Jan 23 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Jonathan Rivoli The Bismarck Tribune, N.D.

You can't see it or smell it as it rises from smokestacks into the clear blue sky above the prairie. But to an increasing number of policymakers around the world, carbon dioxide emissions have become a very tangible concern.

CO2 emissions from cars and coal power plants like the ones in North Dakota are considered by many scientists to be a chief cause of global warming. The science is complicated, and will be covered in much greater depth later in this series, but the basics are this: as more CO2 is emitted it causes a thickening of the atmosphere that traps the sun's heat.

Now that the problem is becoming more widely understood, the question becomes how to stop it. The most obvious solution -- regulating CO2 emissions -- is gaining traction from Brussels, Belgium, to St. Paul, Minn. But both environmental groups and the coal industry agree that such regulation will hurt the coal business and its customers.

For western North Dakota -- where coal mining and power plant jobs are a way of life for some and an indirect economic boon for all -- the decisions made over the next few years could have a major impact.

The CO2 issue is addressed by a disorganized and sometimes contradictory patchwork of state regulations and voluntary regional partnerships. In Minnesota, for example, the state Public Utilities Commission will soon require utilities to include the environmental cost per ton of carbon used in production when calculaitng the expected cost of operations during the plant approval process. Here in North Dakota, a law forbids the Public Service Commission from considering such issues in utility regulation.

Evidence is mounting, however, that this patchwork system could soon give way to a stricter system of national or international regulation.

In November, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that "urgent, global action" is necessary to head off a future temperature change that could lead to famines and natural disasters. The report, a product of 2,500 government-appointed scientists from around the world, found that an 85 percent reduction in CO2 emissions is needed to head off such a future.

In the U.S., a Senate subcommittee voted in November to approve a cap-and-trade system designed to start in 2012 and gradually cover 73 percent of carbon emissions by 2036.

Such a system would have the government issue permits for CO2 emissions up to a certain level and then let companies trade those permits to create a financial incentive for CO2 reduction. The alternative idea of a carbon tax would assign a direct government-administered cost to CO2 emissions. The destination of those possible tax revenues is in dispute. A few of the options are to place them in the federal treasury, rebate them to taxpayers and financing environmental programs.

"The coal industry will continue to operate; it will just have to operate differently than it does today," said Steve Van Dyke, communications director of the Lignite Energy Council.

Van Dyke said new regulations will lead to higher energy costs, especially if done hastily and without consideration for the technological abilities of utility companies.

Environmental advocates agree that there will be economic consequences of regulating CO2, but view the regulation as a necessary step.

Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club, said the short-term pain of higher electricity rates and coal industry job losses doesn't approach the level of long-term pain from long term global climate change.

"I think it's now become quite inevitable that something will be done," he said.

Dorner, whose organization is leading a "Stop the Coal Rush" campaign, said some simple changes in state energy use regulations can mitigate the need for new coal plants.

Robert White, an Emerado resident and member of the Dakota Resource Council, said he sees no other way to reduce CO2 emissions on a large scale than to wean North Dakota and the nation off coal-fired power. The state should be seriously looking into alternatives like wind and hydrogen power to preserve the future that we hand to our children.

"They are going to be the recipients of what we leave them, and I certainly believe this climate change threat is very, very serious," White said. "The world we live in comfortably now may not be as comfortable."

If this path is followed, states like North Dakota will feel the biggest immediate impact.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the state gets 93 percent of its electricity from coal -- a ratio that, despite much-hyped alternative energy projects over the last few years, remains unchanged from 1990. In addition to producing most of its own power, North Dakota uses its coal to send power to neighboring states like Minnesota.

The production of all this coal-generated electricity energizes the region's economy. In Oliver and Mercer counties, the heart of coal country, the industry accounts for nearly 41 percent of all employment and 66 percent of wages earned, according to data compiled from Job Service North Dakota and local economic development officials. It pumps more than $43 million in wages alone into those counties' economies.

Indeed, coal is the lifeblood of places like Washburn and Underwood, where the nearby Coal Creek Station Power Plant and Falkirk mine are at the center of life.

For people like Hank Rasmusson, an Underwood resident who has owned a small gas station near the center of town since the 1960s, decisions made half a continent or half a world away could have a big effect on life.

"It could have a tremendous impact," Rasmusson said. "I could lock up, that's what could happen."

Rasmusson, 66, said many of his customers at R and S Oil Co. work at the nearby mines and power plants. A contraction in the coal industry means many of them might not stick around Underwood to shop at his store, he said.

The exact regional impact will depend on the specifics of the regulation and how utilities choose to respond.

Van Dyke of the Lignite Energy Council said the industry can adapt well to any of the potential regulatory schemes if it's given the adequate time and technology to do so. He suggested that the government should be spending money on research and development of CO2 reduction and capture technology to help utilities cope with the regulations it could impose.

At least one major utility is already considering increased CO2 regulation as a given. Great River Energy, owner of North Dakota's largest power plant -- Coal Creek Station in Beulah -- is working carbon regulation into its business plans for the future as it decides what energy sources to pursue and what kinds of plants to build.

Gary Connett, the utility's director of environmental stewardship and member services, said it's a logical step even though the timeline and details of regulation remain unknown.

"We can't blindly consider our future without the cost of carbon," he said.