The role of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in our energy future has sparked a vigorous discussion here at ItsGettingHotInHere and within the youth climate movement. There are hard questions about CCS that each of us must answer for ourselves, and a I feel like I’ve been wrestling with these questions within my own soul for quite a while, most recently as I look at a very real example here in the Northwest. As a renewable energy advocate and climate activist in the Pacific Northwest, I’ve been pondering what to do about this coal dilemma, and what role the region’s youth climate activists should play:
The question is this: Under what context should we fight a proposed IGCC coal plant in the Northwest that plans to be equipped with CCS to capture at least 50% of its emissions from day one?
If the new plant was going to increase emissions in the region, we’re clearly justified in opposing it. But what if the new plant was going to replace an equal amount of electricity from existing coal plants in the region? What if building this new plant let us shutter a pre-Clean Air Act coal plant that is the largest emitter of just about everything bad in the state of Oregon (and is scheduled to run for another 20+ years)? That question could very well come to the fore here in Oregon soon, as we pressure PGE to close down the Boardman coal plant, the dirtiest beast in the entire state and replace it with something else. We’re already pushing efficiency and renewables here in Oregon full throttle, we’re fighting off LNG, fighting off new pulverized coal plants (six in the last year!) and fighting off an independent IGCC plant that had no plans to sequester emissions. Where does that leave us?
I’ve worked for the region’s leading renewable energy advocacy organization for the past two years. I helped pass the Oregon Renewable Energy Act, fight off PacifiCorp’s coal plant plans and co-founded the region’s largest youth climate network, and even I wonder how far and how fast we can push renewables and efficiency?
Regional projections right now show that even with renewable energy standards in place in three of four Northwest states (25% by 2025 in Oregon for example) and with some of the most aggressive energy efficiency programs in the nation, efficiency and renewables will only be enough to meet growing electricity demand over the next 20 years. To put it another way: ramping up renewables and efficiency as fast as our aggressive renewable energy and efficiency policies requires will only hold emissions steady at current levels. In order to cut emissions 15%, 30%, 80%, we’ll need to do something to replace and close down existing coal-fired power plants serving the Pacific Northwest. The question then, is what will we replace them with?
Keeping LNG away means limiting the role of natural gas plants. Nukes are pretty much off the table in Oregon (banned in state by a statewide ballot measure!). We may be able to push renewables and efficiency farther, faster, but how far will it get us? What are we going to replace the Boardman coal plant with?…
These questions hurt my heart and my soul. That we are in a situation where we have to ask ourselves these questions is a tragedy. But here we sit, in a very deep hole (getting deeper each day), wondering how to climb out. The scale of the challenge requires us to look deeper than black or white snap judgements (which are all to easy to make), to look unflinchingly at what it will take to get from a world of ever increasing emissions and widespread energy injustice to the sustainable, just, and prosperous future we strive for. It will be a process, and we will likely need to accept temporary but necessary evils along the way. As I said, it hurts to write that, but there it is.
I’m clearly I’m no cheerleader for coal, and I never will be. I strongly believe that to call CCS “clean coal” is nothing less than a despicable affront to those who live with (and fight) the impacts of coal extraction every day.
For me, it’s a question of priorities. Solving our climate and energy challenges is the overarching goal, but as we do so, we have a tremendous potential to solve a number of other challenges and end other injustices as well - from creating new green jobs to ending mountain top removal to strengthening our economy. We should be prioritizing those solutions that solve more than just our primary challenge and de-prioritizing those that create or perpetuate other problems. In this sense, efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, etc. would be our priorities, while perhaps biomass and large-scale hydro lies in the middle and CCS, nuclear, etc. falls to the bottom.
However, given the overall scale of the challenge, which seems to deepen almost every day, I find myself unable to simply draw the line and stand staunchly opposed to any of those solutions on the list that do contribute to our primary challenge - stabilizing the climate. We may need all the tools in our toolbox, even the clumsy, ugly ones. It’s a big hole to climb out of, and we cannot fail. Look at the devastation in Burma to see what a world where we fail to solve the primary challenge looks like.
So, in my mind, should we prioritize CCS over renewables? No!
Should investments in CCS keep us from investing in renewables or efficiency? No, if it comes down to a choice, renewables clearly trump CCS.
Should we as the youth movement cheerlead CCS? No, the coal industry can do that just fine on their own.
But should we oppose it at every turn? Should we take an unflinching and hardline stance, shout down even our allies who might see a role for CCS?
If we’re serious about stabilizing the climate, shouldn’t we be tolerate investments in the development of CCS technology, a temporary crutch we may in all likelihood need on the path to carbon neutrality?
Until I’m confident we do not need CCS, I can’t bring myself to staunchly oppose it as many in our community here do.
