Tweet
'Backward!'
Environmentalists lash Paulwell over coal comment
BY PETRE WILLIAMS-RAYNOR Environment editor williamsp@jamaicaobserver.com
Thursday, March 15, 2012
ENERGY Minister Phillip Paulwell has come under fire from 'green' lobbyists over his assertion that Jamaica cannot afford to take a purist view on the environment when it comes to energy, while signalling his intent to allow bauxite companies to use coal-fired plants.
"What a backward thing? What a backward man? But he is an honest man. He is saying I really don't give a damn about the environment; jobs, development comes first [and that] other people have destroyed their forests and used coal and polluted their air, we are going to do it too," criticised Peter Espeut, former head of the Caribbean Coastal Area Management Foundation.
SMELLIE... the environment is where you live, and you have to protect it at all cost, but there comes a time when you have to weigh your options
ESPEUT... Paulwell is saying I really don’t give a damn about the environment
MCCAULAY... the impact of coal-burning is not just carbon dioxide emissions
MAHLUNG... if you don’t control the emission of particulates which are an end product of the process, then it could have serious negative effects on your environment and on tourism
Stakeholders in the environment and energy sectors are locked in debate over going coal in Jamaica. (Photo: AP)
PAULWELL... we have to allow the bauxite companies, if they so desire, to go coal
PAULWELL... we have to allow the bauxite companies, if they so desire, to go coal
#slideshowtoggler, #slideshowtoggler a, #slideshowtoggler img {filter:none !important;zoom:normal !important}
6/6 
His comment came in the wake of Paulwell's revelation at a forum in Mandeville last Thursday when he argued that the island's struggling bauxite sector should be allowed to use coal as an energy source, provided it made economic sense for the companies.
"I do not believe that Jamaica has the luxury of asserting a purist view in terms of our environmental issues. Our carbon footprint is now very, very low... The great USA, the great economies of Europe, Germany and so on were built on coal, and Jamaica should not be depriving itself of cheaper energy because of this purist view about the environment," said the minister with responsibility for science, technology, energy, and mining.
"I think it [coal] has to be an option and we have to allow the bauxite companies, if they so desire, to go coal," he added.
Diana McCaulay, chief executive officer for the Jamaica Environment Trust (JET), maintained on Tuesday that Paulwell is clearly out of touch with the real implications of going coal.
Coal use presents challenges of not only increased carbon dioxide emissions, with its climate change effects, but also acid rain with the potential to destroy ecosystems and, critically, an unhealthy air quality that would likely undermine the tourism sector on which the island is now hugely dependent as a foreign exchange earner.
"I am not sure what Mr Paulwell's comment on purism means, but the impact of coal-burning is not just on carbon dioxide emissions. There are all the mining impacts in the country of origin, and JET feels these should be of concern to people everywhere. And there are the air quality impacts. Some of the air pollutants are sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury," she told the Observer.
"I think Mr Paulwell should consider all the impacts of coal; not just the carbon dioxide one that he mentioned. It is only cheaper because the cost of it is not paid for by the companies who produce it. So the health cost of it [for example] is to all of us," she added.
McCaulay hastened to note that clean coal is a myth.
"[Clean coal] is just public relations. Obviously you can have plants fitted with scrubbers [attached to the smoke stacks] that are cleaner than the old plants, but it is not 100 per cent clean," she said.
The JET boss' arguments have found favour with one of Jamaica's senior climate negotiators who admitted he has reservations about coal -- and not only because carbon dioxide has been found to be one of the greenhouse gases fuelling global warming.
"In trying to address climate change from a mitigation aspect, you would want to avoid using coal at all cost. However, the emissions are not the only problem with the use of coal," he said.
"There is also the concern for air quality, and this is even more of a concern than for emissions. With a country that is dependent on tourism, maintaining a high level of [good] air quality is extremely important. From a cost-effective standpoint, it seems like a viable alternative to use coal, but we would have to ensure our air quality is protected," Mahlung added.
He suggested that there could be an examination of 'clean' coal, but like McCaulay, said the emissions would not be 100 per cent clean.
"If you don't control the emission of particulates which are an end product of the process, then it could have serious negative effects on your environment and on tourism," said Mahlung, who is also a meteorologist.
"Because we are a small island, then it is very difficult to [site] a coal plant that won't have some kind of impact on the environment, because for us the wind flows are basically on land from the sea during the day and the opposite at night. So wherever you place it, at some point, the particulates are going to get onto the land because of our land and sea breeze effect," he added.
At the same time, he said that countries, including the United States and China, who had earlier helped build their economies through coal are making changes.
But the minister's suggestion to go coal has found favour with at least one energy expert, engineer Stanley Smellie.
"Coal is actually, in my mind, an extremely viable option for Jamaica. It is widely available and would seriously bring about a reduction in our energy cost," said the engineer, who is employed to the Energy Conservation Project at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
"The environment is where you live, and you have to protect it at all cost, but there comes a time when you have to weigh your options. Jamaica cannot afford to continue to use oil. [Coal] will significantly change the cost of energy in Jamaica and the effect that will have is that businesses will become more effective; they will have more money to spend on the social aspect of things," he added.
But even Smellie has acknowledged that it is a road that would have to be carefully travelled, given the implications, certainly for the tourism sector.
"Bauxite is the biggest foreign exchange earner and requires cheap oil to remain open. Tourism is the next big earner and tourism requires a clean environment. And so, if in the quest for cheap energy, you are going to pollute the environment, then you have to stop and think if in solving one problem, you are going to create another," he said.
Meanwhile, the environmental lobbyists insist the answer to Jamaica's energy woes rest with diversification and a commitment to sustainability.
"The alternative is what the official government policy has always been -- sustainable development. We want jobs, we want economic development, but not at the expense of the environment... But I dare say the government has thrown that out the window," Espeut said.
"The mix of energy sources for Jamaica needs to be carefully considered in light of many different things. So, for example, our proximity to sources of coal and natural gas; our renewable sources like sun and wind; the gains that can be made from energy conservation; and the time that it is going to take to bring new sources of energy on stream. I am not convinced that we have thoroughly considered all those factors," noted McCaulay.
Mahlung said he is partial to renewables — and in particular hydro — though they remain expensive.
"We are the land of wood and water so we should really have a robust hydroelectricity [programme]. We should damn one of these rivers — Rio Cobre, Martha Brae or the Rio Grande — and use it to produce hyrdoelectric plants. We definitely need to look at the feasibility of hydro," he said.
For Smellie, it is natural gas.
"LNG (liquefied natural gas) is actually the best option for the medium term, because you can easily retrofit existing electricity-generating plants to ustilise LNG. Not all of them can be done economically, but a significant portion of them can be done economically. And what JPS (Jamaica Public Service) is saying right now is that if that is done, you can see an immediate 30 per cent reduction in your light bill," said the engineer, who is currently pursuing postgraduate studies in physics, looking at sustainable energy management.
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...#ixzz1pEnbxcka
Environmentalists lash Paulwell over coal comment
BY PETRE WILLIAMS-RAYNOR Environment editor williamsp@jamaicaobserver.com
Thursday, March 15, 2012
ENERGY Minister Phillip Paulwell has come under fire from 'green' lobbyists over his assertion that Jamaica cannot afford to take a purist view on the environment when it comes to energy, while signalling his intent to allow bauxite companies to use coal-fired plants.
"What a backward thing? What a backward man? But he is an honest man. He is saying I really don't give a damn about the environment; jobs, development comes first [and that] other people have destroyed their forests and used coal and polluted their air, we are going to do it too," criticised Peter Espeut, former head of the Caribbean Coastal Area Management Foundation.
SMELLIE... the environment is where you live, and you have to protect it at all cost, but there comes a time when you have to weigh your options
ESPEUT... Paulwell is saying I really don’t give a damn about the environment
MCCAULAY... the impact of coal-burning is not just carbon dioxide emissions
MAHLUNG... if you don’t control the emission of particulates which are an end product of the process, then it could have serious negative effects on your environment and on tourism
Stakeholders in the environment and energy sectors are locked in debate over going coal in Jamaica. (Photo: AP)
PAULWELL... we have to allow the bauxite companies, if they so desire, to go coal
PAULWELL... we have to allow the bauxite companies, if they so desire, to go coal#slideshowtoggler, #slideshowtoggler a, #slideshowtoggler img {filter:none !important;zoom:normal !important}
6/6 His comment came in the wake of Paulwell's revelation at a forum in Mandeville last Thursday when he argued that the island's struggling bauxite sector should be allowed to use coal as an energy source, provided it made economic sense for the companies.
"I do not believe that Jamaica has the luxury of asserting a purist view in terms of our environmental issues. Our carbon footprint is now very, very low... The great USA, the great economies of Europe, Germany and so on were built on coal, and Jamaica should not be depriving itself of cheaper energy because of this purist view about the environment," said the minister with responsibility for science, technology, energy, and mining.
"I think it [coal] has to be an option and we have to allow the bauxite companies, if they so desire, to go coal," he added.
Diana McCaulay, chief executive officer for the Jamaica Environment Trust (JET), maintained on Tuesday that Paulwell is clearly out of touch with the real implications of going coal.
Coal use presents challenges of not only increased carbon dioxide emissions, with its climate change effects, but also acid rain with the potential to destroy ecosystems and, critically, an unhealthy air quality that would likely undermine the tourism sector on which the island is now hugely dependent as a foreign exchange earner.
"I am not sure what Mr Paulwell's comment on purism means, but the impact of coal-burning is not just on carbon dioxide emissions. There are all the mining impacts in the country of origin, and JET feels these should be of concern to people everywhere. And there are the air quality impacts. Some of the air pollutants are sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury," she told the Observer.
"I think Mr Paulwell should consider all the impacts of coal; not just the carbon dioxide one that he mentioned. It is only cheaper because the cost of it is not paid for by the companies who produce it. So the health cost of it [for example] is to all of us," she added.
McCaulay hastened to note that clean coal is a myth.
"[Clean coal] is just public relations. Obviously you can have plants fitted with scrubbers [attached to the smoke stacks] that are cleaner than the old plants, but it is not 100 per cent clean," she said.
The JET boss' arguments have found favour with one of Jamaica's senior climate negotiators who admitted he has reservations about coal -- and not only because carbon dioxide has been found to be one of the greenhouse gases fuelling global warming.
"In trying to address climate change from a mitigation aspect, you would want to avoid using coal at all cost. However, the emissions are not the only problem with the use of coal," he said.
"There is also the concern for air quality, and this is even more of a concern than for emissions. With a country that is dependent on tourism, maintaining a high level of [good] air quality is extremely important. From a cost-effective standpoint, it seems like a viable alternative to use coal, but we would have to ensure our air quality is protected," Mahlung added.
He suggested that there could be an examination of 'clean' coal, but like McCaulay, said the emissions would not be 100 per cent clean.
"If you don't control the emission of particulates which are an end product of the process, then it could have serious negative effects on your environment and on tourism," said Mahlung, who is also a meteorologist.
"Because we are a small island, then it is very difficult to [site] a coal plant that won't have some kind of impact on the environment, because for us the wind flows are basically on land from the sea during the day and the opposite at night. So wherever you place it, at some point, the particulates are going to get onto the land because of our land and sea breeze effect," he added.
At the same time, he said that countries, including the United States and China, who had earlier helped build their economies through coal are making changes.
But the minister's suggestion to go coal has found favour with at least one energy expert, engineer Stanley Smellie.
"Coal is actually, in my mind, an extremely viable option for Jamaica. It is widely available and would seriously bring about a reduction in our energy cost," said the engineer, who is employed to the Energy Conservation Project at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
"The environment is where you live, and you have to protect it at all cost, but there comes a time when you have to weigh your options. Jamaica cannot afford to continue to use oil. [Coal] will significantly change the cost of energy in Jamaica and the effect that will have is that businesses will become more effective; they will have more money to spend on the social aspect of things," he added.
But even Smellie has acknowledged that it is a road that would have to be carefully travelled, given the implications, certainly for the tourism sector.
"Bauxite is the biggest foreign exchange earner and requires cheap oil to remain open. Tourism is the next big earner and tourism requires a clean environment. And so, if in the quest for cheap energy, you are going to pollute the environment, then you have to stop and think if in solving one problem, you are going to create another," he said.
Meanwhile, the environmental lobbyists insist the answer to Jamaica's energy woes rest with diversification and a commitment to sustainability.
"The alternative is what the official government policy has always been -- sustainable development. We want jobs, we want economic development, but not at the expense of the environment... But I dare say the government has thrown that out the window," Espeut said.
"The mix of energy sources for Jamaica needs to be carefully considered in light of many different things. So, for example, our proximity to sources of coal and natural gas; our renewable sources like sun and wind; the gains that can be made from energy conservation; and the time that it is going to take to bring new sources of energy on stream. I am not convinced that we have thoroughly considered all those factors," noted McCaulay.
Mahlung said he is partial to renewables — and in particular hydro — though they remain expensive.
"We are the land of wood and water so we should really have a robust hydroelectricity [programme]. We should damn one of these rivers — Rio Cobre, Martha Brae or the Rio Grande — and use it to produce hyrdoelectric plants. We definitely need to look at the feasibility of hydro," he said.
For Smellie, it is natural gas.
"LNG (liquefied natural gas) is actually the best option for the medium term, because you can easily retrofit existing electricity-generating plants to ustilise LNG. Not all of them can be done economically, but a significant portion of them can be done economically. And what JPS (Jamaica Public Service) is saying right now is that if that is done, you can see an immediate 30 per cent reduction in your light bill," said the engineer, who is currently pursuing postgraduate studies in physics, looking at sustainable energy management.
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/...#ixzz1pEnbxcka
Comment