Conflicts Between Local Development and Global Climate Justice: A Case Study from Alaska

This article examines ethical issues created by individual local projects that could lead to increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are proposed to be located in government jurisdictions that have not adopted strategies to reduce their GHG emissions to their fair share of global emissions. For the most part, prior ethical work on climate change ethics has focused on the obligations of nations to reduce GHG emissions and has not examined ethical questions raised by individual projects.

Worldwide, one of the most difficult problems posed by global climate change stems from conflicts between development activities that might provide various benefits to local communities but that also exacerbate global climate change. In this commentary, we use a proposal for developing a large coal strip mine in Alaska as a case study to suggest some ethical principles that could be used to help resolve conflicts between local development activities that create potential local economic benefits and ethical obligations to reduce the threat of climate change. We believe the case study can be useful to others in grappling with conflicts between local development and protection of the global environment.

The Chuitna Coal Project and Energy Development in Alaska

With oil and gas prices relatively high, Alaska’s substantial coal resources are increasingly attractive to growing Asian markets and local utilities alike. For example, there is a proposal to develop the Chuitna Coal Project west of Anchorage along the shores of Cook Inlet (EPA 2006). This massive development would include a large surface coal strip mine, a 12-mile partially enclosed conveyance system, and a two mile trestle and dock system extending into Cook Inlet to accommodate the loading of coal onto ocean vessels. The first phase of the proposed mine would utilize over 5000 acres of land and produce about 12 million metric tons of coal per year or a total of 300 million metric tons of coal over the expected 25-year lifetime of the project; subsequent phases of the project are projected to yield about one billion metric tons of coal and disturb a much greater area. Current plans call for about 350 people to be employed by the Chuitna project. If the Chuitna project is allowed to go forward it likely could be the first of many new Alaskan coal developments.

Alaska is in a unique position with respect to developing its coal resources. The state contains about one-half of the country’s coal deposits, and mining is now a growing part of the state’s economy, generating jobs and income as state and local government tax payments. From the standpoint of economics, the state of Alaska is receptive to development of the Chuitna coal deposits, and some public officials have referred to coal as the “third leg” of Alaska’s energy “stool” (with oil and natural gas fulfilling the other two legs). The local jurisdiction where the Chuitna mine would be located, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, recently ignored climate change and other concerns (discussed below) when it voted to move forward with leasing discussions for Borough lands needed to develop the mine, because the Borough stands to recoup property tax and other revenues from the development. From the standpoint of national energy policy, the Bush Administration has taken the position that the nation’s energy resources should be rapidly developed in order to help achieve energy independence, and Alaska is well—positioned to contribute to rapid development of energy resources.

However, one reason some people concerned about the environmental and subsistence impacts of the Chuitna project oppose it is because of concerns about global climate change stemming from utilization of coal. A new report has found that Alaska produced about 52 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2005, which is about 21 percent more than was generated in 1990; by 2020 the levels are projected to increase by another fifth (Roe et al. 2007). On a per capita basis, Alaskans produce more than four times the carbon dioxide than other Americans on average. According to the report, the main reason why Alaskans produce more carbon dioxide on a per capita basis is because of the fact that there are some large industries in the state that generate carbon dioxide out of proportion to the state’s relatively small population; namely, oil, coal, and natural gas. Opponents of the Chuitna project also note that Alaska possesses world-class potentials for wind, tidal, wave and geothermal renewable energy supplies. (Other reasons for opposition to the project stem from the fact that the affected area includes the unique and highly productive biotic community of Cook Inlet; because of concerns about the project’s impacts on critical habitat for bear, moose, and fish; and because of concerns regarding increased mercury in Alaska fish. However, these concerns are outside the scope of our commentary’s focus on climate change).

Some Ethical Principles to Use in Assessing the Chuitna Coal Project

A. Global Ethical Obligations

There are a number of general ethical principles that can be used to guide policy makers in making decisions about local activities that might exacerbate global climate change. For example, the rights to life, liberty, and personal happiness and security are basic human rights and often are encoded in the constitutions and laws of many states and nations from which are derived other rights (Brown et al. 2006; forthwith referred to as White Paper 2006). These basic rights have been the basis for practical rules such as the no harm principle,the polluter pays principle, and the precautionary principle. These rights also have been recognized in a number of international treaties such as Article Three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (right to life, liberty, and security of person) (UN 1948), Article Three of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (precautionary principle) (UNFCCC 1992), and Principles 15 and 16 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (precautionary and polluter pays be principles) (UN 1992). In the White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, these principles along with other ethical considerations are found to create duties of nations to reduce their emissions as quickly as possible to their fair share of safe global emissions (White Paper 2006, Issue 1). For reasons set out in the White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, economic benefits to one nation alone is not an ethically supportable justification for refusing to reduce a nation’s GHG emissions to that nations fair share of safe global emissions (White Paper 2006, Issue 5). Ethical problems with such justification include, but are not limited to, the fact that global climate change will adversely affect millions around the world who have not consented to be put at risk for projects that will not benefit them (White Paper, Issue 5).

These principles discussed thus far can be understood to be norms that relate to obligations of emitters to reduce GHG emissions. Coal mining, by itself, does not necessarily lead to ethically unacceptable GHG emissions levels. That is, although coal combustion emits very high levels of GHGs particularly compared to other fossil fuels, coal-mining projects by themselves are not necessarily in conflict with ethical obligations to reduce GHG emissions. For instance, if carbon dioxide were successfully sequestered from coal combustion (a matter that itself raises additional environmental issues) or if coal combustion was conducted by nations that were emitting GHG emissions at less than their fair share of safe global emissions, new coal mining projects that supplied coal for such uses of coal would not necessarily, by themselves, create a conflict with ethical obligations to reduce GHG emissions. (Of course, there might be other ethical concerns about such projects). Ethical problems with new coal mining projects arise when proposed activities will expand GHG emissions by those who are already exceeding their fair share of safe global emissions. If, for instance, the coal produced in Alaska is consumed in Alaska and Alaska has no program to limit its GHG emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions, new large coal mines that produce coal for Alaska’s use is likely to be ethically problematic.

Given the fact that on a per capita basis Alaskans emit significantly more GHGs than the average American, and given the fact that as a nation the United States vastly exceeds its fair share of GHG there is an ethical duty for the state (and all other states) to reduce their level of emissions unless the federal government allocates national emissions levels to states in a way that assures that the US government’s fair share of safe global emissions is not exceeded.

If the Chuitna project is justified on the basis that economic benefits to Alaska outweigh the costs, additional ethical issues can arise when such calculations aggregate costs and benefits and ignore how they are distributed among those who will be affected by climate change policies (White Paper 2006, Issue 5). For example, since cost-benefit analyses typically discount adverse impacts to future generations, there may be additional ethical issues raised by the failure of such calculations to adequately protect the interests of future generations.

Further, the duty to cease activities that harm others is not diminished if others who are contributing to the harm fail to cease their harmful behavior (White Paper 2006, Issue 5). In other words, even if the United States federal government is not taking action to limit GHG emissions this does not absolve the state of Alaska or its local municipalities for taking action to do so unless they are not exceeding their fair share of safe global GHG emissions.

B. Local Justice Issues

Because Alaska is at a high latitude its people and environment are disproportionately affected by impacts resulting from developments that exacerbate global climate change and, therefore, the state needs to seriously consider its ethical obligations to its own citizens. That is in addition to Alaska’s responsibility to others around the world to protect them from climate change, Alaska has ethical responsibilities to its own citizens in regard to climate change.

Recent and comprehensive scientific studies have documented the substantial vulnerability of high latitude regions, including places such as Alaska, to the impacts from global climate change (IPCC 2007, AC 2005). Some of the vulnerabilities include higher temperatures compared to those in more temperate or equatorial regions; higher regional mean annual rates of temperature increases of almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years; higher temperatures in the permafrost; significant melting of glaciers; and increased annual melting of Arctic sea ice up to 3.3 percent per decade with a potential loss of the ice by 2100. Some of the developed areas at greatest risk to global climate change in Alaska are coastal and low-lying indigenous communities. In addition, many salmon streams in Alaska are near the upper limits of temperature tolerance for salmon, which is an important economic and cultural resource for both indigenous peoples and the state as a whole.

Because some Alaskans more then others will likely be more greatly harmed by climate change, the State of Alaska has a duty to consider the need to protect these people in developing a response to climate change. In determining its duty to protect Alaskans from climate change it must look at Alaskan law in addition to these ethical responsibilities.

Summary

Individual projects like the Chuitna coal strip mine that have the potential to bring about local economic benefits but that also can increase global climate change raise important global and local justice issues. Because GHG emissions are transboundary, Alaska must develop and implement comprehensive energy policies that explicitly take into account the global and local justice issues that stem from conflicts between local development and protection of the global climate.

by:

John Lemons
Department of Environmental Studies
University of New England
Biddeford, ME 04005

Robert Shavelson
Inletkeeper
P.O. Box 3269
Homer, AK 99603
www.inletkeeper.org

References

Arctic Council (AC). 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Scientific Report. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Brown, D, Tuana, N., and 23 other authors. 2006. (White Paper) White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change. Rock Ethics Institute, Pennsylvania State University, PA. http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/whitepaper-intro.htm.

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policy Makers. IPCC Secretariat: c/o WMO, Geneva, Switzerland .http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Roe, S., Bailie, R.S.A., Lindquist, H., and Jamison, A. 2007. Alaska Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections, 1990 2020. Center for Climate Studies, Alaska Department of Environmental Quality, Juneau, AK.

United Nations (UN). 1948. United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

United Nations (UN). 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 1992. UN Document, A:AC237/18.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact (SEIS) for the Chuitna Coal Project in South Central Alaska. Federal Register June 9, 2006, vol. 71 (111), pg. 33446.