A recent blog post by economics professor Maximilian Auffhammer, of the University of California, Berkeley, addresses an issue of considerable policy consequence. In the latest of his consistently valuable posts, Professor Auffhammer argues—doing so with considerable passion—that a prospective coal export terminal in Oakland be scrubbed, as it would only exacerbate global coal combustion and carbon dioxide(CO2) releases among major Asian coal-importing countries. He concludes that a much wiser course is one ensuring that the stuff is left in the ground. In his words:
This [Oakland] proposal undermines the US federal government’s and California’s efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Getting this coal to furnaces abroad guts part of the stated goals of the Clean Power Plan and undermines the point of California’s aggressive climate change goals. We would use the most progressive state in the world on this issue as a launching pad for coal to the rest of the world.
But a short quote doesn’t do justice to Auffhammer’s extended argument. Take a moment to read the full post, with appended comments (mine included): Leaking Coal to Asia.
Let me briefly augment several points in my own comment.
If the upcoming COP-21 climate change negotiations in Paris fail to yield a widely supported tax on CO2 emissions or another market-efficient deterrent to greenhouse gas emissions, fragmented approaches, such as export restrictions, may deserve their day in court. But let’s not minimize the turmoil this might produce. Thus, unless coal is not to be singled out as the only fossil fuel subject to foreign trade constraints, any number of other CO2-promoting activities (e.g., the Keystone XL pipeline, US crude oil exports, and overseas energy investments by US firms) would need to be evaluated in terms of their respective CO2 footprints. Not only can you not rule out the temptation of other West Coast ports, both here and in Canada, to construct their own coal-exit facilities; of much greater likelihood, the capacity of competing coal exporters (Australia, Indonesia, Colombia, and South Africa) is enough to be able to effectively neutralize any Oakland action. It may, in fact, be illusory to assume that a US coal export ban can be an isolated initiative without wider—and, in all likelihood, self-defeating—consequences. (For an exhaustive critique of “leakage-resistant” climate policies more broadly, one might usefully revert to a 2009 paper by RFF’s Carolyn Fischer and Alan Fox of the US International Trade Commission: Comparing Policies to Combat Emissions Leakage.)
In the specific case of an Oakland coal embargo, it may be prudent, for now, to keep such a trade restriction in abeyance and work aggressively for the adoption of climate policies that are not only economically efficient and environmentally sound but comport, as well, with established international trade practices.
