The last few weeks have not brought good news for those of us wanting a future powered by clean energy. The southern portion of the TransCanada pipeline is under construction. On top of that, New York State will lift its moratorium and allow fracking to occur in the state. If things continue along this path, not only will we miss out on the economic opportunity of renewables, we will also be forced to bear the substantial economic and environmental costs of extreme energy.
Fracking and tar sands are considered to be extreme forms of energy because of the amount of time, cost and destruction that go into extracting the resources. Oil and gas reserves that were easily accessible are largely tapped out and as energy prices increased, these more extreme and expensive forms of extraction became more viable. In the case of fracking, large volumes of toxic chemicals and water are injected into the ground to release natural gas in shale deposits. Tar sand mining uses open pits that destroy large surface areas and require enormous amounts of water.
The environmental consequences from extreme energy sources are well documented. Fracking causes several environmental hazards, including polluting water supplies, increasing earthquake risks in areas not normally prone to earthquakes, and making tap water flammable. Not only is tar sand mining dangerous, the pipelines that carry the oil spilt over 800,000 gallons of oil in Wisconsin and Michigan in just two years causing substantial environmental and economic damages to communities. These examples show just a fraction of the costs that will be imposed by an extreme energy future.
Of course, not everyone will bear these costs. The fracking industry, for one, is looking to profit handsomely, especially now that it can expand into New York. While TransCanada's profits fell last quarter, it still managed to pay out C$272 million to shareholders and have total revenue of C$1.8 billion. At the same time, the job creation and economic development promises these companies make to the impacted communities are unlikely to come through. Cornell's Global Labor Institute definitively debunked TransCanada's job creation number and the idea that fracking creates great, local jobs is a myth, as seen by the inability of fracking operations in Pennsylvania to deliver on the level of local job creation promised.
In order to guarantee these profits, the oil and gas industry spends a large amount of money lobbying and buying influence. In 2011, the oil and gas lobby spent nearly $150 million on lobbying. This year, they've already spent over $70 million. These numbers don't include the millions of additional dollars spent on campaign contributions either directly to candidates or to outside spending groups. Considering the amount of money they will make from an extreme energy future, it is a worthwhile investment. Not only does money talk, it makes policy.
Yet, it doesn't have to be this way. If our elected officials made policy decisions based on what was in the public- not private- interest, we would see meaningful investments in clean, renewable energy production. Renewable energy investments produce far more jobs and economic development than the extreme energy alternatives. And, as an added bonus, renewable energy production doesn't pollute water sources, increase earthquake risks, or make tap water flammable.
Creating an energy future that results in more jobs and no flammable tap water seems like a good idea to me. It's a shame most of our elected officials don't seem to agree.
This post is part of the HuffPost Shadow Conventions 2012, a series spotlighting three issues that are not being discussed at the national GOP and Democratic conventions: The Drug War, Poverty in America, and Money in Politics.
HuffPost Live will be taking a comprehensive look at the corrupting influence of money on our politics August 29th and September 5th from 12-4 pm ET and 6-10 pm ET. Click here to check it out -- and join the conversation.
Follow J. Mijin Cha on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jmijincha
Energy Independence!
stopping this :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DennisearlBaker/2012-a-breakthrough-for-r_b_1263543_135881292.html …
Overtone this system does not require cooling as in traditional nuclear energy extraction therefore the point is moot
There is a 12.5% chance of a strong solar storm causing blackouts lasting for months between now and 2020.
That opens the door to a nuclear nightmare, as nuclear plants without grid power for a couple of weeks can become meltdown candidates.
New technology can protect the grid (I have no financial involvement). If installed fast enough, on a sufficient scale, it can prevent the worst.
Decentralized energy generation will also help. 50 million solar roofs are a good place to start.
A bold program with strong leadership might save many millions of lives and the nation itself.
Survival is the unrecognized issue as we move toward a solar maximum next year.
And that is a motivation that might change the entire energy landscape once the threat is widely understood and believed.
Actually, we need more than that. We first need the Pres to inform the country that we are in a state of freaking global emergency and bring the military home from wherever and put them to work with industry to achieve a goal of being __% renewable energy by 2015 and off the oil teat by 2020. Then you'd see the oil boys start to put dollars into green energy instead of suicidal oil and gas. (They’re just like the Auto Boys in 2008, who never saw IT coming.)
But the war they're waging against renewables is doomed. They will run out of fuel, or they will run us out of patience with inhaling their 'externalities'. And at that point, whoever has sunk the most effective investment and research into other forms of energy wins.
It'd be nice if that were America for a change, moving ahead instead of clinging to a soot-choked legacy of greed and despair.
No, they are considered "extreme energy" by the fine folks at Demos because that makes it sound evil. No mention is made of the difficulty extracting rare Earth metals that are used in wind turbines or electric car batteries; are those not similarly "extreme" processes?
Ms. Cha and company may want to pretend that jobs in the fossil fuel industry are fleeting or poor, but they are cetainly better than the green jobs, which simply disappear upon withdrawl of federal funding. Remember, the federal government subsidizes green energy a factor of 100 more than fossil fuels for each kilowatt hour of energy. This is exactly the kind of half-truth hit piece that gives the green movement a bad name.
In the real world, you're expected to defend your claims using facts and reason. Please join me there.
These tree hugging extremists are in a total disconnect from reality and what is necessary to keep America running "RIGHT NOW"....... It is a sad fact that China produces less expensive solar panels...And, for every barrel of foreign oil we buy, we are funding regimes -often terrorists who hate America and our freedom- that want to destroy us.
Ms. Cha's suggested alternatives are not economically feasible for the HERE AND NOW... Believe me, I want to see America unshackled from the murderous,backwards,misogynist camel taxis in the middle east..............
The only way to make that happen is to tap into America's proven resources, tell the economically challenged ( economies of scale, clueless 'greenies') tree huggers to learn the meaning of "realistic" and for the US government to offer unlimited tax breaks/exemption for companies that can create viable alternative energy solutions that will bring poverty and ruin to the garbage and trash known as the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia
How much are the usage mandates, forcing power companies (and ultimately,the end consumers) to buy higher cost solar and wind energy production, worth to the solar & wind folks?
What's the value of the tax credits issued to purchasers of solar & wind electricity generator installations?
How much do the manufacturers of solar and wind equipment pay to lobby Congress for these taxpayer and consumer cash extractions?
If we are going to decry lobbying for special favors, then decry all of it, not just the portion that doesn't fit your POV.
"Tax breaks for me, but none for thee!"....
you know who is NOT getting any help? the american taxpayer/ratepayer who wants to put solar panels on their roof and get away from Big Energy and Big Government rape of our open spaces and our economy. every libertarian with half a brain agrees that local, reliable, democratically-owned energy solutions are far better for this country than centralized, stalinist Big Energy infrastructure that kills our wilderness and harms our health.
you should be fighting much harder for energy independence and energy democracy instead of parsing between one form of energy slavery and another.
Why should you and I have to pay for either one?
Energy independence is as foolish a concept as "food Independence" or "clothing independence". You want energy "democracy"? - fine - you pay for yours, I'll pay for mine.
Extreme ... really.
We've also been fracking since the fifties.
Maybe I now know why they called that game Simple Simon, or was that just a metaphore thing?
That not happening now?
The key to expanding a consumer base is to find new markets, lower the price or offer a superior value at the same price. Business 101...
So many here post about shipping it to China without knowing if China has the infrastructure to process this type of oil, discounts logistics and shipping costs etc. Gee whiz, have you looked at Natural Gas prices lately in the US versus Europe and Asia? Natural Gas prices are the lowest they been in Modern history, how the hell can you say the consumers are not seeing lower prices? Do you know or understand the implications of WTI being prices under Brent and Maya? Do you know of the job boom and taxes paid by the resurgent Oil and Gas industry? If people like you did not have a dogmatic and evangelical opposition to fossil fuels we could have a coherent policy that uses our resources, employees our people in high paying jobs, taxes the proceeds and uses that money to fund Manhattan project on renewables.