Here's a recent editorial I wrote for my public high school senior project, which is creating an advocacy documentary on the future of Montana's extensive coal fields. Further explanation and reflection follows the article and a trailer of the film can be seen at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5897678914620518773
I hear John Edwards at the national level advocating healthy alternatives for energy development. “We shouldn’t build another coal-fired plant in America unless we have the ability to capture the carbon,” he exclaimed in October. I see the intent of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill.
I can see Max Baucus’ credibility soaring upward when he quotes the bible in defense of protecting the environment. “The book of Genesis tells us that ‘The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and care for it,” he testifies. I see Brian Schweitzer’s vision of Montana’s future- which seems to me to be (finally) a step in the right direction for Montana energy production. “I do not want to use coal in the way we have for the past 100 years,” he said in an interview with Charlie Rose. Next thing I know, he’s proclaiming to be an environmentalist to a group of Hellgate seniors. He argues that Montana can help the United States on two fronts: we can overcome our addiction to oil and our dependency on foreign dictators by converting coal-to-liquids AND alleviate the carbon emissions from burning the coal by using environmentally-friendly technologies and sequestering the carbon underground.
This would be comforting if the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change had not concluded that by 2050, 80 percent of global emissions must be reduced. Coal would also seem ripe for the digging if I didn’t hear about the pillaging in West Virginia and Alberta, or that Montana wind has the potential to produce enough electricity for the entire state 70 times over. Coal would make sense if wind and solar energy wasn’t a very beautiful, real dream. These renewables are available whereas the critical research for carbon sequestration is billions of dollars and many mornings away. Ben Brouwer of Alternative Energy Resources Organization made it clear to me that if a fraction of the money that goes to subsidize coal research each year went into clean energy programs, our dependency on coal could be changed forever.
Next I hear the passionate James Roof, one of the leading figures behind climategroundzero.org, ask a poignant question. “When a coal company is going to rape our resources (and) make money out of selling it to Las Vegas so we can make money out of Las Vegas, we’re going to get all the environmental destruction—where’s the democracy in that?” I can identify with this statement because Montana doesn’t need the amount of coal we’re currently producing. The Energy Information Administration reports that “Just over one-fourth of Montana's coal production is used for state electricity generation… Montana delivers the remainder to more than 15 states.”
But with all these public officials and citizens speaking to me, the voice that resonates with clarity in my mind is that of Montana Public Service Commissioner, Ken Toole. In a speech he delivered in November, 2007, he brought me back to the 1930s when the United States federal government attempted to stridently safeguard the public against the interests of robber barons. Toole compared this to the task Montanans face today -- to limit carbon emissions -- and called for a return to this era by regulating the expulsion of toxins into the public atmosphere.
He couldn’t have come out with a broader, more realistic way of dealing with global warming because it has precedent. Today Montana has 120 billion tons of coal reserves (32% of those in the United States) which give us a significant say in the debate over the future of energy in this country. It also poses every Montanan with a question that University of Montana Climatologist Steve Running has perfected: does this state’s coal surplus justify digging it?
Explanation
I chose to create an editorial for the issue because after the research I’ve completed, and the lectures I’ve attended, and the interviews that I’ve conducted, it seemed like a clear way to organize my thoughts into opinions. In this editorial, I tried to map (in order from national to state to local politics) clean coal development as I see it. I hoped to influence readers by informing them about the issues and promoting a pathway. I think the most important thing that was emphasized in the piece is that Montana has a choice. It’s no simple choice and the debate rages on.
I read how to write an effective editorial in the senior project binder, which aided in the final product—basically I needed somewhere to start. I took a bit from these perameters. It was easiest to qualify the other sides of the argument and to support my opinions, because the editorial was basically a recitation of views held by others.
Reflection
I also hope that the reader notices my point of view and my apprehensions. I’m part of the younger generation, and I’m concerning myself with Montana’s physical environment first and sequestering profit second. This may come off as idealistic at first, but by writing in the opinions of Americans all the way up to John Edwards, I hoped to maintain an air of credibility. I meant what I wrote in the third paragraph: clean energy development is becoming an increasingly beautiful and realistic dream. Like most ideas, it just needs the support and funding.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
