This guest column was submitted in light of the decision by Rep. Joni Gutierrez, D-Las Cruces, to change her vote and revive a proposal to give a massive tax credit for this coal plant. You can read more about that by clicking here. In addition, the Senate version of the bill was tabled on Monday but may be reconsidered today. You can read about that by clicking here.
By Robb Thomson
The legislature is currently considering a proposal – House Bill 178 and Senate Bill 431 – that would give away $85 million in tax credits over a period of years to the owners of a conventional coal-powered electric plant proposed for the Four Corners region, Desert Rock. Two of the most highly polluting coal-powered plants in the country already exist there. The pollution emitted by the current plants has caused great harm to all residents living nearby, and many citizens of the Navajo Nation are determined that no new plants should be built in their neighborhood.
How about the rest of us? Is this coal plant a good idea? The owners, Dine Power Authority and Houston-based Sithe Global Power, certainly think so. They claim the plant will provide desirable jobs and economic benefits to the state.
But the plant would emit 10 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, and the International Panel on Climate Change has found that there is no reasonable doubt that global warming is caused by carbon dioxide and other green house gases, that it is caused by humans, and that the planet is already in the early stages of human-induced climate change.
The panel is composed of the best climate scientists in the world, and includes the best
In addition to increasing the state’s carbon dioxide emissions, Desert Rock would significantly impact air quality in a region that is already close to exceeding the national ambient air quality standard for ground-level ozone, which is the most common cause of smog and a significant source of respiratory ailments. The plant would increase
Climate experts are in general agreement that the danger point for the planet is when the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is double its pre-industrial level. We are very near that doubling point, and from a variety of approaches, it is agreed that the next decade is the crucial period for putting serious greenhouse gas controls into effect. The Stern report (an authoritative study of the human and economic effects of climate change) has shown that if serious controls are instituted in that period, the economic costs will be nominal, and no serious economic dislocations will occur. But if we wait until 2030 or 2040 to address the problem, the economic costs will grow astronomically, and no action at all will result in economic and human catastrophe.
We must think of our actions to address climate change as an insurance policy. We insure against house fires when the risk of fire may be in the range of only 1 percent, and are happy to pay the insurance costs at that level, because the loss can be large. The same principle applies to climate change. Studies show that at the doubling point, there is a probability of between 20 and 40 percent that the average temperature at our latitude will increase by 6 degrees. That would result in very high human costs, and any rational person would be willing to insure against it.
Where does Desert Rock fit into this picture?
The 10 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted per year by the plant would exactly cancel out the governor’s prudent policy to reduce greenhouse gases in
Can we afford to do without Desert Rock?
There are a variety of options: Energy conservation and efficiency increases could cut the electricity growth curve sufficiently to make electric supply increases achievable from renewable energy sources adequate for future demand. A second option is to build only coal plants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide. Such plants are already technically and economically feasible. But safe and practical sequestration of the carbon dioxide still needs to be demonstrated in our locality.
Saying “no” to any more conventional coal plants is not only a reasonable path, but is the one which would cost us by far the least in the long run. Thus, legislators must not encourage the builders of Desert Rock by granting them tax credits. In the words of the Santa Fe New Mexican, “Our state’s legislators should avoid it (i.e. granting tax credits) like a plague.”
Robb Thomson is the chair of the Santa Fe-based Interfaith Alliance for Environmental Stewardship and a retired physicist.