The End of Coal
Kate Sheppard’s inaugural post kicking off some sort of series for TAPPED about coal and environmental policy is very good. There are a few bits of it, however, that I want to take issue with. She says that since many investment banks think that some sort of cap on carbon emissions is inevitable, coal’s future is limited. While she’s right the Energy Department pulled funding for liquefied coal, it’s not guarantee that a cap on emissions is coming soon. For instance, if McCain wins (not a trivial possibility) and enacts some sort of weak cap-and-trade scheme in which many of the permits are just given away, will anyone be shocked if coal companies are able to fineagle a good number of them.
The problem with coal, and why I think it will stick around absent some agressive Democratic energy policy is that A) There’s a ton of it left in the ground and B) If “energy independence” takes over global warming as the central concern of our energy policy, a move to more coal, or at least arresting coal’s fall is basically inevitable. If, for instance, there’s a terrorist attack, expect coal to stick around.
Add on the billions of dollars involved for coal companies, and it’s almost guaranteed that they’ll find some way to stick around if they can. Contra Sheppard, absent some major policy changes that are basically contingent on getting a Democrat elected with a strong mandate to do something about climate change, expect coal to be a “cheap, abundant energy source for much longer.” The “green economy” and the “death of coal” are hardly inevitable.
