As I wrote back in February, a sizeable amount of American coal is being shipped overseas. Last year alone, the United States exported a record 120 million tons of coal to Europe and Asia—roughly twice the amount in 2009. While this has undoubtedly generated an enormous amount of revenue for Uncle Sam, the carbon emissions from burning coal can’t be ignored.
This is why the topic of limiting carbon emissions from power plants was the focal point of Obama’s highly anticipated climate speech on Tuesday. Through the Clean Air Act, the President said he is “directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.” However, we won’t know the extent or severity of these limits until June 2014, according to “senior administration officials” cited in a Grist article
However, if we’re going to tackle global warming, should there be an effort to keep coal in the ground to prevent it from being burned at home and abroad? I think the seemingly obvious answer is yes, but surprisingly there is much debate over the effect of restricting coal exports on global greenhouse gas emissions.
Frank Wolak, a Stanford economist, argues that increasing coal exports will actually reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Why? Depending on how much coal the U.S. sends to large markets like China, coal prices in the U.S. will rise, thereby accelerating the switch to natural gas. His theory relies on the assumption that China will burn coal regardless of the source, so if its coal comes from the U.S. or Europe, it will at least result in a carbon reduction in the exporting countries.
However, others argue that increasing exports to large markets like Asia will only encourage coal dependence, create lower coal prices in those markets, and hinder their progress towards more efficient and renewable energy.
It’s an oddly complex subject, but the use of our coal resources, domestic or abroad, will have a huge impact on global climate. Using other cheap fuel sources, such as natural gas, combined with Obama’s policy on reducing domestic coal consumption, could have a meaningful impact on reducing carbon pollution. However, as the conversation around Obama’s new climate policy advances, the consequences of exporting coal are worth considering.
Image by Flickr user jurvetson