Kemper County Catastrophe

If you're not familiar with the Mississippi Power Company's integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) project called Transport Integrated Gasification (TRIG), you should read about it here.

MPC claims that this new technology, which is being developed and tested in China, is a cleaner way to burn coal.  That may be true, but a "cleaner way to burn coal" is still very, very dirty. And with coal, CO2 is the least of our worries; secondary emissions like sulfur and mercury are much more dangerous.

The lignite needed to generate electricity will be mined in Kemper County, and "22,000 acres of prime forest land and small farms will have to be eliminated" in order to install and maintain this unnecessary power plant. Contamination of rivers and acidification are just a few of the environmental hazards associated with coal, and with a huge project, environmental degradation is unavoidable.

This project is also economically devastating, and it will cost Mississippians billions of dollars in a time when families are already under a lot of financial pressure.  The Mississippi Public Service Commission originally set a $2.4 billion cost cap, but MPC proposed a higher cap.  I doubt you'll be shocked by the fact that MPC got its way, and they've already requested permission to charge a higher rate for electricity to finance the project before the plant is operational.  The cost of electricity would increase by over 11%, and MPC has pointed out that increases of up to 45% might be necessary to secure full funding.  The kicker? The people whose rates will go up aren't even the people using the electricity this new plant will generate, as Kemper County isn't in MPC's service area.

The company claims that the Kemper County coal plant represents a multi-billion dollar investment in our state, but in reality, it's just a redistribution of almost $3 billion from MPC's customers to MPC for an investment in something they don't need at all.  Consumers will be forced to pay more for electricity. Only about $270 million of the project will be funded by the federal government's clean carbon initiative, and only because that funding was left over from a failed attempt to build a similar power plant in Florida.  Moreover, MPC's biggest clients, including casinos and shipyards on the coast, are exempt from rate increases.

And what happens when prices go up?  Basic economic theory tells us that when prices go up, demand goes down.  Mississippi already has much more generation capacity than it needs, so increased costs will only translate to more waste, and as usage decreases, prices will have to increase even more to pay for the new plant, since future rate increases were based on current consumption levels.

MPC also claims that the project will create over 1,000 temporary jobs and around 260 permanent jobs, but a little skepticism is necessary, since companies usually mean "job transfer" when they say "job creation".  Even if MPC is telling the truth, and 1,200 or so jobs are magically created, back-of-the-envelope math shows us that spending well over $2.2 million per new job may not be the most efficient use of money.  If we only look at permanent jobs, that's a little over $11 million per worker.  Those must be some highly trained engineers.

Finally, calling coal-powered electricity generation "clean" is a farce.  You can't retrofit an old plant to gasify coal, so new plants have to be built.  In 2011, spending a single dollar on new coal-powered generation capacity is stupid.  The US Department of Energy estimates that by 2016 (when plants under construction now will be operational), the cost per megawatt hour of electricity generated from Kemper County power plant and similar facilities will be $136.2.  Compared with nuclear ($113.9/MW hour), wind ($97/MW hour), geothermal ($101.7/MW hour), hydro ($86.4/MW hour) and biomass ($112.5/MW hour), it's mind-boggling to think that this project was ever considered a sound investment.

The failure of the Mississippi government to protect its citizens from both the hidden costs and the unavoidable dangers of this is just another testament to the corruption in our government and blatant disregard for our well-being.  Wasteful spending, shameless corporate pandering and serious environmental threats make this an issue that Republicans and Democrats can - and should - jointly oppose.

Shame

I try to avoid using words like "ashamed" on my blog because, frankly, I've never been ashamed of the US. I'm proud to be American, and I love my country.  I'm often critical, but I always hope, perhaps naïvely, that my criticisms will help amplify the voice that is calling for change.

However, the United States' performance in Durban this week has been dismal, and for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country.

Climate change, at least the rapid climate change that we're experiencing, is a result of man's interference with natural processes.  Since the Industrial Revolution, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased exponentially.  In all the talk about carbon dioxide, people often forget other more potent GHGs like methane, which has increased even more rapidly than CO2.  These GHGs cause the earth to warm, and the science that supports that is very clear.  The uncertainty surrounding climate change comes from predictions of future warming, and it's exacerbated by ratings-hungry media that skew the truth, or just lie.

America, Europe and Japan have enjoyed the most obvious benefits of industrialization, and out of those three, America is the only one unwilling to bear the burden of responsibility.

Now, some people may say "America shouldn't be responsible for the world's problems." But they're hypocrites, because it's very likely that the people who think America shouldn't pay for climate change are the same people who think America has some sacrosanct charge to spread democracy all around the world, or something.

The US response to climate change represents the carelessness that has pervaded American culture and the laziness that is eroding the foundation of our country's greatness.  Corporate greed has permeated our politics, and businesses are strangling the democratic process.  A government's only role is to protect the welfare of its citizens, from enemies both at home and abroad.  The United States is failing to do that.  Examples of this manifest daily.  Most recently, a tainted aquifer in Wyoming was linked to hydraulic fracturing, a disgusting process that I've discussed numerous times on this blog.  Scientists warned us that this was not only possible, but likely.  Congress ignored them, and this failure of government is indicative of a  much more widespread and serious problem.  Even now, people are actually ignorant enough to listen to industry representatives who question the motives of the EPA.

As if the US's self-destruction weren't bad enough, its combative stance at Durban is hindering other countries from taking meaningful action.  But, as a friend of mine pointed out the other day, the dialogue has shifted.  NGOs and other countries are no longer willing to pander to the US's lack of accountability; instead, they're saying "Get out of the way."  The selfishness of US officials is embarrassing enough by itself.  The intentional obstruction of progress is criminal.

For almost two decades, the United States has been spouting the same empty rhetoric about binding emissions targets and global responsibility.  As I said the other day, developing countries like China have indicated that they're willing to commit to binding goals, and America's childish response (or lack of response, rather) highlights its selfishness and hypocrisy. Is America the reprobate of international climate negotiations? In the infamous words of Sarah Palin, you betcha'.

Feeling ashamed of my country is new, and it's upsetting.  I've lived in China and Europe, so I'm used to hearing people criticize the US, and I've certainly been embarrassed by some of our policies.  But usually they're justifiable to some extent, or at least the consequences are more or less easy for me to ignore.  Environmental protection is different.  I was brought up to love and respect my country.  Both of my grandfathers were in the US military, but I'm convinced that the country they fought for then isn't the country I live in today - one that pushes aside the rights of people for the profits of companies and one that shamelessly shirks its responsibilities to the global community.  Like Abigail Borah, I'm scared for my future, and the one country that could and should be working to ensure that it's safe is wasting my time and yours by ignoring the truth.

Is it time to prepare for the inevitable?

Sage Magazine recently featured a blog post from Durban titled "COP 17: What to expect when you're expecting climate change".  The post focuses on two things: extending the Kyoto commitments and "securing financial commitments to the Green Climate Fund", which would provide funding to projects like REDD+ and other emissions reduction schemes in the developing world.

At the pace climate negotiations are currently progressing, however, it seems unlikely that we'll see anything substantial come out of Durban, especially when we consider the United States' continued unwillingness to commit to meaningful targets.  With that in mind, it may be judicious to be a bit...pessimistic.  Instead of wasting time bickering over details that probably won't matter in the long run, countries should begin preparing for the inevitable.

There are two key elements to this: the costs of adaptation and climate migration.  The first should be relatively straightforward.  We know climate change is happening, so we should invest money in things that help us prepare for it.  For big, rich countries, this isn't an issue; if the sea level rises, the UK can afford to build a sea wall.  But for states like Tuvalu, Madagascar and Indonesia, this will be a challenge - one that's insurmountable without the help of developed countries like the US.  Morally, we're obligated to do it, since it definitely wasn't Tuvalu's GHG emissions that induced climate change.  That should be priority number one.

Another important issue is conflict and migration that climate change will inevitably spur.  Jeffrey Sachs is kind of silly sometimes, but he's right that most future wars will be fought over resources.  In Africa, for example, it's easy to see how a lack of fresh water or arable land - resources that are already too scarce for the continent's rapidly growing population - could lead to genocide.  If there are too many people, the most obvious solution is...less people.  International organizations and powerful countries must be willing to obviate these problems.  They must also be willing to accept immigrants. To use Tuvalu as an example again, they're out of fresh water, and importing it from Guam is obviously unsustainable.  They'll probably have to migrate to Australia and New Zealand, and richer countries have to be prepared to accept immigrants whose home countries have become uninhabitable.  It's important to start designing these legal frameworks now.

China and Durban

China has indicated that it is willing to commit to binding pollution reduction targets.

I posted this on Facebook a few days ago, but as I was travelling in Cardiff and Bristol, I didn't have time to comment on it. This is huge news, and it's important to understand just what it means for the future of climate negotiations.

In the past, China has demanded "common but differentiated responsibility", which means everyone is responsible for climate change, but developing countries have less responsiblity than richer countries like America and the UK.  Because of that, the Chinese have been very hesitant to accept binding emissions targets (i.e. where they would be penalized if they don't reduce their emissions by a certain amount), and their excuse has been that America and Europe were allowed to emit when they were industrializing, so China should have that luxury, too.

Aside from the fact that we live in a different world where climate science is much clearer and more advanced, this they-did-it-so-we-can-do-it-too rationale is childish and irresponsible.  China has finally realized that. Their 12th Five Year Plan is the most aggressive yet in terms of environmental protection, and their commitment to environmental protection is fortified by a group of very progressive leaders like Xie Zhenhua, Pan Yue and Su Wei.  From an economic point of view, China has incurred exhorbitant costs as a result of climate change and pollution, and taking all of this into consideration, it is very likely that China will develop a meaningful strategy for addressing its environmental challenges over the next few years.

But what does this mean for the US?  Obviously, as the article I linked to in the beginning points out, China's new pro-active stance should pressure the US into accepting binding goals, but it probably won't.  American negotiators often say the US shouldn't be held to different standards as China and other developing countries with high emissions levels.  They call the Kyoto protocol "unfair", but what's really unfair is the fact that American laziness is wreaking havoc on the earth, and the people who should be responsible for it use flimsy economic excuses to justify their inaction.

In Durban this week, Jonathan Pershing said the US would only accept binding limits as long as other big polluters do the same, and although China will probably accept that challenge, I doubt it will do much to change the US attitude (both official and unofficial) toward climate change.  Instead, American hypocrisy will be underscored (once again), and congressional "skeptics" will be given the loudest voice.  Our politicians will point their fingers at India and Brazil, until there's no one left to blame.  As the world's biggest economy, the US has an obligation to be responsible, an obligation that it's shirked most visibly since the failed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.