flavour of the week?

It seems like energy and the environment get this distinction this week. Not a bad thing considering how important both of these are, or at least should be. The unfortunate part about this particular story is that probably, had we paid more attention to these things sooner (even before the 90's when Glen Clark called environmentalists the "enemy" of BC) we may not be in the position that we are today. Arguably, one of the most significant arguments bringing energy and the environment to the forefront this time is the Liberals proposal to build two coal-fired generating plants in British Columbia. This is something never before considered in the province, or at least that's what NDP environment critic Shane Simpson will tell you if asked. Shane Simpson is against coal-fired energy in BC.

So what do you think? On the face of it I would say that the answer seems quite clear. Coal has been around for thousands of years and it has a nasty reputation as a dirty source of energy that contributes to a number of environmental and health problems like acid rain, greenhouse gas emissions, the spread of toxic chemicals like mercury and an increase in respiratory illnesses like asthma.

Given what we know about coal and the seemingly negative footprint that its use leaves, if your with Mr. Simpson and against burning coal in our province then one has to ask how we could possibly consider selling our coal to the rest of the world. Especially since we know that BC coal is being turned into energy in other countries. In fact, approximately 70% of the worlds coal production is used to generate 40% of all energy while 12% is used to produce 70% of the worlds steel. World-wide, the largest producers and consumers of coal are the United States, China, Australia, India, South Africa and Russia. Canada uses relatively little of its coal to produce energy at 18%, compared to the United States which uses about 3/4 of its produced coal to generate 56% of its energy.

This makes coal a very important commodity for British Columbia as we produce some 25 million tonnes of coal per year (2001 figures) valued at an impressive $1.5 billion. The coal industry in our province, in 2001, employed 6000 people and put about $18 million into the provincial purse. It would seem to me that the production of coal is relatively important to us then which places those of us concerned about global warming in a bit of a dilemma.

So... do we immediately say no to coal-fired energy in the province? Given the information provided above I would have to say that the answer doesn't seem as simple anymore. In fact its a question that even many environmentalists struggle with as they acknowledge that the production of coal, especially in the developing world can't be easily stopped. The task then seems to be to create and adopt cleaner coal technologies (many exist already) that will allow us to utilize the worlds most abundant fossil fuel.

Should we be exploring cleaner energy alternatives like wind and solar power? Absolutely! However I don't think that we can or should completely discount the use of coal as a viable energy option, especially if the technology is present to reduce harmful emission and minimize the contribution that coal-fired energy has towards global warming.

Or we could just stop using energy!