solar, etc. Loss of habitat and development are the largest threat to landscapes and population is the largest driver of this loss. I know this is probably not the correct forum to bring up population control but having any discussion of environmental problems without addressing population is like trying to cure a cancer patient with a nice meal. Sure it tastes good but we are only fooling ourselves.
In an overpopulated world the value of clean water increases, therefore the need to protect our water sources including those waters affected by mountaintop removal. I know this is a difficult position for our state, but it will not get easier by being put off. The President is using the EPA to put the pressure on climate change legislation, which is one of his abilities as President. Sen. Rockefeller ( who I respect a great deal) will not make decission making any easier through this delay, infact as Ken pointed out, dilutes the argument as to “what are we going to do as a country”, by implying that there is no great need to do anything. Meanwhile other states will deal with the problems and we will be the “odd man out”. Instead of fighting change we should be adopting it as soon as possible inorder to get the best deal possible for our state.
Regarding the insightful comments by Forest Roles, I am anxious to see the results of certain on-going investigations and a freer exchange of information with respect to man-made climate change.
Some of the investigations are:
Hacked e-mails are being investigated by U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office not only on how they became public but also to check for evidence that data were handled in ways that are “at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.” Requests for information on climate data under the Freedom of Information Act to the university were submitted in 2007 and 2008 but were not provided and as such the University, for some reason, broke the law.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704194504575031022338013284.html
The U.K.’s University of East Anglia said it will launch an independent review of the science published by its scandal-hit Climatic Research Unit…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704337004575059303107000656.html
Penn State Michael Mann investigated. Penn State said it is undertaking the new inquiry because the purloined emails may be undermining public confidence in Dr. Mann’s findings, “in science in general and climate science specifically.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575043693339038422.html
Professor Robert Watson, chairman of
the IPCC from 1997 to 2002, told the Times of London,
mistakes in the IPCC report “all appear to have gone in
the direction of making it seem like climate change is
more serious by overstating the impact”.
I think Senator Rockefeller is being prudent.
One more reason Sen. Rockefeller should say more about the science of climate change: he chairs the senate’s SCIENCE committee! Say what you might about John McCain but at least he made climate science a priority when he was chair.
In a recent article written by fox news, you may be interested to know that the thermometers in various parts of the country have been under attack. Why, because they are put in places that give false readings about temp. increases. One was placed on top of a grave marker of all places, morbid yes but a place that gets hotter as the day goes by. Another was placed next to the exhaust on an air conditioning unit and on pavement. Climate science needs to evaluate itself. Al Gore uses more electricity than most of us in the US. If those folks are really certain of their veiws then cut off the lights! Congress should start first by turning off their heating and cooling system that comes from a coal fired plant. I agree that we need to find more ways to burn cleaner, but the whole debate is to move us toward another type of energy not to benefit coal. This earth has gone through cycles before and many scientists agree, yet are left out of the politically correct scene. There is no denying that UK scientists “cooked the books” so to speak. I am not convinced of the global warming/human element, but if you want to find ways to burn cleaner then knock yourself out. Let’s not forget about vehicle polution ( I drive a V8 myself), turn your motors off and ride a shwinn to work if you are serious. We have heard about just outlawing coal altogether, that would be disaster for the entire country. Here in southern WV if coal goes then so does the tax every county gets,even the counties that do not produce coal. It is based on population and not the amount of coal mined per county, I guess that would upset the pan handle folks if it were reversed. If this state turns it’s back on coal then there would be no need for a West Virginia, becasue like it or not that is the reason WV stayed in the black during all the bailout business, now that some coal companies are shutting down becasue of Obama’s EPA we are feeling the effects financially. If we do not provide alternative forms of employment ( one’s we can actually make a living at ) for our people in the southern coal producing counties then that tax base will be lost. So somebody please help us and stop tying yourself to trees, because it seems that this state always cuts it’s nose off to spite it’s face, we have been doing that since the war between the states, and it continues to get us nowhere. Spain went green and it has massive unemployment and the green jobs amount to grass cutting,the reality is there are no green jobs. It doesn’t take a lot of folks to service a windmill, but it runs animals and humans away just ask Arizona. So let’s hear it what are your alternatives?
While I certainly agree with Don Juan, that over population is the most pressing issue against the planet we face. The cold truth is that China is the only country that is brave enough to adress it. For this, there population controls (only one baby per family) are condemed by the international community. There are two major contributors to overpopulation 1) Lack of wars, this planet used to have major wars every few years or so. 2) Modern medicine, our lives are longer because of advances in modern medicine and will continue to get longer as medicine advances. This is the white elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Its overpopulation, not coal, that is killing this planet. If you want to play politics, President Obama is promoting global warming by wanting universal health care and a end to war.
Todd Browning, I’m curious – what are you going to do in 20 years, maybe even 10, when the coal is gone? And we don’t have any alternatives in place because people like Rockefeller kept saying, “Oh no, we need to move slow on this, take our time, we don’t want to rock the boat too awfully much.”
I’m also curious as to your definition of a job that you can “actually make a living at.” What is your threshold – $20,000 a year, $30,000, $100,000, with full benefits? In this new post-recession economy quite a few of us, myself included, have had to adjust our expectations. Coal miners, I suspect, are going to have to do likewise, and either embrace change as Sen. Byrd suggests or keep insisting on the way things used to be, and get left behind when the economy in West Virginia changes definitively, and forever. But that’s just my take on things.
Todd Browning – I got a little bit lost with what you have to say… you seem to be working off some outdated facts.
Here’s just a couple.
1. Congress has already started moving their coal-fired power plant to natural gas. I don’t know if it has already happened or is just in the planning phase… it would have happened many, many years ago were it not for the opposition of coal state Senators like our own Byrd and Rockefeller.
2. You might want to look a little more carefully at the formulas on coal severance taxes. Only part of the taxes are distributed based on population. Even then different counties use the money in different ways. I may be wrong about this, but last I heard at least one eastern panhandle county set aside their modest amount each year to use for special capital expenses. They didn’t include it in the operating budget because they knew it was not a sustainable source of funds.
We’re running out of coal in West Virginia and global climate change is making coal a less economically desirable source of energy. Sen. Rockefeller thinks the best thing to do is burn even more coal (via carbon-capture and storage and/or coal-to-liquid plants).
I’d rather see Sen. Rockefeller push for alternative investments in the coal fields to replace lost coal jobs, not make us even more dependent on them for the final decade(s) of their existence.
[...] from the comments to my previous post, Why won’t W.Va. political leaders educate the public about climate change science? there are a lot of climate change skeptics and deniers among Coal Tattoo’s readership here in [...]
Ken,
Not only am I not a scientist, I’m barely able to use a computer for research. Most of what I said came from memory and I remain confident it’s true. However, within my limitations, here is a response for your request for “authority.”
Global warming scientists have made many predictions which have not come to pass. We still have ice in Greenland; the polar bear continues to survive and no ocean islands have been yet submerged. Here is a cite giving some of the predictions of doom which failed to materialize:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2005837/posts. The general explanation has been that the disasters are in the future; and that may be. It still seems to me that nothing serious has yet occurred and past wrong predictions show that the present ones are not reliable.
With respect to the relative importance of CO2, I cannot locate my source. Do you or your readers disbelieve the statement that CO2 causes half the warming attributed to greenhouse gas emissions? Do you or your contributors doubt that the burning of coal contributes lees than half of the CO2 emissions? I remember so reading and it does not seem illogical. Given my computer skills, my failure to find authority is insignificant evidence of its non existence.
Finally and most importantly – the” politics” in the last two points cannot be ignored. The whole basis of the proposed governmental action depends on it.
The economic effect on the US of cap and trade as passed by the House is estimated by the Administration at more than $1,700, per American family, per year.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5314040-504383.html That cost is being contemplated when there is no! basis I can find to believe that without world wide acceptance of similar cuts, it would do any good. The economic effect on West Virginia and its people would, of course, be much worse .
I repeat. Senator Rockefeller is right to seek to stop action now. The appropriate criticism of him is that he has not acted with sufficient speed or vigor.
Forrest
Forrest,
Thanks for your response, but don’t underestimate yourself. I know you as a very widely read person … however in this instance, yes, I do disbelieve your statement about CO2 … and the citation I provided to the scientific data shows you to be wrong about that.
The science shows that CO2 has caused most of the warming. There is broad scientific consensus about that.
Ken.
Ken,
Your cite does blame man made CO2 for warming, but is very short of analysis. CO2 is produced by many natural sources and absorbed by many. Destruction of carbon sinks like rain forests contributes to increases in concentration. Moreover, there are many other natural and man made greenhous gases. The best analysis of the various practices and sources of the increase by effect of such gases my unskillful research turned up is here:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html It shows burning fosil fuels to contribute less than half of the greenhouse gases, measured by effect even if naturally produced ones are excluded.
The point seems to me to be that there is no scientific consensus on this and other critical assuptions supporting the argument that the cap and trade bill or EPA restriction is necessary. The lack of logical support is most striking in the absence of any reason to believe that critical other countries will respond in kind and that our economic self sacrifice will do any good for anyone without that action.
Forrest
Forrest,
That’s a site maintained by my friend Monte Hieb, the chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miners Health, Safety and Training. With all due respect — and I do have much respect for Monte’s skills as an engineer, and his commitment to miner safety — his analysis there is hardly in the same league as the IPCC.
I’m not sure how you can put Monte’s personal analysis (which doesn’t appear to have been published by any journal or undergone any peer review) up as proving there is no consensus. But you’re welcome to that opinion.
Perhaps you can point your Web browser to this link:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
That’s the most recent IPCC report on the physical science of climate change. Start with the Summary for Policymakers and then go on to the other more detailed reports if you wish.
The Union of Concerned Scientists link that I referred to, and many of my own Coal Tattoo posts on this subject, have been based on the IPCC findings.
Monte and you are subscribing to a common theory of those who argue for inaction.
But the truth of the matter is: Water vapor is indeed the most dominant greenhouse gas. It is also the dominant positive feedback in the climate system, amplifying any warming caused by CO2 changes.
See this part of the IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html
It details the consensus findings in this regard, complete with charts, footnotes and citations to peer-reviewed papers.
Let me know when you’ve read it … Ken.
I suppose that by reading the responses to my post, the real reason was lost, partly my fault I suppose. Congress may be moving towards receiving their power from another source other than coal, I am not aware of that. Nevertheless, the point of my post is that, if coal dies here in the south there is nothing else to sustain most of the citizens. You see there are extremes down here. The coal industry which provides not only miners, but all business depends on coal. If you want to get away from the industry, there must be an alternative means of employment. If one does not work in the coal industry here, the other extreme is a low paying wage. Then what the news is going to say when the industry falls and opverty reigns, is that is is the coal industry’s fault. That would be the biggest lie yet concerning the coal industry. As long as coal goes in southern WV, people here make a good living, and the state has a good tax base. What are the alternatives? All I hear is getting rid of the industry, what are the naysayers options? My guess is that they have none. Someone asked about a comfort zone? Listen, the coal industry pays good. A kid that is say 20, can learn to run a continuos miner and make upwards of 30 bucks an hour with no student loans to pay back for 30 years, and that is attractive for some down here. It’s not about making changes in one’s lifestyle, other than some outside third party somewhere else is telling us to stop, and offers no other choices other than a minimum wage. All I am asking is that someone pay attention and realize that there will be a huge tax base lost with no options and the ghost towns will not be the result of coal but others failinf to provide options. All that hopey changey stuff ain’t workin’ for me now. West Virginia had better be paying attention, if you don’t attract attention to good paying jobs once the industry is gone, the whole state as well as the nation will suffer greatly. I am have insight down here and coal will be around for another 30 years or so, if things continue along the same path. We do not have the technology to do away with coal as of yet. One can argue that but the reality is that we really do not have it. So can anyone tell me, after coal, then what? My guess is, still nobody has any options, and that is “change” we do not want. AS far as wind in southern WV, there isn’t a “flat” spot of ground large enough to provide wind energy down here. And no, not even with the mountains that have been mountaintop mined. So what are ya gonna do, blast more mountains off to provide wind energy? My grandmother would say that is like “the pot calling the kettle black.” Let’s take energy from the sun? Well ya still don’t have enough room and believe it or not, our mountains still hide the sun in some areas. Anyway, those forms of energy do not require enough workers to absorb the folks who would lose theri jobs in an already depressed and getting worse economy. I would love to stay and chat, but it is Saturday, and I have to get ready for work, we have coal to run to keep your lights on for ya.
Maybe we could get jobs at the Gazette. Start blogs about something we don’t know anything about. Create controversies get alot of people in WV mad at each other. Complain alot about the work that working people have to do. Just type alot and drink the koolaid that the liberial media pours out and pass it along to the idiots that read your blog. To all those that believe in ,global warming, or climate change which ever you choose please help us to eliminate CO2. Don’t exhale, with every breath you help to kill the planet. So if you really believe stop breathing, please it would do all of us so much good.
Todd, I must say at the outset that using buzzwords from Sarah Palin has an immediate negative connotation for me. You do yourself no favors in so doing and negatively impact whatever credibility you might have.
Even so, you do manage to inadvertently identify the problem: “after coal, then what?” My side of this debate is actively searching for the answer to that question. The “Coal yesterday, Coal Today, Coal FOREVER” crowd, on the other hand, appears to take the position that talking about West Virginia without coal is akin to some sort of unspeakable religious heresy.
Perhaps, in fact, it is. For the coal industry to allow us to talk about what happens when the mine plays out, as has happened repeatedly in WV’s sad history, is to know (not suspect) that West Virginia will once again be left in the sad, sorry dust while the boys in the suits head for the border singing “We’re In The Money.” The only difference is that the next bust will not be followed by another “boom” and the coal industry couldn’t care less. They’ll go somewhere else. Being corporations, they owe no duty whatsoever to anyone but their shareholders.
While you acknowledge that there may be thirty years worth of coal in West Virginia, you fail to ask the follow-up question: what then? Which would you rather do: start working on a just transition away from coal now, or wait until it’s a crisis for your grandchildren? Me, I ascribe to the Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared.
You’re correct in your statement that an MTR site is useless for wind. The ground won’t support the turbines and the mountain itself has been shortened to much to reach the requisite winds.
On the other hand, you’re wrong about places like coal river mountain. The industrial windfarm that’s proposed there won’t require earth-moving on anything NEAR the scale perpetrated by mountaintop removal. It also won’t require a valley fill, so your analogy is entirely flawed.
You’re also patently incorrect about southern West Virginia and the prosperity coal allegedly brings. If coal is such a net gain, why are the counties where mountaintop removal is prevalent the poorest, most economically devastated parts of this state? Why do the people of this state pay five dollars for every dollar coal brings in? It seems to me that you make your own personal prosperity the benchmark, while ignoring the larger, far more complicated picture.
Finally, you would do well to note that coal only keeps 42% of the lights on, and that number will continue to shrink as more renewable energy sources are brought online.
I hope that you stay safe in all that you do.
Late getting here, but I will only say that, I agree fully with Forrest and Casey.
Funny, an increasing number of other things have been discovered to be false, or not peer reviewed, written by environmental advocacy groups, or overstated, etc. in the 2007 IPCC reports since the Himalayan glacier melting speed was discovered to be false, and left in the report even though it was known to be incorrect. Have those been mentioned anywhere else in Coal Tattoo? Have our politicians told us details about that?
Yes, our politicians need to educate the public about climate change/man-made global warming science. That would hopefully include facts like “the polar bears are not being killed off by global warming”, “scientist Phil Jones said last month the world could well have been warmer in the Medieval Warm Period than now”, “the warmest year in the U.S. was 1934″, “West Virginia’s mean annual temperature has not changed significantly in a century”, “climate has always changed, and always will, and humans can adapt”, “the Antarctic ice sheet is growing, not shrinking”, “while some glaciers in the world are shrinking, others are growing”, “Dr. Pachuri of the IPCC is not a climate scientist, he’s a railroad engineering, he taught at WVU one year in the early 1980s, and now he makes lots of money and travels the world pushing man-made global warming falsehoods like the Himilayin glaciers will be gone soon”, etc.
Geez , a whole paragraph decrying the soccer mom’s buzzwords. I hear it all the time from the left. If she’s so insignificant, enough already. Must be something there. You go Sarah!
Ken,
I have spent hours reviewing the IPCC documents you sent me to. They are quite a challenge for the layman. They do not specifically answer the question of either what percentage of global warming is caused by man is caused by CO2 emissions (as compared to the percentage caused by emissions of methane and the other trace gases identified as emitted in excess of preindustrial experience and contributing to the greenhouse effect), but it is clear that the studies conclude that a substantial cause is increased CO2 emissions. There is no specific recommendation as to what steps the world should take although the reduction of emissions and the effect is discussed. The conclusion is shocking and disheartening.
Specifically, as to the reduction of CO2, the answer to FAQ 13 says:
“More specifically, the rate of emission of CO2 currently greatly exceeds its rate of removal, and the slow and incomplete removal implies that small to moderate reductions in its emissions would not result in stabilisation of CO2 concentrations, but rather would only reduce the rate of its growth in coming decades. A 10% reduction in CO2 emissions would be expected to reduce the growth rate by 10%, while a 30% reduction in emissions would similarly reduce the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 30%. A 50% reduction would stabilise atmospheric CO2, but only for less than a decade. After that, atmospheric CO2 would be expected to rise again as the land and ocean sinks decline owing to well-known chemical and biological adjustments. Complete elimination of CO2 emissions is estimated to lead to a slow decrease in atmospheric CO2 of about 40 ppm over the 21st century.
The situation is completely different for the trace gases with a well-defined lifetime. For the illustrative trace gas with a lifetime of the order of a century (e.g., N2O), emission reduction of more than 50% is required to stabilise the concentrations close to present-day values (Figure 1b). Constant emission leads to a stabilisation of the concentration within a few centuries.
In the case of the illustrative gas with the short lifetime, the present-day loss is around 70% of the emissions. A reduction in emissions of less than 30% would still produce a short-term increase in concentration in this case, but, in contrast to CO2, would lead to stabilisation of its concentration within a couple of decades (Figure 1c). The decrease in the level at which the concentration of such a gas would stabilise is directly proportional to the emission reduction. Thus, in this illustrative example, a reduction in emissions of this trace gas larger than 30% would be required to stabilise concentrations at levels significantly below those at present. A complete cut-off of the emissions would lead to a return to pre-industrial concentrations within less than a century for a trace gas with a lifetime of the order of a decade.”
I read that to say that even if the WORLD cuts CO2 emissions by 50%, there would continue to be an increase in atmospheric concentration. The present bill would cut US emissions by 17% The only commitment by the Chinese, who now lead the world in emissions, is to cut the rate in INCREASE of emissions. The other major developing economies have made no promise, only demands. The chances of any agreement to cut by 50% is less than slim.
The bottom line still seems to me to be that there is no scientific consensus that the economic sacrifice the US and its people are asked to make by the Administration is even likely warranted by the present level of scientific knowledge. That is particularly clear from the conclusion of the panel upon whom the advocates for the sacrifice rely that the proposed sacrifice is wholly inadequate to do any real good even with worldwide following .
Forrest
Forrest —
I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying correctly…
The only planet that can support human life is going through major human-induced changes that negatively impact our ability to continue living here in the way we have enjoyed in the past. If we do nothing, the situation is all but guaranteed to turn out really badly. If we all start taking concerted action, there is a possibility we can address the problem and it will turn out much less badly.
Your response to those facts is… we should all give up because the odds of success aren’t great?
Whatever happened to the great American can-do attitude? I think we need to act immediately to make major greenhouse gas reductions. The sooner the USA acts, the sooner other countries will accelerate their actions, the greater the chances of avoiding the very worst potential scenarios.
We owe it our children and their children to start cleaning up the mess we’e made of the atmosphere.
Forrest,
Good for you. I hope I haven’t wasted your time by suggesting you read them. I completely agree that they are quite a challenge. There are some good books that put some of this science into more layman-friendly terms … but I didn’t recommend them, for fear that I’d be criticized by other readers for not just pointing to the science reports. A lot of folks have attacked Michael Mann, but I found the book he co-authored with Lee Kump, “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming” to be quite good. And “Field Notes from a Catastrophe” by Elizabeth Kolbert of The New Yorker is very good. Joe Romm is more political than other authors, but his book, “Hell and High Water” is also well done — and very well footnoted also to provide other sources.
A couple things I would point out from the IPCC reports —
First, there’s this:
“There is high confidence that neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can avoid all climate change impacts; however, they can complement each other and together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change.”
That is from the “Synthesis Report” from the 2007 IPCC Assessment, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms5.html
It continues:
“Many impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation. Mitigation efforts and investments over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels. Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts.”
And importantly:
“In order to stabilise the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline thereafter. The lower the stabilisation level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur.”
There are then a couple of charts on this page:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms5.html
Those provide various scenarios for how greenhouse gases can be reduced, stabilized, and what the impact on one measureable impact — global temperatures — would be.
And then, the IPCC concludes:
“There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers.”
The IPCC’s report on “mitigation of climate change” has much more detail on all of this, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/spm.html
And there’s a whole chapter of it that deals with energy supply,
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4.html
Personally, I have also found the Union of Concerned Scientists report “How to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change,” to be very helpful in understanding all of this, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/emissions-target-report.pdf
Ken.
Ken and Clem,
Each of you, you, Ken, you by citing the Concerned scientists’ suggestion that the US immediately do its part and you, Clem directly, suggest that the US take emission control actions which will severly harm our national economy and devastate our State one, when there is no reason to believe it will do any good without similar steps by many other nations, most of whom have explicitly refused to committ to such steps.
I cannot understan the science; but am simply unable to conclude that the predictions of global catastrophe if the world does not not take those steps are sufficiently reliable to warrant unilateral action now. If they were, would not the rest of the world act entirely diffierently than the refusal to follow virorous US leadership at Copenhagen? The dangers are sufficiently risky to warrant continued diplomatic efforts to achieve treaties which contain verifiable committments to do something which has a chance of meeting the suspected threat. But, until there is real consensu as to what that is and an international will to do it, unilateral action is sure pain with no prospect of gain.
Forrest
Forrest,
I appreciate you taking the time to read the IPCC reports. I really do.
But with all due respect, your most recent comment is throwing together a bunch of different points that — while related — are also independent questions that one needs to consider.
First is the question of whether the world is warming and the activities of humans to blame.
Then, there’s the issue of what — if anything — can or should be done about it.
Finally, there’s the issue of whether the U.S. (as the world’s last remaining super power, and the economy most responsible for the warming) should do something about it absent an international agreement that favors the U.S.
Of course, balled up in all of that is the idea of, OK, maybe there is a problem — but is the proof of it so strong, and the possible results of it so terrible, that we (the U.S.) should act immediately, absent agreement by China and others to do the same.
Phew. That last one is pretty heavy stuff.
I don’t claim to have all of the answers to that, and the foreign policy issues involved in negotiating an international agreement are, well, foreign to me. You probably have read more about some of that than I have, Forrest, judging from suggested reading you’ve forwarded my way.
But the issue that bothers me about where you’ve come down is you seem to have concluded that nothing CAN be done … I think the IPCC references I included in my previous comment show otherwise.
However, if I could circle back around to my original point with this post … just for kicks:
The discussion we’ve just had on the issue here on Coal Tattoo is much more thoughtful and sophisticated than any I’ve heard from any West Virginia political leader in the last five years. They are leaders because, well, they are supposed to lead.
And my point is — whether Forrest is right or Clem is right — it’s something that the public here in West Virginia needs to know and understand more deeply and thoroughly. Our elected leaders should help our state to do that.
A more thoughtful and honest discussion would help West Virginians decide who they think is right and — I believe, because I think the science is incredibly compelling — push us on a different course than the one we’re currently on.
Ken.
[...] Sen. Rockefeller has opposed EPA taking action on its own to regulate major stationary sources of greenhouse gas emis…, and he introduced his own legislation on this a few months [...]