Coal - Energy Policy Analysis: A Conceptual Framework - page 36

are affected and make their concerns known to the United States through diplomatic channels or
in the international arena, as described in Chapter 1.
SUMMARY OF COSTS
The costs of utilizing coal technologies are summarized in Figure 2.4 (see page 37) . The envi-
ronmental costs to American society of using coal must be described as high because of the loss
of productivity on destroyed and unreclaimed mined lands, contaminated water supplies, air
pollution from coal combustion, and the impacts of global climate change. Some environmental
costs of using coal are converted to dollar costs in the form of pollution control technologies and
activities, but others remain unpaid, especially for carbon emissions.
The dollar costs of utilizing coal are moderate, as compared to other energy fuels, but do not
yet reflect the full costs of controlling carbon emissions or reclaiming abandoned mined lands. The
national security costs of utilizing coal are certainly high and getting higher as other nation-states
begin to comprehend the impacts of American reliance on this fuel on global climate change, and
especially the effects of sea-level rise on island states and those with large populations in low-lying
deltaic regions. Increasing numbers of “climate change refugees” will increase instability, conflict,
and resentment toward the United States and other developed countries by putting pressure on
neighboring countries who receive them for housing, food, and public services.
REFERENCES
Axtell, K. 1978. Survey of Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines . Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Bonskowski, Richard. 2000. The U.S. Coal Industry in the 1990's: Low Prices and Record Production .
Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration. ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/coal/coalfeat.pdf.
Bonskowski, Richard, William Watson, and Fred Freme. 2006. Coal Production in the United States: An
Historical Overview . Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration. www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/
coal/page/coal_production_review.pdf.
Chalekode, P.K., and T.R. Blackwood. 1978. Source Assessment: Coal Refuse Piles, Abandoned Mines, and
Outcrops, State-of-the-Art . Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Christman, R.C., J. Haslbeck, B. Sedlik, W. Murray, and W. Wilson. 1980. Activities, Effects and Impacts of
the Coal Fuel Cycle for a 1,000-MWe Electric Power Generating Plant. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S. Code §§ 7401-7671q.
Clean Water Act. 33 U.S. Code §§ 1251-1387.
Davies, J. Clarence, and Barbara S. Davies. 1975. The Politics of Pollution , 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Pegasus.
Davis, David H. 1993. Energy Politics , 4th ed. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Dewan, Shaila. 2008. “Coal Ash Spill Revives Issue of Its Hazards.” New York Times , December 24.
Dunrud, C.R. 1976. “Some Engineering Geologic Factors Controlling Coal Mine Subsidence in Utah and
Colorado.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 969. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Dvorak, Anthony J. 1977. The Environmental Effects of Using Coal for Generating Electricity . Argonne,
IL: Argonne National Laboratory.
Epstein, Paul R., Jonathan Buonocore, Kevin Eckerle, Michael Hendryx, Benjamin M. Stout III, Richard
Heinberg, and Richard W. Clapp. 2011. “Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal.” Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences 1219: 73-98.
Fausset, Richard. 2009. “Residents Fear Repercussions of Massive Tennessee Coal Ash Spill.” Chicago
Tribune , January 1.
Hamilton, Michael S. 2005. Mining Environmental Policy: Comparing Indonesia and the USA . Burlington,
VT: Ashgate.
Hamilton, Michael S., and Norman I. Wengert. 1980. Environmental, Legal and Political Constraints on