Nemmec, R. (2017, February 21). California Coal Ban Possible Target For Trump Lawyers. Retrieved March 09, 2017, from http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109483- california-coal-ban-possible-target-for-trump-lawyers

President Trump’s recent promises to revive the U.S. coal industry could cause his administration to take a shot at reversing coal bans in California and several other western states under the premise that they could violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The recent decision of operators at the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station in Arizona to close the plant at the end of 2019 has prompted concerns by newly installed Trump officials in the Interior Department who are looking for ways to extend the plant’s life. Removing California’s ban conceivably could help improve the economics of coal plants such as NGS on the Navajo Nation’s reservation at Page, AZ. This is now the focus of those individuals.

The reversal of California’s significant bans on coal based power relates back to environmental science in that through this decision going forth, so much progress in battling climate change will be completely lost. Luckily California is an independently powerful state, so it will be a huge challenge for Trump’s cabinet members to reverse such significant events in recent California times. Unfortunately, this will likely lead to the officials attacking smaller less powerful states who hold the same stance as California and build power leading up to an attempt at reversing California’s coal decisions.

Burnett, H. S. (2016, December 8). News – Coal Still Provides Electricity to California. Retrieved March 09, 2017, from https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/coal-still- provides-electricity-to-california

New analysis from the Institute for Energy research shows that despite what Californian politicians say, coal plants still provide significant and critical supplies of electricity to much of the state. The percentages may seem small, but given the size of California, the actual numbers are still huge. The remaining California coal plants make up only 0.4% of the state’s electricity in 2014, however California imports electricity from neighboring states and as much as half of Southern California’s electricity comes from coal-fired generating plants in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. Also, in 2013, California was the eighth-biggest industrial coal consumer, consuming 1.4 million metric tons.

This article relates to environmental science in that it is concerned with the true state of California’s coal consumption despite all of the positive public press surrounding its progressive stances on unsustainable energy. The energy percentages may seem small relative to those of other states, however when those percentages are equated to actual numbers of tons, the figures are no longer so small. I find this disheartening but I hope that all of this is done in good faith on the California government’s part. California is a highly democratic state and environmental progress is a pillar of the party’s agenda, so any steps forward in these issues are positive ones.

Utah invests $53 million in California port for coal, other exports. (2016, October 27). Retrieved March 09, 2017, from http://energy.utah.gov/utah-invests-53-million-in-california-port-for-coal-other-exports/

Millions of tons of Utah coal would have had a secure shipping port from a former Army base in Oakland, California, under a $275 million deal being brokered among multiple parties. Four Utah counties had secured a $53 million low-interest loan from the state’s Community Impact Fund Board to assure that Utah coal, have a guaranteed share of a California port’s capacity. This investment buys Utah exports such as coal, potash, salt and hay cubes 49 percent of a facility’s capacity–9 million metric tons. The dry bulk port should occupy land owned by Oakland City and provide a more direct West Coast route for the state. Unfortunately for Utah, none of this ended up going through because Jerry Brown signed a bill preventing all of this from happening.

Utah putting in significant investment for California to be a terminal for their raw materials exports relates back to environmental science in that it shows the differences in environmental priorities of each states. Utah wants to stimulate economic development through coal and other exports, California wants to prevent the worsening of climate change. I think that it is good that California did not approve such a large investment in coal and other exports from Utah, as this would give incentive to the heavy hitters in the causes of climate change another reason to keep doing what they are doing and not change for the better of humanity.

Services, F. S. (2016, August 27). Gov. Jerry Brown calls on California ports to cut coal exports. Retrieved March 09, 2017, from http://www.presstelegram.com/business/20160827/gov- jerry-brown-calls-on-california-ports-to-cut-coal-exports

Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation banning state funding for new coal-export terminals and called on Stockton and Long Beach to reduce exporting coal at their ports. The bill was in response to a failed proposal to build a $250mil terminal in Oakland for coal exports. Jerry Brown is a formed Oakland mayor who documented health and climate change as reasons to not implement these coal exports terminals. Last year, California pension managers were ordered to sell their interests in companies that profit from thermal coal. Exports have since dramatically declined. For example, Long Beach had 535,814 metric tons of coal shipped from their port last year, down from 1.5 million metric tons in 2012.

This bill cracking down on American coal export terminals relates to environmental science in that it provides an example for others to follow in trying to become fully sustainable in energy production and consumption. By restricting new coal terminals from being built in a large state such as California, this de-incentivizes China and other large coal exporters from exacerbating the problem of climate change by driving down coal’s demand. I think this is a step in the right direction of the entire nation since California is such a large and influential state relative to the rest of the country.

Nikolewski, R. (2016, August 21). California’s coal collapse. Retrieved March 09, 2017, from http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-california-coal-collapse-2016may05- story.html

California’s coal consumption has recently gone from small to nearly microscopic. In 2007, only 1% of megawatt hours were attributed to coal in California. In 2015, California has decreased this to 0.2%. According to the EIA, California has also seen a 96% decrease in general coal consumption, by far the steepest decline of any other state. Utilities are switching from coal-fired to natural gas-fired power plants because of low natural gas prices and government regulation to make air cleaner and hasten the emergence of renewable energy.

This relates to environmental science in that it is concerned with energy, in this case coal and why its popularity in California has severely declined. I am happy to see the progress of my home state in distancing itself from the dirtiest energy source, especially so dramatically and quickly. A 96% decrease in consumption is remarkable, as is going from 1% to 0.2% of megawatt hours being attributed to coal in such little time. It would be even better if natural gas was not the reason for switching, but at least this is a step in the right direction and will hopefully then transition to a fully renewable source of energy.

In Colorado, coal mining is still a significant part of the state economy. There are now many miners and skilled tradesmen who are unemployed and have limited career options due to the recent hit the coal industry has taken over Obama’s 8 year presidency. Colorado counties are hoping that at the very least, the Trump administration will create an environment where coal can survive or fail on its own economic merits. The industry is particularly impacted in Western Colorado, where jobs and economic activity have significantly faded. They hope that the Trump administration will aid them in rejuvenating their area.

The state of the Colorado’s coal economy relates to environmental science in that it also represents national and international trends in how people are utilizing coal as well as how they are avoiding the use of it. With the US and more specifically Colorado’s coal economy in bad shape, it stimulates development in areas of alternate energy production and sustainable substitute methods. I find that the weakness of the industry is definitely good in terms of trying to achieve a cleaner, more sustainable world, however this is not economically good and costs certain jobs. It is frightening but comforting to know that coal restrictions might be lifted, and this could be a large step backwards in terms of solving international climate change. Hopefully Colorado begins catching onto the alternative energy trend rather than try to rejuvenate their coal industry again.

Ever since the advent of fracking and horizontal drilling for natural gas as well as new regulations on emissions and production, the US coal industry has been greatly weakened and can be recognized through data. For example, coal production has fallen by 1,171 million short tons in 2008 to 897 million short tons in 2015. Also, coal is generating 32% less electricity than in 2008. Many different coal companies have claimed bankruptcy. Trump claims that he plans to rejuvenate the US coal industry, however this will be extremely difficult after Obama’s 8 year presidency in which he practically waged war on the industry to achieve climate objectives.

This article relates to environmental science in that it is concerned with energy and the politics and external costs tied to it. Coal is a widely used energy source and the industry has recently been weakened. Several energy companies whose main focus is coal have officially filed for bankruptcy, including the US’s largest, Peabody Energy. I believe efforts to revive America’s energy industry is a step in the right direction economically speaking, however coal should not be the focus, because it is already a competitive space with little potential and because coal is unsustainable as a resource.

New President-Elect Donald Trump has promised to end the so called war on coal all throughout his campaign. This was on called is attributed to excessive environmental regulation imposed on the production and usage of coal. These restrictions often consist of limits on sulfur, mercury, and CO2 emissions. The weakening of the coal industry however can be attributed to fracking shale gas in the Appalachian region. Miners and power plants are feeling the effects of these regulations the most through taxes.

The state of the US coal economy relates to environmental science in that it also represents international trends in how the world is utilizing coal as well as how they are avoiding the use of it. With the US coal economy in bad shape, it stimulates development in areas of alternate energy production and sustainable substitute methods. I find that the weakness of the industry is definitely good in terms of trying to achieve a cleaner, more sustainable world, however this is not economically good and will cost many jobs. It is frightening but comforting to know that coal restrictions might be lifted, however this could be a large step backwards in terms of solving international climate change.

Declining consumption of coal in the US last year played a significant role in reducing global CO2 emissions last year. The Global Carbon Project analysis report shows that emissions were basically flat for the third year in a row even with a sharp rise in worldwide economic growth. Also, experts say that the decrease in Chinese economic growth since 2012 has also been a significant factor in the reduction of CO2 emissions. U.S. CO2 emissions have been decreasing steadily since 2007 due to a gross reduction in demand. Experts say that this is a step in the right direction but to not get too confident just yet as China is building more coal plants.

Coal consumption trends are related to environmental science because they are the main cause of air pollution in today’s society, and environmental science holds a large role in trying to come up with solutions against this. I think that it is great that experts are saying that we are successful in decreasing the emissions of one of the most polluting commons on Earth, and that we need to keep doing this and develop other methods of harnessing energy. Though, I also find it troubling that with the new President of the US, the coal industry will be rejuvenated which would go against all the work the world has done against coal based air pollution.

America’s coal industry has been in some trouble due to mounting prices and competition from other countries and cheap energy sources such as natural gas. Ever since Trump’s election as President, he has been unclear on how to rejuvenate other energy industries however coal is the one sector he is clear on. President Trump wants to begin exporting coal in an effort to begin competing with Australia and hopefully bring prices down by deflating the market. China and India however are likely to keep prices low despite Trump’s efforts as they are historically key players in the industry.

This relates to environmental science in that it is concerned with energy, in this case non-renewable and non-sustainable. Coal is a historically widely used energy source and the industry has recently taken a hit. For example several energy companies whose main revenue is from coal have officially filed for bankruptcy, such as Peabody Energy. I think that Trump’s efforts to revive America’s energy industry is a step in the right direction, however coal should definitely not be the focus, as it is already an extremely competitive space with little potential returns and because coal is unsustainable as a resource, not to mention all the emissions and pollution it causes when it is being used.