Defining Clean Energy

Defining Clean Energy

Posted by

VTDIGGER 02/13/18
By Michael Shank and Leilani Münter

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Michael Shank and Leilani Münter. Shank, of Brandon, is the communications director for the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance and Urban Sustainability Directors Network and writes in his personal capacity. Münter is a biology graduate turned professional race car driver and environmental activist.

We now know how extensively and dangerously oil industry giants, such as ExxonMobil, sowed doubt in the American mind regarding the existence of global warming, its human-caused connection, and the negative environmental impacts resulting from extracting and burning dirty fossil fuels.

Doubt, it turns out, is a powerful weapon, which is why other big energy industries and interests are now getting on board the disbelieving bandwagon.

There’s new doubt-sowing being done and it’s equally dangerous. It has to do with what constitutes “clean energy.” There’s fertile ground for it: Americans poll well when it comes to the concept of clean energy. And understandably so, it’s hard to disagree with clean energy.

Nobody wants dirty fossil fuels, and given that coal plants are closing all across this country, the energy industry is scrambling to present its next in line: natural gas and nuclear power. They’re claiming that it’s clean. And while we desperately need to get off dirty coal and oil, this bait and switch is dangerous.

We are here to say, categorically, that it isn’t clean and any attempt to move America off coal and oil and onto a heavy reliance on gas and nukes would be disastrous. Emissions would still be with us. Waste would still be with us. Insecurity would still be with us.

This isn’t the direction we should go. We would be punting the climate can further down the road and postponing the necessary transition to a zero-carbon economy that is safe and secure for all Americans.

On natural gas, which has been substantially rising in Vermont in recent years, if one does an accurate accounting of its cradle-to-grave emissions, it’s impossible to say that it’s clean. It’s a massive methane emitter, air polluter, water poisoner, and it is prone to leaks and explosions. Shale gas is wrought with waste. Creating more global warming — per unit energy generated — than coal when accounting for its methane leaks, shale’s carbon footprint is reaching levels significantly higher than the entire gas industry’s footprint. No surprise: methane is 86 times more potent than CO2 — per unit mass — as a global warming agent over a 20-year period. And its impact on our water, air and land is alarming. Our drinking water is now “dangerous” in many American states, requiring urgent “hazard mitigation.”

Our air is toxic: carcinogenic benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and n-hexane all stem from fracking with long-term exposure leading to birth defects, neurological problems, blood disorders, and cancer. And the 2.3 million gas wells and associated well pads, roads, and storage facilities that pockmark the Great Plains of North America take up a land area the size of Maine. No one can in good conscience call any of this clean. It’s a fossil fuel that we must keep in the ground if we’re to keep warming to within 2 degrees Celsius, something we pledged to do at the Paris climate talks.

The false choice that pro-gas proponents proclaim — that it’s either gas, as a bridge fuel, or back to dirtier coal — is intended to confuse and obfuscate the debate. Those aren’t our choices. Yes, we must transition off coal immediately, but not to natural gas with its costly infrastructure and myriad negative externalities. Renewables are the only way. If we’re going to invest in new infrastructure, let’s make sure it’s what we want five, 10, 20 years from now. Using that as our measure, based on what we know we need to reduce in order to stay alive, then it’s solar and wind.

On nuclear power, which comprises a significant percentage of Green Mountain Power’s portfolio, the fact that we still do not have a home for the thousands of tons of nuclear waste merely makes every aging plant a ticking time bomb, especially when stored on site. Seven Nuclear Regulatory Commission engineers noted — in their personal capacity, since the commission has a history of siding with industry — that 99 of America’s 100 nuclear power plants have significant safety concerns.

Until America’s aging nuclear plants stop leaking radioactive contaminants, dispose properly of their nuclear waste, and find a less destructive way of cooling its systems without killing billions of fish, eggs and larvae, then there’s no way we can call this energy clean. And don’t even get us started on the cost. To ramp up nukes, it’d clean out our energy budget quickly as plants are prohibitively more expensive and time intensive to build and repair. At a fraction of that cost we could ramp up renewable infrastructure instead.

Yet the purveyors of this “clean energy” agenda are trying to sell a bill of goods that future generations cannot afford. All of the above requires serious funding for serious infrastructure, stuff that will stick around for decades to come, putting us on a course for more emissions, not less. If we’re serious about clean and green, the only way forward is via a legitimate renewable agenda whose pollution, emission, and waste footprint is infinitesimally smaller than gas or nuclear.

We cannot allow big energy interests and industries to decide what gets dictated in the dictionary of record. No future student, as they’re choking their way to school, will look back on this history and agree with this industry’s definition. So, before it gets written down for good, let’s strike it from an increasingly dirty record.