Information provided by The Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports http://createnwjobs.com/
Environmental activists across the Northwest have been working hard to prevent coal export facilities from being built and will seemingly do whatever it takes to advance their agenda. At the helm of this campaign is the Center for American Progress (CAP). Last month, CAP released yet another report on our country’s energy industry, criticizing coal exports from the Powder River Basin (PRB) for the second time. And in early September, the Sightline Institute issued a similar report suggesting that through energy exports including coal, the Northwest region is poised to become a larger global contributor to carbon emissions.
The CAP study supposedly exposes the full picture of what exporting coal will mean for our country and the world’s climate change goals. Not unsurprisingly, the report also finds that coal exports undermine domestic emissions goals and subsidize the burning of U.S. coal globally, specifically in Asia.
Dealing as it does only with possible impacts on global GHG emissions, the CAP report ignores the reality of the changing global energy landscape and the geopolitical benefits PRB coal will have for our trading partners across the globe.
Here are several inaccuracies and contradictions within the report:
1. They Say: Coal Exports from the PRB Means More Emissions
CAP simplistically assumes that every ton of PRB coal exported will result in new emissions. This ignores the reality that demand for affordable energy in Asia is growing – particularly from U.S. allies like Japan and South Korea – that are eager to diversify their energy supplies.
CAP’s simplistic model is not supported by facts. Recent academic research is unanimous –that the most likely environmental impact in the short term is a reduction of global emissions.
From Stanford – Mark Thurber, Associate Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development discusses the complexity of forecasting emissions impacts from PRB coal exports but clearly states:
“It is unlikely that removing the port constraint on PRB coal exports will substantially increase global emissions of greenhouse gases in the short term.”
From Duke – further adding to the academic consensus on coal exports, a recently release study found that, exporting U.S. coal to power plants in South Korea could lead to a 21 percent drop in greenhouse gas emissions. Dalia Patiño-Echeverri, assistant professor of energy systems and public policy at Duke elaborated:
“Our analysis shows that the total emissions would drop because of the superior energy efficiency of South Korea’s newer coal-fired power plants.”
Finally, an earlier report by The Bipartisan Policy Center in 2013 also came to same conclusion:
“We do not believe that impeding the global trade of fossil fuels is an effective or efficient means of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.”
2. They Say: PRB Coal Exports Will Not Displace Other Sources of Coal
Another major concern outlined in the CAP report is that increased coal exports from the U.S. will be additive to global consumption, rather than displacing other sources of coal. Again, using significantly outdated data, CAP suggests that only 30 percent of PRB coal would displace other sources. Yet the reality is that U.S. coal exports have the potential to displace dirtier coal from countries such as Indonesia and Russia.
CAP asserts in its report that PRB coal can be delivered to China and other Asian markets at more than 40 percent less than current Chinese prices. Supply and demand would indicate U.S. coal would displace other sources, if allowed to be exported at full capacity.
The choice for our allies is clear – utilize lower cost, responsibly developed American energy, produced according to our high environmental standards, or utilize coal from sometime unfriendly regimes that do not share our values for the environment or workers.
Finally, demand for affordable energy is growing, particularly among our allies in Asia. And while our policy decisions at home will not curb that demand or increase emissions, it could see us become less relevant and less involved in Asian energy policy if we block free trade. This is detrimental to our allies in nations such as South Korea and Japan that are leading the world in advanced coal technologies and eager to work with responsible U.S. suppliers, for both environmental and national security reasons. In South Korea, coal fired power plants emit 70 percent less greenhouse gases than the national legal standard. According to the head of the International Energy Agency, “A single, large coal plant, if built with the best-available technology, can reduce emissions by the annual equivalent of taking a million cars off the road compared to the sub-critical coal-plant technology still prevalent in most countries.” We shouldn’t punish emerging markets for attempting to grow their economy to the best of their ability.
3. They Say: Increased Exports of PRB Will Have Marginal Benefits for U.S. Economy and Job Creation
In the report, CAP attempts to downplay the economic benefits that will occur with increasing coal exports through proposed Pacific Northwest terminals by juxtaposing Appalachian coal activity to that of the PRB. However, building coal ports in the Pacific Northwest to service the PRB would generate significant tax revenue and both temporary and permanent jobs for the entire region. In fact Millennium Bulk and Gateway Pacific terminals will offer around 12,000 direct and indirect jobs, over $800 million in wages, and $160 million in state and local taxes.
And most importantly, independent research by the Washington Farm Bureau and the Washington Research Council has shown, that the terminals will benefit all trade and export industries in Washington – not just coal. The more than $1.5 billion in new private investment coal will provide to existing area ports, is essential in helping improve the competitiveness of the Northwest as America’s trade Gateway to Asia.
Recent approvals for increased coal exports in Canada and California, underscore the role energy exports are playing in improving trade competitiveness in other regions.
Conclusion:
These reports from environmental activist groups such as Sightline and CAP are more of the same politically charged rhetoric that we have come to expect when dealing with increased exports from the Pacific Northwest. Now that Oregon officials have bowed to the demands of these special interest groups by rejecting a permit that would have allowed for the construction of a coal export terminal, it is imperative that we make the facts clear when it comes to the huge potential of the PRB and the proposed terminals in Washington State.
Members of the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports include companies, labor, civic and other organizations who understand the importance of exports to our region and want to strengthen our trade economy. The Pacific Northwest is one of America's strongest regional trade economies with more than one in four jobs tied to trade. The Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports is a non-profit trade organization that supports new export projects in Oregon and Washington state that will create thousands of new jobs and raise millions in tax revenue for our schools and other services. Learn more at www.createnwjobs.com.
