Portland City Commissioner-elect Steve Novick has two blog posts on BlueOregon (here, here) relating to the shipment of coal from Wyoming and Montana through Oregon to power plants in China (and other parts of Asia).
I liked is first post and agree with him as he concludes:
I don't think the people fighting coal exports are hypocrites; I think they have the best of motives. I'm just personally a lot more comfortable, on this issue, fighting to reduce demand than trying to interrupt the supply. And I'm more comfortable with strategies that rely on making some sacrifices and changing some behavior of our own than on a strategy of interrupting the flow of cheap energy to people in other parts of the world.
As I commented on that blog post, I think there is little we can do in Oregon:
The extent of global warming and of carbon emissions will be largely decided in China and India. That’s where large poor populations want and need addition electrical power to raise their living standards. We should not want to keep them poor and without electrical power. And we should recognize that China and India, not us, will decide what kind of electrical generation to install. There is little we can do, short of massive subsidies to them for clean power, that might make a difference. They already have strong incentives (from reduced glaciers in their headwaters to urban air pollution). If they want more coal, they will get it somewhere. If we make coal a bit more expensive, they will probably just pay more somewhere. If we try to set a low carbon emission example here in Oregon, it probably won’t make much difference (not in the context where they already have strong incentives to reduce carbon emission).
Novick’s second blog post focused on Nike. He suggested that (here):
We call on American companies like Nike to reduce their use of coal in China and the other nations where they do their manufacturing.
And:
I don't know what's going to happen with the coal export issue. But I do know that Oregon's most famous company uses a lot of energy in China. And it's inviting scrutiny of its energy use. Let's let them know that we're watching, and that we'll be proud -- and we suspect Wieden and Kennedy can make it work for them - if they can reduce the consumption of coal to Asia.
I’m ok with that effort. But I suspect that even if Nike were to switch to 100% clean, renewable energy use in China that it would not reduce China’s investment in coal power generating plants. I’d give it very low odds of making any difference.
So let’s do more, even if the odds of making an impact are similarly low. In tune with Novick’s premise of “changing some behavior of our own,” we could shift educational funding (not spend more: it costs roughly the same to pay for study in China or study in Oregon) to send 100 (200, 500, pick a number) Oregon high school students to China for a high school year abroad. In addition to living with a Chinese family, learning Mandarin, and attending a Chinese school, we could ask each of the students to investigate while there and write a very brief essay on what they think Oregon could do to help China reduce its use of coal and of carbon emission generally.
Portland alone could send 100 high school students as “Global Climate Change Ambassadors” to China for the 2013-14 high school year. We could do that. It would cost us little or nothing (here). It would be a change. Why not? Perhaps it is just easier to watch Nike, see what they do, hope, and do nothing more ourselves?
If what China does with coal power generation is the most significant future determinant of global warming (and it is), then shouldn't we do everything we can think of that might make a difference? Including sending our high school students to China?
Novick seems poised to engage Nike. Could he be similarly motivated to engage Portland Public Schools?
Comments