[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Picking Up the Gauntlet

[Bill Totten]

Arthur Scargill has challenged me to a duel. Name your date, sir.

by George Monbiot

Published in the Guardian (August 12 2008)


Arthur Scargill is a brave man. He was brave to come to the climate camp
last week. Though we disagreed with most of what he said, he earned our
respect for his willingness to debate. He is brave to return to public
life, after suffering one of the nastiest vilification campaigns in
British history, and he is brave to be fighting for coal again. He is
especially brave to offer to asphixiate himself in the interests of
science. Many people would be willing to help him perform this
experiment at the earliest possible opportunity.

But he is also wrong, on almost all counts. In his article last week
demanding a return to coal and accusing me of selling out, Scargill
suggested that radioactive discharges are more dangerous than carbon
emissions {1}. This, of course, is nonsense, but if he really believes
it he should be campaigning against the burning of coal.

The odd and widely-ignored truth is that routine radioactive discharges
from coal-burning are greater than those produced by nuclear plants.
Coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium. Though these are
present at much lower levels than in nuclear fuel, a lot more coal is
burnt, which means that total emissions are greater. An article in
Scientific American last year maintained that levels of ionising
radiation in the bones of people living around coal plants are up to six
times higher than the levels in people living around atomic power
stations {2}.

The people most at risk from the radioactivity associated with coal (not
to mention far greater hazards such as dust, heavy metals and sulphur
and nitrous oxide pollution) are the workers - both in the mines and in
the power plants. Coal mining is associated with some of the most
unpleasant industrial diseases ever recorded. Why would a trade unionist
wish to expose working people to these dangers, when they could instead
be employed, at minimal risk to their health, building and installing
wind turbines, wave machines and solar power plants?

Scargill maintains that nuclear power is four times as expensive as
coal-fired electricity. There's a standard model for estimating future
costs, of which he should be aware, produced by the International Energy
Agency {3}. This shows that it's likely to be ten to fifty per cent more
expensive to save a tonne of carbon through coal burning with carbon
capture and storage than by means of nuclear energy. (Wind power,
incidentally, is much cheaper than either) {4}. The agency's figures are
not definitive (nothing in this field is), but the estimates it gives
are for coal bought at anticipated market prices, not for the much more
expensive fuel Arthur proposes: coal produced only from deep mines in
the United Kingdom.

I feel I need to point out that I have not become an advocate for
nuclear power. My position is that environmentalists should stop trying
to pick technologies for electricity generation. Instead we should
demand a maximum level for the carbon dioxide produced per
megawatt-hour, impose a number of other public safety measures, then
allow the energy companies to find the cheapest means of delivering it.
Otherwise we are in danger of backing the solutions we find
aesthetically appealing and delaying the massive carbon cuts that need
to be made. If nuclear power meets the very tough conditions I proposed
last week, we should no longer oppose it; though that remains a big if.
This is too subtle a point for Arthur and other commentators, who are
shrieking that Monbiot has gone nuclear.

Scargill claims that the closure of most of the UK's coal plants has not
been accompanied by lower carbon emissions. In fact carbon pollution has
faithfully tracked coal burning for the past eighteen years. In 1990,
when consistent carbon data for the UK begin, this country used 108.3
million tonnes of coal {5} and produced 592.4 million tonnes of carbon
dioxide {6}. In 1999, coal consumption fell to its lowest level since
1970 (55.7 million tonnes) and the UK's emissions fell to their lowest
level since 1990 (540.3 million tonnes). Emissions rose in 2006 because
coal burning increased when gas prices shot up. They fell back again in
2007 when the gas price dropped. In all cases, coal has been the key
swing factor for carbon dioxide production.

When Arthur suggests that, by mining and refining coal, "we can provide
all the electricity, oil, gas and petrochemicals that people need,
without causing harm to the environment", he shows that he is living in
a world of make-believe. He rightly demands that we "end the import of
shale oil, tar sands and other so-called unconventional oils" and calls
them "the dirtiest fuels on the planet". But while the total carbon
emissions from petrol made out of tar sands are thirty to seventy per
cent higher than those from conventional petroleum {7}, turning coal
into transport fuel raises emissions by 85% {8}. The process also
requires ten gallons of fresh water for every gallon of fuel produced.
Coal, not tar sand, is the dirtiest fuel on the planet.

When he speaks of a resurgent coal industry, he pictures deep seams
hacked out by grimy workers romantically dying of silicosis. But, with a
few minor exceptions, this is no longer how coal is produced in the UK.
New research I've commissioned, published for the first time here, shows
that the industry is planning a great opencast revival. Since January
last year, 22 new opencast coal mines or mine extensions have been
approved by British planning authorities. Only two schemes - both of
them quite small - have been rejected without appeal. My researcher,
Ketty Dean, has discovered that mining companies have applied for
planning permission for a further 22 schemes, while eleven more
applications in England alone are about to be submitted {9}.

Altogether, if the new proposals are accepted, 55 million tonnes of coal
extraction is in the pipeline. If we accept the outer limit proposed by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the carbon cut
required to prevent more than two degrees Celsius of warming - 85%
worldwide {10}, which means 95.9% in the UK {11} - the coal these pits
will produce equates to the sustainable annual emissions of 280 million
people {12}.

This digging can happen only at the expense of the communities Scargill
claims to support. The Coal Forum is a government-funded lobby group in
which coal companies and civil servants plot against the public
interest. Its latest minutes reveal that if - as the Welsh Assembly
government now proposes - there is a minimum distance of 500 metres
between opencast pits and the nearest homes, this would "sterilise" all
the useful coal reserves in Wales {13}. This means that they could no
longer be dug. The pits are viable only if they are allowed the wreck
the lives of local people. Even before a lump of clean coal is burnt,
its extraction trashes the environment.

Arthur Scargill ends his column with a final appeal to reason: by
challenging me to a duel. "I am prepared to go into a room full of
carbon dioxide for two minutes, if he is prepared to go into a room full
of radiation for two minutes". I accept his challenge, as long as I can
choose my source of radiation. I invite Arthur to propose a date and
send me the name of his second. I hope he can hold his breath.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Arthur Scargill, 8th August 2008. Coal isn't the climate enemy, Mr
Monbiot. It's the solution. The Guardian.

2. Mara Hvistendahl, 13th December 2007. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive
than Nuclear Waste. Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

3. The MARKAL model.

4. The MARKAL figures are reproduced in Department of Trade and
Industry, 2003. Energy White Paper - Supplementary Annexes, page 7.

5. DBERR, 2007. Long Term Trends. Table 2.1.2 Inland consumption of
solid fuels: 1970 to 2006.
stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes2_1_2.xls

6. Defra, July 2008. UK Climate Change Programme. Annual Report to
Parliament, July 2008, Table 2.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp-ann-report-july08.pdf

7. Institute of Physics, 7th December 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions set
to rise as new sources for transport fuel are used. Press release.
http://www.iop.org/News/Community_News_Archive/2006/news_9600.html

8. Natural Resources Defence Council, February 2007. Why Liquid Coal Is
Not a Viable Option to Move America Beyond Oil.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/coal/liquids.pdf

9. If you want a copy of the spreadsheet, please contact george at monbiot.com

10. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Fourth Assessment
Report. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers,
Table SPM.6.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

11. CO2 production in 2000 (the baseline for the IPCC's proposed cut),
divided by the current population gives a figure of 3.58 tonnes of CO2
per person. An 85% cut means that (if the population remains constant)
the global output per head should be reduced to 0.537t by 2050. The UK
currently produces 9.6 tonnes per head. But the world population will
rise in the same period. If we assume a population of 9 billion in 2050,
the cut rises to 95.9% in the UK.

12. Coal contains an average of 746kg C/tonne. The molecular weight of
CO2 is 3.667x that of C. Multiplied by 55.1mt, this gives 150.7mtCO2.
Divided by 0.537 gives 281m.

13. UK Coal Forum, 13th May 2008. Eighth Meeting.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46985.pdf

Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/08/11/picking-up-the-gauntlet/


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/