The convenient truth is that everyone is lobbying for green positioning. But if facts are constantly skewed and lack accurate information, finding any path to a sustainable energy policy will be impossible.
Consider this: If China continues to proliferate coal generated power plants at its current rate, by 2030 the country will emit more noxious gases and pollutants than the rest of the world combined. I doubt American hotels can mitigate this potential damage by chiding guests to use the same towels and sheets for more than a day.
The other day I read a study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) stating that at our current rate of consumption our natural gas reserves will be tapped out within 10 years. A few days later another study by Stratfor, a prominent intelligence source, reported that with new recovery methods and new fields, we have enough natural gas to last for more than 50 years. Neither study made reference to this tidbit: We currently import at least 10% of our natural gas.
I enjoyed the video commercials by T. Boone Pickens boosting wind energy and also mentioning that Americans paid $750 billion for imported oil to countries hostile to the United States. That figure was based on crude oil prices almost a year ago and has since been cut by more than half. Canada is our largest source of imported oil. Mexico is also a primary supplier. Implying these countries are akin to Middle East nations is grossly misrepresentative, and yet I have heard numerous politicians mimicking Mr. Pickens as an omnipotent authority.
I like the commercial extolling America’s 200-year supply of coal. That is likely true except the majority of coal mined east of the Mississippi is deemed too polluting for use in our power facilities because of the high sulphur content. Many power companies need to import higher quality coal to blend for electrical generation to remain within EPA standards. Fortunately, the United States is able to export most of this low-quality coal to India and China so that the acrid by-products remain far from American shores until a prevailing wind carries it back home.
Clean coal technology is all but impossible, but cleaner coal technology has been in place for more than two decades. Power companies have reduced emissions by nearly 50% –not ideal—but those reductions will continue.
The Cap and Trade system in Europe has had no effect on lowering pollution in Europe. Jesse Ellison of Time magazine wrote, “The similarity between sales of carbon offsets and medieval church indulgences is striking, not least because there’s about equal proof that the two actually work.”
Then there’s ethanol –it takes 450 pounds of corn to fill a 25-gallon tank not to mention the carbon footprint for processing and transportation. Incidentally, the same amount of corn provides enough calories to feed a person for one year.
What about offshore drilling? Two of the most environmentally sensitive countries, Norway and Denmark have had gas and oil rigs operating in their coastal waters for more than 30 years. It has brought wealth not pollution to these countries.
Conflicting GREENWASHING tactics not only confuse the public, but apparently confuse many in Washington. A sensible energy policy needs to be based on facts about our fossil fuel reserves and the realistic economic and environmental impact of renewable sources.
June 23, 2009 at 1:01 am |
Lou –
You have obviously done quite a bit of research and have provided a lot of food for thought. Like most everything else these days – there is no “magic “bullet” or one simple solution. Thanks for addressing this issue and pointing out some of the complexities. I wonder what your thoughts are about solar power in all of this mix?
Joanie
June 23, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
Dear Joanie,
Solar power is not economical on a large scale at this moment, but eventually technical improvements will make it more competitive. I was watching a show recently (not on the FOX network) that examined a recent solar site that encompassed about a square mile in the desert. At the end of the show a native Indian brought to the forefront that tracts of the fragile desert eco-system were being destroyed and the facility being shown was draining over 3 billion gallons of water/annum from the local aquifer.
There is no magic solution but there are solutions to get us off the dependency on foreign fossil fuels and domestic coal.
The nuclear option has been taken off the table by the current administration and that source produces no emissions but represents a spent fuel problem. Technology may be able to solve the latter.
From my perspective, both sides of the aisle have little understanding of the oil markets, power generation complexities and the worldwide demand creating continual pressure on fossil fuels. If one does not understand intricacies of any problem then intelligent programs cannot be enacted. On top of that, add the coal lobby, the electricity producer lobby, the oil lobby, the environmental lobby and the special interest voting blocks. The result will be a direction that tries to satisfy all the different elements instead of creating a balanced long term plan.
The term GREENWASHING was not coined by me, but it has become an advertising gimmick that makes people feel good about a particular product. Claims are often fraudulent and reminiscent of processed food that suddenly became ‘low fat’ or ‘new improved’.
There is an abundance of bad or incorrect information being disseminated and most of it seems to be gobbled up by an eager public.
Best regards,
Lou
June 23, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
Greenwashing is a serious issue for both policy-makers seeking facts and consumers seeking to do the right thing in their buying. As always, caveat emptor should reign. Energy, food and recyclable/biodegradable products seem especially susceptible to hype these days and it behooves consumers and policy makers to stay ahead of the marketing babble but more importantly learn to make trade-offs since no purchasing action we take is without consequences. We make social, environmental and economic trade-offs in the name of sustainable living every day. I try, like the old adage advises, to act with a nod to local consequences but it gets harder to do these days. Consider the challenges of buying food among the local, organic, small supplier and affordable choices that are out there. There always seems to be a trade-off between the environmentally and healthy choice and the price. The same goes with energy. The upfront investment is so high for alternatives – and locally produced energy – that we end up sticking with the old models and trying to rationalize their use.
June 23, 2009 at 7:51 pm |
Dear Kathy,
In urban population centers less than 1% of the food consumed is grown locally and real carbon footprints are ignored. Fruits and vegetables from halfway around the world flown or shipped to markets may be healthy for an individual but may actually hurt the environment. You can’t have your kiwi and eat it too.
Ethanol is a disaster but if legislation were passed mandating new facilities must be built within proximity of the feedstock and only areas where ethanol is produced will require blending with gasoline, the transportation saving alone would be enormous and the carbon footprint minimal.
Energy and pollution are currently symbiotic and conceptually that engagement can be broken with some long term planning and some pain endured by everyone. If a goal is established 30 years hence, do we allow the government to mandate or let market forces take us there or a combination of both? An intelligent transition not only with ideas that are possible, but ideas that are practical requires a fine balance. The lack of leadership with foresight and expertise is troubling because people tend to only look at facts that suit their energy or environmental position.
Regards,
Lou
June 30, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
You have written some good pieces, but “Greenwashing” is one of your best. As I reply, I’m listening to the TV report on the House of Representatives’ passing of the “cap and trade” bill. Once again, this 1300 page bill had few if any readers prior to the vote. I wonder what we pay these guys for. Not only does the taxpayer pay salaries, expenses and retirement benefits of congressional members, but we also pay the same for the twenty aids each Congressman has. It would seem that if they don’t even read bills prior to voting, maybe we should revisit this expense.
If this bill passes the Senate, there isn’t one element of our economy that will not be negatively affected. This legislation is an economy wrecker. Over the weekend, John Salazar said that in voting against the cap and trade he will get criticism from the left. He claims that he was in a no win situation. Frankly, he should be concerned more for his constituents winning. I believe that he did the right thing voting against this bad bill.
I can only hope that Salazar made his choice based on sound science and critical thinking.
As for you, Lou, nice work. I can only hope that the entire community took the time to read your thorough and compelling essay.
June 30, 2009 at 11:49 pm |
Dear Joe,
Thank you for the compliment. I strongly believe we need to address all the issues of pollution which includes particles, industrial waste disposal and even greenhouse gases. However, it needs to be done through science and not by policy that is driven by emotions or by distorted facts. It also needs to be done by a consensus of countries and through a process that doesn’t impede anyone’s economy. This is like threading a needle – not an easy task.
The Cap and Trade legislation has been a dismal failure in Europe. We can do better and we can lead the world with incredible innovation but it needs to be done in an intelligent manner and with concern about our current fragile economy.
Regards,
Lou