Coal experts agree: Trump cannot save the day

“My administration is putting an end to the war on coal,” said Donald Trump, surrounded by the usual gaggle of officials and (in this case) coal-miners, as he put his supersize signature on the Energy Independence Executive Order.

But coal is dying as a major energy source in the United States for reasons far beyond the reach of executive orders.

“The miners are coming back,” Trump boasted at a recent rally in Kentucky, but no less an authority than Robert Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy, the biggest U.S. coal company, promptly rained on his parade. “I suggested that (Trump) temper his expectations,” he said. “He can’t bring them back.”

Trump’s latest executive order is not just about coal, of course. It’s a frontal assault on all the Obamaera regulations that aimed at curbing climate change. But while it will slow the decline in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, it will not have a major impact on global emissions.

That is partly because the U.S. accounts for only 16 per cent of global emissions. Compared to China’s 29 per cent, it doesn’t matter all that much, and China remains committed to big cuts.

In January China scrapped plans for 104 new coal-fired power plants, and it intends to invest $361 billion (equal to half the U.S. defence budget) in renewable energy between now and 2020. The Chinese government is spending that kind of money because it is rightly terrified about what global warming will do to China’s economy and, above all, to its food supply.

Like the Indians, the Europeans, and pretty much everybody else, the Chinese remain committed to the climate goals agreed at Paris in December 2015 even though the United States has defected. Their own futures depend on meeting those goals — and they know that the American defection does not destroy all hope of success. Globally speaking, it’s not that big a deal.

It would seem like a much bigger deal, however, if they were not confident that American greenhouse gas emissions will continue to decline under Trump, though not as fast as they would under a less ignorant and less compromised administration. Coal provides an excellent example of why.

In 2009, when Barack Obama entered the White House, coal provided 52 per cent of U.S. electricity. In only eight years it has fallen to 33 per cent, and the decline has little to do with Obama’s Clean Power Plan. First, cheap gas from fracking undercut the coal price, and then even solar power got cheaper than coal — so 411 coal-fired plants closed down, and more than 50 coal-mining companies went bankrupt.

Half the 765 remaining big coal-fired plants in the United States were built before 1972. Since the average age when American coal-fired plants are scrapped is 58 years, half of them will soon be gone no matter what Trump does, and even he cannot make it economically attractive to build new ones. (Only nine per cent of American coal-fired plants were built in the past quarter-century.)

You don’t need good intentions to do the right thing for climate safety any more; just common sense. From fuel efficiency in automobiles to replacing coalfired plants with natural gas or solar arrays, saving money goes hand-in-hand with cutting emissions. The economy is not your enemy; it’s your ally. So Trump won’t do nearly as much harm as people feared.

President Obama promised last year to cut emissions by about 26 per cent from the 2005 level by 2025. About half of that 26 per cent cut would have come in Trump’s first and maybe only term (201720), so say 13 per cent. The U.S. accounts for 16 per cent of global emissions, so do the math: 13 per cent of 16 per cent equals about two per cent of global emissions.

That’s what would be at stake over the next four years if Trump’s presidency stopped all the anticipated reductions in greenhouse emissions that Obama based his promise on — but it won’t. A lot of those emission cuts are going to happen anyway, because they just make economic sense.

So how much damage can Trump do to the fight against climate change over the next four years? He can keep global emissions about one per cent higher than they would have been if the U.S. had kept its promise to the Paris conference. And that’s all.