World on Fire.

• Author: McKibben, Bill

World on Fire

Consider coal. When burned, usually to generate electricity, it causes two distinct problems. First, it gives off a variety of traditional pollutants, including the sulfure compounds that produce acid rain. Most of these pollutants can be removed by burning cleaner types of coal, by "washing" the coal before it is burned, or by "scrubbing" the emissions as they leave the smokestack. Second, burning coal gives off vast amounts of carbon dioxide, the chief cause of the greenhouse effect. There is no practical way to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide from coal combustion. That is, you could burn coal completely cleanly--not a hint of acid rain--and still estroy the environment.

Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell does not seem to grasp this completely. At one point in his new book, he says, quite correctly, that if the Third World develops using "traditional energy sources," especially coal, "the ecosystem couldn't stand it. It would amount to ecocide." The greenhouse effect and other problems "rule out even a doubling of energy use based on the present mix of energy sources." He seems to face the problem squarely, and he names the source of greatest danger--China, which has half or more of the world's coal reserves and is currently committed to rapid increases in coal consumption. Later in the book, however, when he starts listing recommended solutions to our problems, Mitchell has this to say about coal: "The good news is that there's a lot of it. The bad news is that it's a dirty fuel. . . . But its sheer quantity (at current production rates existing world reserves would last nearly three centuries) makes it imperative that we improve technologies to burn it more efficiently and cleanly."

Because China has so much coal, Mitchell says, "a universally available, truly clean coal technology would be of great benefit." As I said, though, while you can burn coal "cleanly" with respect to acid rain, you cannot do so with regard to global warming. Barring a technological miracle, burning that three centuries' worth of coal (or even half a century's worth) may set in motion the "ecocide" Mitchell fears. In other words, there's not a lot of room for compromise about coal.

This may seem a picky point. I confess a strong temptation to praise Mitchell's book and leave it at that. After all, it shows a man of considerable power to be a committed, engaged environmentalist. That is a more hopeful development for the planet than a new...