Common Cents Approach to Energy Policy

I’m looking forward to your comments on important environmental issues and society’s impact on them. The effects of socialization and the habits fostered by groups around us are well known. Does meaningful change start with changes in our individual lifestyles, changes in the laws that govern us, external changes in supply and demand or a combination of all three?

I also look forward to reading your comments on the energy proposals of our presidential candidates. Please read mine below regarding different approaches to our energy crisis and what I believe each option’s impacts will be for the planet, as well as its potential for rapid implementation and job creation.

A U.S. energy policy that balances present and future needs must be feasible and affordable in the short term, while rapidly reducing carbon emissions, which would also cut dependence on foreign fuels and improve the balance of trade. It will create many “green” jobs, from installing weather-stripping to high-level research positions and distributed ownership of energy generation systems. It will improve states’ self-determination.

This energy smorgasbord will use the same mechanisms of federal assistance previously provided to the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries. However, the new energy policy must powerfully override these industries’ vested interests when they do not demonstrate long- and short-term financial and environmental benefits.

Though we have vast coal reserves, coal-burning generating plants are unacceptable sources of carbon dioxide. In northwest New Mexico, activists are battling to prevent another coal-burning plant, which would provide electricity to several states, while benefiting its investors, and providing some local jobs. However, it would offset all other efforts in the state to reduce carbon emissions. How can the U.S. influence China to reduce its use of coal-generated energy if the U.S. does not curtail its own? While “clean coal” has become a buzzword, large-scale carbon sequestration projects have not been successfully tested and present major safety and liability issues. In the short-term, “clean” coal does not exist and dirty coal continues to cook the planet.

Let’s consider nuclear power, which can create immense amounts of power from one location without greenhouse gases. But there are huge risks, including the health of uranium miners, and dangers to communities from radioactive mine tailings may contaminate water supplies. Shall we blithely create risk to future generations from nuclear waste that must be transported and stored with passionate caution for tens of thousands of years? There is also the risk of highly visible terrorism targets and the potential for a meltdown. Nuclear power’s financial benefits accrue largely to utilities and nuclear plant builders, such as GE. After construction, few employees benefit. Plus, these plants are expensive (say $10 billion apiece) and construction should not be rushed. Nuclear power has undeniable liabilities, and is neither an immediate nor inexpensive solution.

On the other hand, wind and solar power are finally economically feasible, have no carbon emissions, and few environmental risks compared to nuclear. They can create widespread ownership of power generation. These industries’ primary problem is lack of capital and political clout, which they need to ramp up more quickly. Otherwise, their viability and safety have now been established. They also have the potential to create large numbers of jobs.

Research on biofuels now reveals the potential of non-food feedstocks for creation of ethanol with easy-to-grow non-food “crops” such as algae and switchgrass. These biofuels can be ramped up even more quickly, with only minor environmental impacts, and can also create jobs nationwide in the fuels’ growing and processing. By blending biofuels with gasoline in current vehicles, dependence on foreign fossil fuels can be reduced, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The combination of rapid ramp-up and minimal environmental consequence should make biofuels a high national energy priority.

The question of offshore oil drilling’s potential, perhaps the most controversial of current energy options, has been manipulated to present it as a viable short term option. Permitting and construction of new oil platforms requires years and safety precautions should not be circumvented. Although political opposition to offshore drilling has softened, that does not make it a short term solution, nor would offshore oil development reduce green house gases. Finally, oil spills and accidents do happen with impacts on beaches, tourism, fishing and wildlife habitat. The damage to local and regional economies can be immense, while the number of jobs created by offshore oil drilling is low.

The greatest area of short term energy “creation” is energy conservation. It is the easiest to implement, and with incentives from state and federal government, could create a huge number of jobs rapidly. Fully 50 percent of U.S. energy use is in buildings. Every building in the U.S. should be weatherized. It would revitalize the construction trades, increase real estate values, and could dramatically reduce our use of heating oil and natural gas. It’s the smartest, safest and fastest way to address our energy crisis while new technologies and other solutions are implemented.

Though the two presidential candidates’ energy policies include many of these components, they’re both offering false hope with regard to “clean” coal, and McCain’s emphasis on nuclear power benefits nuclear power companies at the expense of future generations. And offshore oil drilling? As long as it’s a state’s decision, I think Californians will make wiser decisions than the federal government.