OPINION: Pennsylvania’s energy future needs a better source than coal

By Don Goldstein for the York Dispatch

The Senate leadership recently announced it didn’t have enough votes to bring a climate and energy bill to the floor for a vote before Congress’ August recess. Whether the Senate takes up the legislation later is anybody’s guess.

The House of Representatives passed comprehensive legislation more than a year ago. The Senate is gridlocked, due in part to pressure from the oil and coal industries. Big Coal in particular is loath to see a cap on carbon emissions, given that coal-fired power plants are responsible for a third of those releases.

Coal industry-paid lobbyists and ads have targeted Pennsylvanians, with our critical votes in Congress and deep roots in the coal economy, using two arguments for the energy status quo.

First is the claim that un-capped coal is cheap. But ads claiming coal power plants provide the lowest-cost electricity conveniently leave out the huge costs that are not reflected in the price of that power. The public health costs alone are staggering – over $60 billion per year, according to a study commissioned by the National Research Council.

Coal-fired electricity is responsible for 70 percent of the nation’s sulfur dioxide, 33 percent of nitrogen oxide and 23 percent of particulate matter (soot) emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Substantially reducing these emissions would prevent millions of missed work and school days, tens of thousands of heart attacks and hospital visits, and 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths from causes like heart and lung disease annually.

A recent National Academy of Sciences study of coal plant emissions in 2005 found that four of the nation’s 10 deadliest plants are in Pennsylvania and four others are just upwind, in Ohio. After decades of delay, some of the state’s coal plants have since installed or are installing air pollution controls to reduce pollutants, but others continue to operate without modern controls. While newer and modified coal plants emit fewer conventional pollutants, new and old plants alike emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, the primary heat-trapping gas that causes global warming – another “cost” Big Coal would rather not discuss.

The industry’s second claim is that capping carbon and moving toward cleaner energy sources would cripple Pennsylvania’s economy. It is true that from the mid-1800s until now, coal powered our factories, warmed our homes and kept our trains running. But today there are only 8,000 direct coal-mining jobs in Pennsylvania, amounting to 0.14 percent of our state workforce. While coal still provides the bulk of our economy’s power needs, entrepreneurship and innovation across the state and nation are rapidly making cleaner alternatives more available and cost-effective. Should we tie those jobs to a dirty, 19th century technology, or help affected workers and communities play a positive role in our 21st century energy transition?

In addition, doing nothing could impose serious long-term costs on many aspects of our state economy. According to a Union of Concerned Scientists report, “Climate Change in Pennsylvania,” if emissions continue unabated, by mid-century temperatures will likely exceed 90 degrees for 50 to 60 days in the summer in much of southwest Pennsylvania. Prized hardwoods, including black cherry, sugar maple and American beech, likely would decline or even vanish. Snowmobiling and skiing would become pastimes of the past. Yields of native Concord grapes, sweet corn and a number of apple varieties likely would decrease considerably as temperatures rose and pests became more virulent.

A strong climate bill – that would cut air pollution, make polluters pay for their emissions and provide incentives for businesses to develop cleaner ways to produce energy – would stimulate renewable power and the ancillary businesses already springing up across our state.

Pennsylvania has the manufacturing know-how to become a world leader in clean energy production. From Erie to Philadelphia, innovative companies are moving to supply the clean-energy economy with wind power, castings and gears for wind turbines themselves, “smart grid” power system controls, clean diesel locomotives and much more.

Foreign capital is being drawn in. The Spanish wind-energy company Gamesa has invested $84 million in Philadelphia, siting two manufacturing facilities and two offices in the state and creating nearly 1,000 jobs. More recently, the German company Flabeg chose Allegheny County for its first U.S. solar-mirror production facility, expected to provide 300 new jobs.

In arguing against climate legislation, the coal companies create a false choice – between a do-nothing path and abandoning coal. Coal will unavoidably be a big piece of our energy portfolio to start. But our goal must be ultimately to leave as much of it in the ground as possible. That may not be good for the coal companies. But it will be good for the American environment and economy, which is to say the American family and worker. We owe our children nothing less.

- Don Goldstein is a professor of economics at Allegheny College in Meadville.

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.