The Paralysis of Copenhagen and the Potential of Cochabamba
An Opportunity to Stop Burning Coal
Op-Ed Contributor:
Jim Gonzalez Founder and Chair of the Renewable Energy Accountability Project
In a bold move that could recoup the momentum that was lost at the disappointing Copenhagen Climate Conference, Bolivian President Evo Morales has challenged governments “who want to work with their people” to come to Cochabamba on April 20-22, 2010 to work on meaningful climate change reform. President Morales is inviting indigenous peoples, social movements, scientists and environmentalists from throughout the world to attend.
Here is why I will attend.
The Copenhagen Climate Conference was meant to unify the world in bold action to save the planet. Instead, inaction and indifference prevailed in a lemming march to the global warming tipping point — led in large part by the rich nations of the developed world.
Those who will suffer most as a result of climate change are often ignored in a rich world debate about cap and trade. The threat of climate change on the lifestyles of the richest countries is highlighted at the expense of the life and death struggles of the subsistence poor. In truth, the rich may be able to shift their buying power to avoid the impact of climate change, but it is the poor who will die in the wake of rising sea levels and hemispheric droughts.
The data and scientific evidence are compelling. Scientists from the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently announced that global carbon dioxide levels in 2008 were a staggering 40% higher than in 1990. This means that sea levels may rise as much as one meter by 2100, nearly twice as much as was projected just two years ago by the IPCC. To abate a global climate disaster by keeping global warming under two degrees Celsius, per capita carbon emissions will have to decrease by at least 80% below the 1990 per capita emissions from developed nations.
This is a tall order that can be accomplished only through facing the truth about the greatest source of global warming pollution – burning dirty coal to generate electricity.
The one statistic big utilities and corporate polluters hope the public never focuses on is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) estimate that over 40% of man-made carbon emissions in the United States are attributable to the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal) to generate electricity.
(Ironically, in the United States the coal industry cheerily advertises that over half of our electricity comes from coal; and Congress debates the infusion of billions of dollars on carbon capture and sequestration, aka “clean coal”, in an attempt to extend the life of over 600 U.S. coal fired plants.)
Amidst the disappointments of Copenhagen and the new opportunity of Cochabamba are the horrific coal burning statistics which are at the very core of the global warming crisis. These statistics — if ever honestly dealt with — would provide the single most effective solution to human caused global warming.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, from 2002 to 2007, China doubled its use of coal – 3 billion tons of coal, more than three times that of the United States. The impact of coal burning on the environment and its relationship to greenhouse gas pollution and global warming is incontrovertible. And yet, these statistics are brushed aside as the popular debate turns to speculative engineering adventures, “freakonomics” geo-engineering, carbon “capture and sequestration,” or to the creation of yet another Wall Street derivative market through the cap and trade gamble.
If we are to be truthful about the crisis we are in, and if we are to examine scientific data – and yes, statistics – with cold realism, we are led inevitably to one undeniable conclusion: we must end coal burning to generate electricity- and if we do we will halt, and possibly reverse, human caused global warming.
Although scientific evidence and data has been essential in understanding and confronting the climate crisis, too often the profit motive has trumped sound national and international policy. In this case, the facts clearly indicate that coal burning is way too profitable for Big Utility cheerleaders to be inspired to do the right thing.
Owning a coal plant – particularly an older coal plant — is, in effect, like owning a diamond, or gold mine; or an unlimited license to print money. A lot of mega-polluters are dependent on coal profits at the expense of the environment: the mountain top removal mining companies, the railroads which transport coal and the big utilities (both private and public) which burn coal.
So, in the wake of the paralysis of Copenhagen and the potential of Cochabamba, it is time to start focusing on the coal electricity monopolies that are the chief culprits of the climate crisis. Retiring coal plants in the United States and China is the most efficient and effective way to solve the global warming crisis; and to usher in the worldwide green economy. Since world leaders stumbled at Copenhagen, hopefully now the people will lead the march to save Mother Earth in Cochabamba.
Jim Gonzalez is the founder and chair of the Renewable Energy Accountability Project, a grass roots campaign to hold utilities and policy makers accountable to their commitments to a clean energy future. Jim Gonzalez is a former member of the elected Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, California. www.reapinfo.org
Comments
6 Comments on The Paralysis of Copenhagen and the Potential of Cochabamba
-
Jem Cooper on
Sat, 9th Jan 2010 2:19 pm
-
Rachel on
Tue, 12th Jan 2010 2:15 pm
-
James on
Tue, 12th Jan 2010 2:19 pm
-
B on
Tue, 12th Jan 2010 2:38 pm
-
Christina on
Tue, 12th Jan 2010 2:49 pm
-
Business Energy Australia on
Thu, 10th Jun 2010 1:22 pm
It is not burning the coal but releasing the carbon dioxide formed that is the problem.
The world will never be able to agree how to share the pain of cutting emissions or the revenue from cap and trade or carbon taxes, but there is a better way.
In a recent Times Online live debate see
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/12/live-debate-after-copenhagen-where-to-now-for-the-climate-debate.html
85% voted that “Fossil fuel companies should be obliged to sequester an increasing fraction of the carbon content of the products they sell to avoid dangerous climate change?” For details on why all countries would be happy to agree to this, how it would work and how it would stop global warming see my blog at http://jemsavestheplanet.blogspot.com/
Contrary to frequent assertions (perhaps encouraged by utilities reluctant install it) carbon capture and sequestration on an industrial scale is not unproven technology. In the chemical industry we have been capturing carbon dioxide from partial oxidation of coal, oil and gas on an industrial scale for many years. We have been reinjecting carbon dioxide down the well to enhance oil recovery for many years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported the same. To be sure the capture and sequestration technology have not yet been put together and used on a large power generation plant. Process selection, cost estimates and performance will no doubt improve as we gain design, construction and operational experience, but that does not mean there is any likelihood of the technology not working now. What is lacking is not the know-how but the incentive to apply it, and that is precisely what this proposal will provide.
I hope you take this suggestion to Cochabamba.
I am glad to hear there are leaders up for the challenge of taking the climate crisis on head on. It sounds like President Morales knows that change happens most successfully when many groups are involved. Coal seems to be a major factor in making progress in the climate debate, and I think it’s great Mr. Gonzalez and his organization want to take that message to Cochabamba.
I was really looking forward to Copengagen’s Climate conference….but now I’m hopeful that third world nations will actually be represented. I never realized that coal fired electricity was such a huge culprit. Thank you Mr. Gonzalez for bringing light to this issue.
Anyone concerned about climate change needs to read this. Honest dialogue on the true cost of coal is long over due, and as you said it is the only way we can solve the climate crisis; we need to set that stage in Cochabamba. Thank you in advance for helping to make that happen.
The mining and burning of coal is a serious threat to our way of life. It pollutes our fresh water ways from mountaintop removal, requires an incredible amount of fresh water to operate and produce electricity (enough to supply cities for years), and the increased temperature from its atmospheric pollution is causing snow packs to melt in areas like California where snow pack is the primary reservoir for fresh water.
In a world that is facing wars over fresh water and the privatization of water rights, coal is the enemy.
Great information, but for goodness sakes mate, get to the bloody point. I;m a small business owner, so, der, I am busy. Cut to the chase, say it don’t spray it.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
