US industry calls coal rationing costly and ineffective

Technological innovation promises to be a far more effective approach for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than mandatory caps that will ration use of America’s most abundant, least costly energy source, said a spokesman for the National Mining Association (NMA) today before a US Senate hearing.

NMA’s Director of Government Affairs Craig Montesano told members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that imposing a system of mandatory caps on coal-based emissions would raise costs to US consumers and manufacturers but provide insignificant cuts in GHG emissions. With new generation technologies, coal-based energy can generate both real reductions in GHG intensity and the power needed for growing economies.

"Clean coal-based electric generation and coal-to-liquids technology can play a vital role in addressing both our economic and environmental challenges," said Montesano, "but not if coal’s use is rationed." Mandatory caps "will discourage investment in new technologies capable of making coal cleaner and also postpone the day when coal-derived fuels become valuable substitutes for imported energy," he said.

Montesano observed that the economic performance and compliance record of signatories to the Kyoto Treaty offer little encouragement that mandatory caps will promote either economic growth or significant progress in reducing emissions. A more effective model for action, he said, is the Asian-Pacific Partnership, a multi-lateral agreement among the world’s largest energy users to co-operate voluntarily in adopting technology-based measures designed to reduce GHG emissions.