Govt Leadership?
Whatever credibility the BC government had as a leader on climate action here at home is crumbling fast during the tenure of our current premier, Christy Clark. She has firmly hitched her political future -- and her hopes for BC -- on a fossil fuel driven export boom. Given what we now know about the need for urgent action to avoid a climate crisis, her strategy can only be described as reckless. Instead of putting families first, it puts our families' futures at risk.
Excuse: Coal mining employs British Columbians and supports local communities.
Climate change is a global problem. We can't be a "leader" at home while exporting global warming pollution around the world. When the coal exported from BC is burned overseas, it practically doubles the global warming pollution we produce here at home. This impacts everyone, it's wrong, and BC has a moral responsibility to do something about it.
Below we've listed the most common responses we get from government when we raise this issue. If you've heard enough of these kinds of excuses, why not take a minute right now to send an email to government, telling them what you think about BC's role in mining and exporting coal -- including growing amounts of US thermal coal?
Premier Christy Clark premier@gov.bc.ca
Minister of Energy and Mines Rich Coleman EMH.Minister@gov.bc.ca
Minister of Environment Terry Lake ENV.Minister@gov.bc.ca
Excuse: How can we build wind turbines if we don't use BC coal to make steel?
Response: While it's true that the coal mined in BC is used to make steel, the fact is our government makes no effort to determine what that steel is used for. We desperately need a WWII-style campaign to allocate our steel resources to building things like trains, buses and solar hot water panels that are needed to power us through the transition to a low emission economy. Unfortunately, we're not getting that kind of leadership from Victoria.
Furthermore, the fastest growing segment of coal exports from BC is US thermal coal -- imported into BC from the Powder River basin, to be re-exported to Asia and burned in power plants.
(By the way, the latest trend in wind turbines? Concrete towers -- using EcoSmart concrete, they could be built with substantially less "embodied" global warming pollution than steel towers. More on how we can deal with the steel question.)
Excuse: We need the royalties that coal mining brings into government to pay for teachers' salaries and to keep hospitals open.
Response: In 2010 -2011 government collected $288 million dollars in royalties from coal mining. Contrast that with our health and education budgets -- $17.5 and $11.5 billion respectively. Coal mining royalties provide less than 1 percent of the revenue needed to cover these two budgets -- a relatively small amount (especially next to coal company profits -- coal giant Teck Resoures Limited made $663 million in adjusted profits in Q2 2011 alone.)
In any case, using coal mining royalties to keep our schools open and hospitals running is like stripping wood off of our walls to feed the stove to keep the house warm. It shows a reckless disregard for our kids' futures. It is morally irresponsible to say that we will invest in our childrens' education using revenue from activities that we know put their future at risk.
As the recent report from the International Energy Association shows, for every dollar we don't spend today to make the transition off of fossil fuels, we'll be spending $4.30 by 2020 to deal with the impacts of global warming.
Furthermore, new coal mines will require massive amounts of power to operate, and critics claim that BC Hydro is preparing to offer electricity to coal mines at substantially subsidized prices. Why collect royalties from the coal industry for digging up our resources, and then offer them cheap electricity in return? Not only is our current path morally irresponsible, it's financially foolish as well.
Excuse: If we don't export the coal, someone else will.Response: According to the 2006 census, all mining employs less than 1 percent of the BC labour force. Coal mining is some fraction of that. Global warming, on the other hand, impacts all of us. Should the interests and needs of those who work in forestry, and fisheries, and at banks and in retail and service industries be held secondary to those of people who work in the coal industry? Of course not -- and by putting forwards this sort of divisive argument, government does not serve British Columbians' long term interests.
We need to get off of coal, and those British Columbia communities that are dependent on the coal industry are going to need help with the transition. We will all benefit from the transition off of fossil fuels, and we need to all share equally in the costs as well. This is a conversation that we need to have as a society. It is a discussion that should be started and led by government.
Response: People all around the world are working to end the coal age. Groups in the US Northwest are actively engaged in the effort to keep coal ports off of their coast. Direct action groups in Australia have been fighting coal exports there for years. Groups around the world are working to reduce demand for coal, and China has announced that it intends to put a cap energy use. It's only a matter of time before the world pulls the plug on coal; the question for BC is, do we want to plan for that transition now, or do we want to scramble in reaction to it?
Finally, in response to those who say that we should sell coal because we have good labour and environmental standards here at home, the final word goes to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:
When it comes to law and order, we have learned not to crack down on the users of drugs, but focus our efforts on the dealers. So what if it turns out that beautiful BC is running the resource economics equivalent of a meth lab? Read the rest here.
