Tap all sources of energy

One of the more troubling aspects of the public policy debate surrounding global warming is that many do not want to consider all of the facts.

Instead, much of the discussion has included half-truths and flimsy assumptions. As a result, many of the policy initiatives have been counterproductive. Exhibit A is the new emission standards coming from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which will effectively force hundreds of coal-fired power plants to close.

In a perfect world, the United States would be energy-independent and there would be no environmental concerns from cars, trains, factories, and electric generation. That world obviously doesn't exist.

But that has not stopped federal regulators from directly targeting the coal industry. The EPA seems to think that eliminating coal from our nation's energy mix will solve all of the world's environmental problems. That would not be the case even if the EPA were successful in its misguided mission.

The bigger problem is that no one at the EPA seems to be weighing the full impact of the proposed regulations. The truth is this: 40 percent of the electricity in the United States comes from coal.

The reason coal remains the predominant source of electric generation today is because of its low price, reliability, and abundance. There is no readily available alternative to replace the use of coal within the next decade.

More broadly, removing coal from this country's energy mix would have severe economic consequences. In Pennsylvania alone, the coal industry is responsible for more than 36,000 full- and part-time jobs. Coal mining and related activities contribute $4.1 billion to the commonwealth's gross domestic product.

Family-sustaining jobs in the coal industry are critical to the health of our economy. The new federal emission standards will result in the loss of thousands of jobs. They will also drive up energy costs for homeowners and businesses. The result will be higher prices for many goods and services.

Such a move would put the United States at a global competitive disadvantage. The result would be tantamount to unilateral economic disarmament.

Simply put, both the United States and Pennsylvania will need electric power in quantities that only coal can reliably deliver at costs that only coal can reliably promise.

The severity of last winter exposed a weakness in our thinking about the adequacy and reliability of our power supply. Most of the alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power, could not meet all of the energy demands of such a long, cold winter. There will be dire economic and quality-of-life consequences if we fail to heed the warning.

More broadly, the new emission standards will ultimately have little impact in reducing global carbon emissions as other countries increase their reliance on coal. At the same time, forcing the shutdown of many plants will dash any hope for the advancement of clean-coal technology.

Rather than waste time debating misinformation, we all need to work together to come up with substantive and balanced solutions that chart a sustainable course for our future energy needs.

We do not need to choose between environmental quality and reliable, affordable electricity. We can have both if we work together to assure that "all of the above" means exactly that.

Selectively ignoring facts, relying on flimsy assumptions, and concocting an array of half-truths has led us down a counterproductive path as we purport to be working to chart a sustainable course for our future through energy and environmental policy initiatives.

Every existing fuel source has a place in our energy portfolio. While each energy source has its strengths, each also has glaring weaknesses, and, because of the latter, no one source will dominate the energy market in the immediate future.

To achieve our ultimate goal of energy independence, we need to tap all of our indigenous sources. There is no one panacea, and no source can be left behind.