In a series of articles, James Bruggers, the environmental writer for my hometown, paper, is figuring out the impacts of climate change in, as they call it back home, Kentuckiana (Coal's pitfalls and promises):
For decades, Kentucky and Indiana have relied on cheap electricity from vast reserves of coal to light their homes and power energy-intensive industries, from manufacturing plants to aluminum smelters.
But now, because of fears about human-caused global warming, coal has become an international villain, and some say it's only a matter of time before the coal-fired power plants of the South and Midwest feel political heat -- and consumers here get an economic wallop.
This seems to be the bottom line for a place like Kentucky:
The use of coal could be taxed. Or caps could be placed on emissions; companies with fewer emissions could sell credits to those with more.
While California has taken the lead, with a cap on greenhouse gases, the president of the politically connected Kentucky Coal Association, Bill Caylor, predicts a much less vigorous response to global-warming threats in Kentucky because of "our dominance in fossil fuels."
Caylor, who also has questioned whether global warming will cause serious consequences [JW: surprise!], said the real problem will come if the United States forces greenhouse gas reductions and some other countries don't, sending jobs to nations with cheaper energy and fewer rules.
"We could be doing all of this while China and India are just thumbing their noses at us," he said.
One prominent Kentucky economist agrees that regulations would drive up the cost of energy from coal. But, "what counts," said Kenneth R. Troske, professor of economics and director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Kentucky, "is how the price of coal compares with other energy sources."
I need my props: I spoke with Jim on the phone and, I hope, provided some background material for this piece.
