Environmentalists send mixed message on energy
Fracking pipes. Photo: Emma Jacobs
One of the defining debates of our time is the painful intersection between energy, the economy, and the environment.
The good news is that it turns out our planet still has plenty of readily available energy, from the tar sands of Alberta, to the coal fields of West Virginia, to the wind farms of the St. Lawrence Valley and the vast hydro complexes of Quebec.
The bad news is that almost every source of energy comes with serious consequences for the planet, the largest perhaps being the possibility of rejiggering the very chemistry of our atmosphere.
We’re like goldfish, stuck in a bowl of water that is growing slowly murkier and warmer.
Meanwhile, the push to open new sources of energy, from the Marcellus shale in central New York to new wind farms in places like Hammond, New York, has created fierce political and social fault lines.
“When you take a look at the divided town that [wind developer] Iberdrola has walked away from, there really are no winners here,” said Mary Hamilton who led the opposition to the wind power project near the Thousand Islands, which was canceled recently.
“We have people who were friends for many, many years who don’t speak to each other now and it’s going to take decades before things return to normal,” Hamilton said, in an interview with NCPR.
Here’s the problem with this debate. We know that we need energy and we need it to be available at relatively low cost if Americans are to maintain anything resembling our current standard of living.
So what’s missing from these NIMBY-style feuds is any kind of context for understanding the relative impacts, the pros and the cons of each potential type of new energy.
What are the upsides of a wind farm in the Thousand Islands vs. an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico? How does a hydro-fracking industry in central New York compare with a nuclear power industry just over the border in Ontario?
Right now, New Yorkers receive a vast amount of energy from coal-fired power plants that drive climate change, and from fuel oil extracted in parts of the world that have few environmental protections.
How does that compare with wind farms or a regulated natural gas industry in our own back yard? Right now there’s no way of knowing.
The confusing truth is that every energy project — again, with the possible exception of solar — has at least one credible environmental group fighting vehemently to shut it down. Which leaves Americans baffled about the choices we face.
So here is my modest proposal.
The environmental community, working with scientists and policy makers, should come up with a reasonably objective scale that rates the risks each particular types of new energy development.
At the lowest end of the scale — a “1” — might be efforts at conservation. Paying for insulation, higher-efficiency appliances, recycling, etc., has almost no downside.
Next on the scale would be the very greenest kinds of energy, primarily solar, which are relatively benign but require significant manufacturing efforts. That would be a “2”.
Locally produced biomass might be a “3”.
As we move up the scale, scientists and ecologists would have to sort through the upsides (and downsides) of the various energy sources at our disposal.
A type of energy that, say, cuts greenhouse gases sharply but kills some wildlife along the way might be a “4” or a “5”.
Technologies that have relatively low environmental impacts up front — like nuclear — but carry Fukishima-sized risks if things go wrong in the future might be a “6” or a “7”.
Energy that destroys mountain tops, contaminates streams and contributes to global warming might be an “8” or a “9”.
There could also be variables in the numbers to measure local versus global impacts. A power plant that emits mercury might be rated a 10-level risk locally, but only a 6 or 7 globally.
A wind farm in one region might receive a relatively low score, because threats to birds in that particular landscape are marginal, while in another place — where, say, migratory patterns raise more concerns — the risk score would be higher.
Obviously, this kind of ranking wouldn’t be an easy assignment.
It would require real science, actual data. And green groups and activists would have to put their cards on the table about the trade-offs and compromises we face. That’s controversial stuff.
Some environmentalists have already taken a stab at this kind of clarity. Vermont-based activist Bill McKibben has taken heavy fire from other green activists for his support for wind energy, which he thinks is a better option relative to fossil fuels.
“The choice, in other words, is not between windmills and untouched nature,” McKibben argues. “It’s between windmills and the destruction of the planet’s biology on a scale we can barely begin to imagine.”
Other green groups have tentatively embraced hydro, despite the destruction of river habitats, or even backed the revival of an American nuclear power industry. Those comparative arguments have triggered firestorms.
Which is healthy. This is the real-world debate about energy we need next.
Not a noisy muddle of people shouting No — and for the most part being ignored — but a much clearer environmental argument about the painful choices and trade-offs that lie ahead.
Tags: energy
.png)
I think as far as scales perhaps a logarithmic scale may be useful. Like the pH or decibel scale where to change from pH 7 to pH8 or to change from 85dB to 95dB is a factor of ten not additive of ten. I say that because of the unaccounted for expense of the technology. For instance the disposal of nuclear waste of the filling of creek valleys in West Virginia is not planned into the cost and paid for by the current users. It is kicked down the road. Strip mines in Pennsylvania have to be recalimed and only a limited amount surface can be exposed at a time which better integrates the reclamation into the progress of the mine.
Somewhere in the factors there needs to be consideration for the status quo. The structures in place whose modification requires expense beyond what the resident can afford. Renovating windows, adding insulation may be the limits of improvemt, if affordable. So on the scale, the value of coal would be improved when available for houses or purposes where it is not possible to improve other efficiency or to offer alternatives such as natural gas. While some think it dirty, others need affordability. They would be offset by cleaner installations elsewhere. Somewhere in the mix the concept of public utility needs to be drawn in to provide universal service (as was done for electricity and telephone)
All this carbon…The “vast reserves” of hydrocarbons buried in the earth in the form of coal, oil, and gas used to be a part of the living environment (the biosphere), and after we dig and pump it and burn it, it will become part of the living world again. This sounds nice but it would be a world that no human has ever seen; a world that no mammal ever survived; and a world populated by nothing we would recognize. The sea was thick and green as pea soup, the atmosphere poisonous by our standards, and it was nice and hot and humid. Microscopic life grew and multiplied faster than you could say Achoo!, and they all ate each other every few minutes. After a few million years, a lot of that stuff died off…who knows why….and sank to the bottom of the seas. Several million years later, and two or three die-offs and restarts, and the world became more like the one that we see today. The mass die-offs happened due to climatic shifts, caused by chemical changes. It doesn’t matter whether it was a volcano, a meteor, or a hiccup from the sun…you change the chemistry, everything dies.
It’s not the end of the world though…
Ken is right. fewer babies, more trees.
Well I guess it’s bad news that our emmissions of carbon is falling. Jeff is right all of the costs and benefits should be included. As far as fewer babies go and more trees once again more good news as that is the tend in the USA .
Ken, if you look at what the DOE projects are doing they will not cost but will produce profits. These are just pilot operations to test he technology at this point.
“Walker you act dissapointed that our emissions are dropping.”
Mervel, I don’t see where you read disappointment into my comment. The point is simply that, while it is a good thing that our emissions are dropping, it is not enough. In the first place it is a slight downward trend, slight enough that it is very likely to reverse as economic activity picks up again.
Here’s what the EPA has to say about our emission trends:
There are a lot of factors in play. Global warming itself will tend to drive up energy use, both in the form of reconstruction activity after storms, and from the increased heating and cooling needs as high winds and temperature extremes become more common. We’re a very long way from being out of the woods.
I should have given a better source for the quote above; it is part of a larger EPA resource at U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report.
Walker,
Oh yes I totally agree it is not the only solution or even the long term best solution. But certainly it is a dramatic change for the better. I think when we look at the kind of ratings that Brian is talking about you have to include in that rating the feasibility, economics and time frame of when you could realistically move toward usage on a grand scale. Local biomass might be fine for small part of St. Lawrence county, its not going to cut it for the largest city in the US. Also the data listed in the Slate Article were more recent that 2010. It is a VERY fluid and changing situation. That is the thing about technology you can’t predict the direction. I do think due to that fact we should not have pre conceived notions about what the solutions will be. I know that the natural gas boom and oil boom we are having in the US puts a wrench into the peak oil people’s narrative, but I think to really solve problems you can’t go into it with a particular narrative based on what we like our own politics etc. The fact is Natural gas is going to play a huge role in any reduction of greenhouse gas output that we achieve in the next 5 years.
From the Slate article I referenced above:
“Estimating on the basis of data from the US Energy Information Agency from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected CO2 emissions have declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14 percent from their peak in 2007.
The cause is an unprecedented switch to natural gas, which emits 45 percent less carbon per energy unit. The U.S. used to generate about half its electricity from coal, and roughly 20 percent from gas. Over the past five years, those numbers have changed, first slowly and now dramatically: In April of this year, coal’s share in power generation plummeted to just 32 percent, on par with gas.
Advertisement
America’s rapid switch to natural gas is the result of three decades of technological innovation, particularly the development of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which has opened up large new resources of previously inaccessible shale gas. Despite some legitimate concerns about safety, it is hard to overstate the overwhelming benefits.”
So when raking natural gas you would have to include the benefits to the country in terms of employment, income and in terms of reality, ability to make changes right now in greenhouse gases.
For me what I sadly see are people in the environmental movement that have one particular plan in mind who refuse to see any other way even at the expense of raising greenhouse gas output. What is the goal, reducing greenhouse gases or a particular way of making energy that is acceptable?
This is the source: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/archive/00351206.pdf#page=171
The question is can Solar replace coal this year? Can solar heat NYC this year? Natural gas can and it is a 45% reduction in carbon output over coal.
Lets get rid of coal 100%!
“Lets get rid of coal 100%!”
Well, you’re right, a 45% improvement over coal is non-trivial. I’m worried about fracking’s effect on ground water, though. Are the chemicals we inject to get the gas out going to dissipate somehow? Do they end up in the atmosphere? Or will the water stay tainted? And by driving energy prices down, it will encourage more consumption.
In short, I’m a bit skeptical that fracked gas constitutes the unmixed blessing some see it as.
It is not an unmixed blessing that is for sure. I think those things you mention would be a major cost of fracking in looking at how to proceed. If we really find out that the environmental costs of getting this natural gas is more than the environmental costs of coal, that would be the decision point.
I see would see it as a transitional step only.
“And by driving energy prices down, it will encourage more consumption.”
Most people use about the same amount of energy no matter what the cost is. They just have less money for other things, for example putting solar panels on their house if they wanted to. Besides adding more alternative energy sources is also going to drive prices lower. As demand for fossil fuel based sources drops with more available alternatives the price of fossil fuel based products will drop. I don’t think that we should give up on alternative energy because it will make the price of oil, gas and coal go lower. Do you? Same goes for finding bridge sources that are better for the environment.
Mike, if you can come up with a better term than “non-environmentalist” then advise me and I’ll use it. Long haired hippy freak seemed a bit verbose for my taste.
Ken, Chinas one child policy wasn’t met with criticism because of the policy of population control itself, but rather that they were killing viable babies at birth and imprisoning parents who hid their 2nd child. Evil right wing conservative that I am, I also believe in population control. But that is all about planning, not late term abortions or abortion on demand for vanities sake. Birth control is so widely and inexpensively available there is almost no excuse for not using it.
Two Cents, Tesla had some of the answers I think. I just don;t know if we have the brains to put his ideas into practice.
A little off topic, but one of the problems with not using as much coal is that our lands are often sulfur deficient now. We’ve had to resort to higher sulfur fertilizers over the past few years. Good and bad to everything.
I think they should have gone with the one old person per family rule, why pick on the kids?
“Most people use about the same amount of energy no matter what the cost is.”
Paul, you’re forgetting the seventies, when suddenly America’s “lower, longer, wider” cars with their crappy gas mileage sat on the dealer’s lots while beetles, Toyotas, diesel Rabbits and Mercedes sold strongly and people started insulating their houses. That was all because of pricey oil.
Rancid,
tesla’s ideas were for cheap and easy, not conducive to Government, or capitalism !