This week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will explore the effects of America’s energy exports. From shale gas to Western coal, demand for American energy resources is creating a new trade wind for America. Previous hearings on this subject have overlooked another major U.S. trade industry that stands to benefit from more exports: agriculture. One doesn’t naturally put together that agricultural exports and energy resources like coal could go hand-in-hand. But in the upper Northwest, a region that stands to gain substantially from energy exports, nothing could be further from the truth.
Sometimes the “law of unintended consequences” can surprise us with benefits or losses far greater than we’d normally expect. We all know that America’s farmers are the most productive in the world. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. Census Bureau reported agricultural exports valued at almost $34 billion. To put that into context, 20 years earlier total exports exceeded $16.6 billion. Since that time, exports have more than doubled
On another axis, U.S. exports of coal are growing as well. It turns out that while coal utilization is decreasing in the U.S., there is a substantial need for new, reliable, affordable energy in the fast-growing economies of Asia.
Here’s where the “unintended consequences” come into play. The largest cost factor in generating new markets for exporting agricultural goods is shipping. Getting corn or beans from a farmer’s field to Cambodia or Singapore takes a lot of steps via trucks, trains and boats. The more efficient that route can become, the better the deal for both the farmer and the buyer. And ultimately, the faster route benefits the consumer who receives fresher produce and grains much more quickly.
Having a purpose-built port on the Northwest coast would be a major benefit to farmers who need to reach export markets as efficiently as possible. Right now, there are three proposals on the drawing board to expand several ports in Washington and Oregon to load coal onto large carriers for shipment to Asia via railroads.
A recent Washington Farm Bureau study evaluating the upstream benefits of coal exports to other shippers found that existing impact studies had likely overlooked the benefits the projects would have to other industries, such as agriculture. The same tracks that would carry the coal are also filled with trains that transport America’s agricultural products from out west. The same port that would export the coal would be the port that could efficiently handle those agricultural products.
In examining these efficiencies, the study concluded that investments from coal were likely to lower costs to other shippers and make the export of other bulk commodities from the Northwest more competitive.
Right now, ports with the capability to handle agricultural products are limited in the Northwest. With coal exports, new doors are opened for agriculture and new investment will benefit all industries using the affected ports.
This opportunity should be a no-brainer for everyone. However, those opposed to fossil fuels are attempting to slow, and even halt, the authorization process through needless studies and pleas to the White House. Opposition groups are failing to realize that blocking the coal export terminals would negatively impact other industries.
Former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., candidate for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, holds his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem as he waits to take the stage for his town hall campaign rally with Sen. John McCain at the Pinkerton Academy in Derry, N.H., on Monday, Aug. 18, 2014.