Both Baucus and Sen. Jon Tester should be commended for asking the Canadian ambassador for input in the environmental analysis of a coal mining proposal that impacts a bi-national treaty. It is a bad idea to put a coal mine, any mine for that matter, above the headwaters of two of America's greatest treasures, Glacier National Park and the watershed that nourishes Flathead Lake. It is too bad it takes leadership from Montana's congressional delegation, south of the border, to make this simple point.
It is also too bad that Baucus is missing half the point by arguing only that his concern is for the quality of water that will flow into Montana if these proposals move forward. Given his important and longstanding role with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, it seems a short leap to speak of the overarching and harmful impacts of fossil fuel development on either side of the border. Apparently, that remains a much more difficult argument for the senior senator to take up.
Liquid coal, or coal that has been converted to liquid fuel, is being promoted as a cure-all to our nation's energy problems and is touted at ribbon-cuttings across the West by Big Coal and its allies. However, these polluting giants fail to tell the entire story. The rest of the story includes facts such as the measurable economic and environmental downsides directly attributed to liquid coal production, from the very moment coal is mined until long after the liquid is burned.
No one disputes that conventional pollution long associated with the various ways we burn coal exists. Nor are the measurable impacts of burning liquid coal disputed. Some studies even attribute almost double the global warming emissions for liquid coal to a gallon of gasoline. At a time when we need to reduce our carbon emissions, liquid coal represents the dirtiest, most expensive and most dangerous energy gamble we could take. For example, driving a hybrid Honda Accord on liquid coal makes it as dirty as driving a Hummer H3.
So, at the core is how will we move away from dirty fossil fuels? Asking Canada not to develop their coal is certainly one way. But Baucus can use his position to support the Sanders-Boxer energy bill, which supports science that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.
A handful of years ago, Baucus hosted a dear friend and colleague, who at that time served our country as vice president. Al Gore and Baucus hiked together in Glacier National Park and made their way to stand next to a fast-receding glacier - and together made a case that the global warming crisis exists and exists right here on Montana's doorstep.
Since then, Gore has stated the debate over global warming is over; we need to focus on solutions. Liquid coal, any coal, is not a solution; it is part of the business-as-usual pork barrel politics that helped bring us to this failed energy direction in the first place.
The Big Sky state has as much sun and wind as it does coal. Let's do all we can to encourage our elected officials to quit focusing on an energy policy that continue to take us down a lose-lose path of climate change and stepped up fossil fuel production.
Rather, let's put the billions of dollars being proposed for a coal-to-liquid plant at Malmstrom to realize measurable changes and develop renewable energy in ways Montana and the rest of the nation benefit from, as well as their children and grandchildren, for years to come.
Paul Shively is a senior regional representative for the Sierra Club, based in Missoula.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)