Consumer choice and the eco-social "externalities" of coal (part one)

It is quite common for the end-user of a commodity to have no idea where the good was actually produced, never mind how it got from point A to point B. But some consumers might prefer to get their vegetables them from a local farmers’ market, instead of the supermarket. A person might want to support a business because they have received exceptional service there in the past; or, because they know the signature dish is made with the freshest local ingredients. The global commodities market has separated the consumer and the producer across both time and space. Goods can be shipped all the way around the globe and many can be stored away for future use/sale. When consumers do not see where the good is produced, how it is produced, and the byproducts of that production, they are less likely to have the knowledge that will alter their own spending habits. Not only that, but it may not be so easy to buy something even though it is all around you (as my search for locally-grown soybeans proved). Why does this matter? It all boils down to consumer choice. On one hand, the modern globalized economy consists of consumers that are primarily concerned with getting a given commodity for the best price possible. On the other hand, some may want to choose something other than the least expensive product - and that's where coal comes in.

There are increasing numbers of people who want to weigh other variables or 'social costs' such as the ecological sustainability of a good and the process of manufacturing it; the human rights records in the country where the good is produced or workplace health and safety records of the company making the product. The global economy lives and dies at the level of uncertainty a consumer will accept before choosing to not buy a good. Coal may be less expensive in terms of how much you pay every month for electricity, but those bills do not accurately reflect all of the electricity’s costs or, what economists call, “externalities,” like sulfur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide Externalities occur when neither the producer nor the consumer bear all of the costs of an economic transaction and these costs are inimical to the provision of such 'public goods' as air, water, streetlights, and public safety.

As consumers, we are constantly being bombarded with choices that can challenge the strength and conviction of our beliefs. Most of the choices seem minute, but depending on how loud that little voice inside your head shouts, other choices may present some rather sticky cognitive dissonance at an uncomfortable level. Don't believe me? What is the first thing you think of when you are faced with the ubiquitous inquiry 'paper or plastic?' Concerned about the consequences of all that Styrofoam, do you calculate differences in total resource depletion when asked 'dine-in or carry-out?' Do you buy organic or conventional fruits and vegetables? always? why? why not? Do you buy your gas at Exxon/Mobil or BioWillie? Would you rather have a Budweiser or a Fat Tire? Do you prefer coffee from Starbucks, the coffee cart, or your French press? Would you rather go to to WAL-MART or AL-MART?(*) Would you choose fresh, crisp apples from New Zealand or last autumn's apples from upstate? Would you like bananas that were grown by a company that pays extortion money to violent crime syndicates? or would you rather have no bananas at all?

As electricity consumers, we have no way of determining exactly where the electricity that powers our homes and businesses is generated. Unless you live off the grid or you’ve got the ability to completely disconnect from the grid and generate your own electricity, you cannot distinguish between an electron generated from coal and one generated from wind, natural gas, solar, hydro, or any other source. We can determine the probability that our electricity is of a specific mix, but that is about it. Electricity consumers also often lack any specific knowledge of when electricity is expensive and when it is cheap; we generally know that electricity is more expensive in the morning and in the evening but most of us do not have the ability to monitor those price fluctuations and act accordingly. Fortunately, there is some hope in all of this, as barriers to markets are removed and electricity providers are held accountable for their externalities.

As the issues of energy use and its relationship to climate change are achieving greater acceptance among the general public, consumers want more control over how the energy they consume is produced and how they consume energy. People would be much more interested in the production cost of coal if they were paying the actual cost of coal-fired electricity. Energy generated from “traditional” fossil fuels is only cost-effective because the formula used to determine those costs omits too many of the social and ecological externalities of production...(to be continued).

(*) AL-MART is a small store located in Alma, CO (locals at the South Park would remind me to tell you that Alma's elevation of 10,578 feet above sea level makes it the highest incorporated town in North America, despite what any other towns might claim).

Germany to Phase Out Coal Industry; U.S. to Not.

The German government is making headway on a proposal that would seek to totally phase out the country's entire coal mining industrial sector by 2018. The proposal, which is subject to approval by both houses of the German Parliament, will ensure structured

compensation payments for the country's 34,000 coal workers. The German Social Democratic Party has secured a review of the plan in 2012 before it goes into full effect. This reflexive approach is intended to safeguard the mining industry, which was largely responsible for the success of the Social Democrats in the 19th century.

How is Germany able to take such aggressive steps towards eliminating coal? For one thing, the cost of coal-mining in Germany is making the practice economically unattractive. Stringent safety measures, high labor costs and the increased expense to dig deeper to find untapped coal seams has driven the cost of German coal to about 180 euros ($250) per ton, more than three times the global market price. Second, and not completely unrelated, the German feed-in tariff which I have written about here, mandates that utilities enter into purchase agreements for any producer of renewable electricity to the grid.

The formidable presence of the Greens in the German Bundestag has had the ultimate effect of 'devolutionizing ' electricity generation and revolutionizing grid interconnectivity. Now, it looks like their aggressive push for renewable energy sources will help anchor renewable energy sources as the essential ingredient in the German energy mix.

So, with that said, what is the future of coal in the U.S.? Well, put it this way, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of coal development in a country and the number of Green Party representatives in that country's legislature (Congress, Bundestag, Parliament, etc.). The preceding assertion would certainly need to be tested to find a statistically significant correlation, but the point is that there is virtually no third party presence, Green or otherwise, in the American system of interest representation and there is also no significant political efforts toward phasing out coal development.

In fact, one reporter from the Voice of America, has suggested that "like it or not, coal is here to stay." I think those types of blanket statements can be problematic, especially when we are addressing the mobilization of political action. Reporting that something cannot be changed can have the effect of suppressing thought and action. Yes, coal is currently the number one source of electricity in the U.S. And yes, the most powerful coal advocate's national political action committee CoalPAC donates tremendous sums of money to the campaign coffers of legislators in both parties in hopes of perpetuating the 'we need coal' myth. But one of the beauties of democracy is that just because it is here now, does not mean it will necessarily be here later.

Despite the fact that coal is often projected to be our primary source of electricity for some time to come (and I generally agree with this statement), asserting that it must, or accepting such assertions as a predestined certainty precludes the possibility of any discussion of other alternatives. Some will just shrug and accept their perceived reality of a coal-based future, because that is what the 'experts' are saying. Fortunately there are increasing numbers of people and organizations that are not limiting their discussion to the alternatives that provide no alternative

Should Coal Have Standing?

Even Professor Christopher Stone would have some difficulty extending moral consideration to coal, oil, or gas (I think). Stone first posed an ethical question in the pages of the University of Southern California Law Review 45 (1972) that has remained a perennial favorite for nearly two generations of environmental philosophers, ethicists, law school professors and the like; Stone's question: "Should Trees Have Standing?"

Bad pun aside, Stone was able to hang his academic hat on that question. Although I don't really remember the exact logic of his argument, I don't think he successfully argued that trees should be extended moral (or legal) rights.

Everywhere it is occurring, the development of mineral resources for fuel (i.e. coal, gas, coalbed methane) presents a deluge of social and ecological challenges for policymakers and citizens alike. But I find it to be particularly troublesome when land use planning officials can successfully claim that coal has any sort of legal right. Unfortunately, it is also the case that in many mostly western U.S. states that, while the mineral itself does not have any inherent right, there's a good chance that someone or something has the legal right to get at it -- and that something is usually the federal government.

So-called "split estates" are legally binding mechanisms by which a land title is considered as completely separate from the title to the underlying minerals, including oil, gas and coal. According to the High Country News, forty-eight percent of Wyoming’s private land is split estate, and the Bureau of Land Management began leasing the minerals under tens of thousands of acres of this private land. Once the subsurface rights are leased, surface owners have little recourse against the traffic explosion on freshly bulldozed roads. Energy exploration and development (and most mining practices more broadly) threaten the quality of the air and water, they disrupt and fragment wildlife habitat, they have contributed to boom-and-busty cycles with often devastating economic consequences. And, as recent events in Utah and elsewhere have reminded us, energy development endangers the health and safety of the humans who live and work amongst it.

As miners and oil and gas industry workers toil away at their dangerous and pursuits, and as labor and environmental groups make efforts to make those jobs safer, western ranchers are fighting a different kind of fight altogether. For example, Shaun Andrikopoulos (pictured) and a group of his neighboring ranchers have been engaged in a battle to regain control use of their surface rights in Sublette County, Wyoming (photo: Justin Fantl, for Planet Jackson Hole).

Owners of the lands' surface have little they can do about the noxious fumes, flair-offs, noise from drill rigs, diesel generators and seismic exploration, add the addition of city-like skylines created by the illumination of drill rigs and their necessary outbuildings at night, and you've got some pretty disappointed landowners.

Thankfully, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition has publicized some of these problems in a powerful series of pictures of mountaintop removal mining and information as well as a collection of quotes from energy industry representatives, company execs and public officials. Below is one of the most memorable ones (and ultimately, the inspiration for this post):

"There's still coal underneath the land and sometime in the future, that coal has the right to be mined. What I am saying is there are areas where people will build and in the future they will have to un-build." -Campbell County (WY) Commissioner Alan Weakly and former mining engineer.