A Promising Transition or The Death of Renewables

Last month's Atlantic featured a thoughtful analysis of natural gas and it's affect on the economy. The article discusses the unfortunate past, transitional present, and dubious future of energy:

Past:
Fuel: Coal --> Oil
Politics: In 1913, Winston Churchill pushed to convert Great Britain from coal to oil, a campaign which embedded the West within the heart of the Middle East. Dependence on foreign oil was born. In an effort to stabilize oil supply, Western leaders meddled in regional affairs, supporting welcoming leaders and ousting the rest. While our oil supply was being controlled, the economic and civic strength of these countries was compromised, causing destabilization that produced millions of disaffected middle easterners, some of whom have since lashed back at America.

Present:
Fuel: Oil --> Natural Gas
Politics: Natural gas is clearly a political win. Because America has a lot of it, the concern over foreign oil dependence may soon end. Not only that, but natural gas could play a role in economic recovery. The peak oil debate is no longer relevant. Improving technologies will likely lead to a nearly endless supply of fossil fuels, regardless of source or form. Reversely, cheap, bountiful natural gas makes renewable energy a lot less competitive.

Future:
Fuel: Natural Gas, Renewables, or Both
Politics: The question is, will natural gas become our main energy source or will it act as the gateway to a more sustainable future? Carbon emissions need to be all but eliminated in order to combat climate change, and settling on natural gas could be our undoing.


Some Background: Natural Gas and Fracking

Livestock are responsible for approximately 30% of US methane emissions.

Currently, natural gas is obtained through a process called fracking (hydraulic fracturing), which uses a horizontal drill and a high pressure slurry (water, chemicals, sand, etc) to extract methane from shale rock. I don't protest natural gas, nor do I advocate it. My only hope is that we don't suffer from the Trojan horse effect.

Pros:
1. It has the potential of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. As stability in the Middle East becomes increasingly tenuous, this is essential.
2. Natural gas burns cleaner than oil and coal. CO2 emissions in the US have decreased 12% over the last 7 years, due in part to the natural gas boom.
3. Natural gas has an EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of 87, as compared to 4-7 for tar sands, and 12-18 for OPEC oil. Though these exact numbers may be debated, natural gas is typically the leader.
4. Natural gas is bountiful and cheap, which may aid US economic recovery.

Cons:
1. Despite some claims that methane leaks from fracking are minimal, actual field tests have not been completed. Some large, undiscovered leaks could lead to significant releases of methane, a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
2. The high pressure extraction liquids used in fracking could contaminate surrounding areas. While rules on concrete well casings have been established, the BLM (National Bureau of Land Management) is not requiring companies to post a complete list of chemicals if they are considered trade secrets. Furthermore, all chemical reporting does not  need to be completed until AFTER wells have been tapped.
3. There is not yet enough historical data to prove that methane won't leak through the fissures up into the soil, for which there are no protections in place.
  

Party Politics and Peter Rouse (Obama's new Chief of Staff)

The History:
The very first day of my Environmental Law & Policy class, my (undisclosed party) professor brought up the topic of environmental party lines. I had never cared to look into before; it was assumed that besides the occasional crossover, Democrats were for environmental issues and Republicans were against. Obviously, it's not that simple. Which party do you think was responsible for environmental protection and emissions control? Who were the original environmentalists? Contrary to what I always thought, they were Republicans.

1st National Park (Yellowstone): President Theodore Roosevelt, Republican, 1872
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): President Richard Nixon, Republican, 1970
Clean Air Act (extension): President Richard Nixon, 1970
Clean Water Act: President Richard Nixon, 1972
Endangered Species Act: President Richard Nixon, 1973
Resource Conservation Recovery Act:  President Jimmy Carter, Democrat, 1976
CERCLA (Superfund): President Ronald Reagan, Republican, 1980

Or were they? Although legislation was passed under Republican presidents, environmental legislation had the support of both Republicans AND Democrats. Environmental safety and protection was common ground. So, where did we go wrong? What caused the bipartisanship of the past to yield the ugly divide that exists today? Our class brainstormed some answers, and these were my favorites:

• Unobservable consequences - In the past, signs of environmental degradation and threat to human health were clear as  rivers catching on fire. With climate change, the effects are less obvious. Different regions will experience different symptoms and to different degrees.
• Hard economic times - In the 70's, 80's and 90's, environmental issues were not clouded by today's economic depression, which causes us to focus on personal and financial issues.
• No united national front - The generations that lived through WWII and the Cold War shared a common national experience, which bonded them and fostered collaboration. Now, the parties are at each other's throats.

Today:
Climate change legislations just can't seem to come through. The promising bill proposed by Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham was like a Senate hot-potato. People showed interest but didn't want to get burned, and Obama's absence was palpable. While two wars couldn't unite us, I had hoped climate change would. Instead, it proves to be one of the most divisive issues of them all.

A Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent walk into a bar...
Three unlikely friends came together to form a climate super team, nicknamed the "Three Amigos": Kerry (D), Lieberman (I), and Graham (R). These three politicians set aside past rivalries and hurt feelings to fight, tooth and nail, for the passage of a climate bill. They fought hard for votes in the Senate. They called up T. Boone Pickens and big oil. They compromised. By offering to include legislation such as offshore drilling allowances, nuclear loan guarantees, and natural gas benefits, KGL (Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman) were able to accrue support from both industry and Senate Republicans. So, why are we not currently in the process of instituting cap-and-trade? While the Senators were negotiating hard behind the scenes, Obama stole any ounce of bargaining power they had by announcing nuclear loan guarantees and the expansion of offshore drilling rights. Ryan Lizza said it best, "Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach." Once the phrase "carbon-tax" caught hold, a YouTube viral video accused Graham of being gay, and KGL lost G, the climate bill was in all practical sense, dead.

Left to Right: Graham, Lieberman, and Kerry

I highly recommend this New Yorker article that comments on the politics and actions of involved parties.

So, why did the climate bill fail so impressively? Why couldn't these dedicated Senators get the votes? Why didn't the White House back the bill whole-heartedly? I'll give you one guess; it's because of us. That's right: we're a democracy, and we, as the people, actually have an immense impact on decision-making. Near the beginning of the year, citizens ranked climate change as the last priority of 21 issues. Rising sea level, droughts, floods, and extreme biodiversity loss lead most people to think, "I can't feel it. It doesn't affect me right now. I don't care."

New Hope for the Future:
After listening to chatter about Rahm Emanuel on NPR for 3 straight hours last Friday, I had heard enough. What I needed was a good laugh.

Who doesn't love a little Jon Stewart tearing up someone's character?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rahm-A-Gone
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

I honestly can't say much about the effectiveness of Emanuel so I'll leave it at that. All I know is that Lizza (from the New Yorker) describes Emanuel as a man who was all about the win. If the votes weren't already there, he wasn't going to support it. The votes weren't there for the climate bill, so he didn't push it. His replacement, however, serves as new hope for climate activists everywhere. His name is Peter Rouse.

Peter Rouse

'"He's very green," said Eric Washburn, who helped write the energy bill of 2002 as [Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's] legislative director. "He's someone who I think has deeply held views about [climate change], but he's also someone who can temper them" to get the "best [outcome] the political system can deliver at that moment."' - Lehmann


I guess we'll have to wait and see. With more Republicans in the Senate, there will be quite a bit to overcome.