Exporting coal or global health concerns?

The continued use of coal to meet energy needs can be compared to someone dying of emphysema, hooked up to an oxygen tank, chain-smoking cigarettes. Irrefutably, carbon emissions accelerates global warming, subsequently contributing to climate change, just as nicotine has the capacity to destroy lives.

On July 1 in The Seattle Times, Michael Riordan touched on many sound argumentative points opposing the exportation of coal [“The cost of the coal boondoggle,” Opinion]. Largely underemphasized is the global impact coal exportation has.

After the tsunami in Japan, North Americans stood by largely unaffected. But, as time passed, debris from the tsunami has washed ashore in Washington. While the burning of coal in Asian markets may have little short-term effect on Washington state, the reality is that burning coal anywhere affects everyone. Carbon emissions will never look like debris washing ashore, it lacks tangibility, but climate change has the ability to impact everyone if changes are not embraced in how we achieve global energy needs.

Facilitating Asia to burn coal only short circuits the global need for individual nations to find renewable energy solutions. Limiting the exportation of coal allows Washington to continue embracing a “green” ideology, while hopefully inspiring Asia to invest in a global long-term future.

Lastly, exporting coal does not produce good jobs for our nation. This is bovine excrement if ever there was some, but that’s another editorial

— Stephanie Akker, Kennewick