Current Environmental Policies Are Not the Means to the Desired Ends
There is perhaps nothing more counterproductive in public policy than when good people promote policies that have the opposite effect of what they intend. This unfortunate circumstance is, alas, perhaps more often the case in the existing environmental movement than anywhere else. Notwithstanding the intentions motivating them, many current environmental policies would not accomplish what their proponents endorse.
Before commencing this critique of current environmental policies — and presentation of a genuinely environmental counter-program — I should perhaps say I have always considered the environment to be among my core issues. I was nine years old when the Santa Barbara oil spill struck in 1969. I well remember the oil on the beaches, the birds and other sea life that were killed, and the visit by President Richard Nixon to our area. The place of Santa Barbara as the vanguard of the ecological movement had much influence on me while growing up. After I received my Ph. in 1988, I successfully sought election to the Board of Education. Had I not been elected, I intended to move to Washington to work for an environmental think tank. I have regularly had the opportunity to write and lecture on environmental issues.
This essay presents a number of policy recommendations and analyses that are largely in contrast to current perspectives but which appear essential to genuine environmental progress. In my classes, the phrase I quote the most is from the nineteenth century British political economist and philosopher John Stuart Mill: “Ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd.” It should also said that all data here are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Tables 1.3 and 10.1 (April 2023), whose Administrator, Dr. Joseph DeCarolis, was nominated by President Biden.
There is no hope of preserving the world environment without vastly increased production of nuclear energy now. As a professor of mine, Walter Mead, once said of nuclear energy when I was a student at UCSB, it is the most cost-effective, efficient, and cleanest energy there is which can replace fossil fuels. Anyone who considers himself or herself an environmentalist should internalize the following words: You are either for nuclear energy or you are for global warming; you are either for nuclear energy or you are for global environmental degradation. There is no alternative to greatly increased production of nuclear energy to address global climate change. None. The goal should be to increase the number of nuclear power plants in the United States by more than 100 in the next five to ten years.
Despite the tremendous emphasis on solar energy for more than 50 years — including tens of billions of dollars of government support — solar energy is a bit player in United States energy production and consumption at this time — less than 2 percent in 2022! The focus solar energy has received should be transferred to nuclear energy: the real non-fossil fuel energy solution. Nuclear energy can increase its share of energy production in the United States from its current 8 percent to perhaps 20 to 25 percent in the next 20 years. It might be hard to get solar up from its current less than 2 percent of U.S. energy production and consumption to even 6 percent.
One of the great mistakes of current environmentalists is they generally fail to distinguish between types of fossil fuels. All fossil fuels are not created equal. Natural gas is the cleanest, coal is the dirtiest, and oil is somewhere in-between. The immediate goal to achieve reduced use of fossil fuels is to zero out coal production by 2030.
Fossil fuels provided almost 80 percent of all United States energy consumption in 2022, with oil at 36 percent of total energy (including non-fossil fuel) consumption, natural gas at 33 percent, and coal at 10 percent of total energy consumption in 2022. It is vital to eliminate coal production immediately for a number of reasons. First, as noted, it is the dirtiest fossil fuel. Second, to eliminate or greatly reduce use of all fossil fuels eventually, it will be highly beneficial to make a test case of coal first — what are the comprehensive impacts of complete elimination of a fossil fuel? The lessons that would be learned through elimination of coal production and consumption would have much to offer in the ultimate and later elimination of oil and gas. Third, coal is a great and increasing source of energy in developing economies. To eliminate coal as source of energy in the United States would have substantial and beneficial worldwide impact as a result both of the positive impact it would have and positive example it would set. Fourth, coal is the only fossil fuel that can be completely eliminated in the United States in the immediate future.
The only way to eliminate production and consumption of coal in the United States, moreover, is greatly increased production of nuclear energy. Coal or nuclear: that is the essential immediate energy choice facing the United States and world.
Given that, as of 2022, oil and gas provided almost 70 percent of all energy consumption in the United States, they are not going to be eliminated as sources of energy anytime soon. Accordingly, the near-term goal should be to make their production and consumption cleaner, not eliminate their production or consumption.
Perhaps the savviest analyst of energy in California, Edward Ring, writes that “when California still derives 50% of its total energy from petroleum products, why should California shut down its own oil industry via a new wave of environmental lawsuits and an oil permitting pause instituted by Governor Gavin Newsom, merely so California can import 70 percent of its oil and the petrochemical industry can divert their new investments to North Dakota and Texas? Isn’t California well positioned economically and technologically, and couldn’t California be highly motivated to develop and demonstrate clean methods of extraction and refining, instead of exporting the environmental impact to states and nations that are far less committed to clean energy technologies?” These are good questions, and questions to which the current environmental movement has no answers.
Why import to California electricity generated by coal elsewhere, rather than utilize natural gas produced here? Professor Eric Smith, too, emphasizes the benefits of local and domestic energy production, including of oil and gas, because of the higher environmental standards in the United States, especially California, than elsewhere and because less energy is expended, lost, and released into the environment during transport. Relying on locally produced energy is consistent with principles of sustainability, as well.
Similar to the right environmental approach to oil and gas production — make them cleaner, don’t try to eliminate them — the right approach to transportation is not that vastly more people are going to ride a bike or take the bus (much less train), but that cars can be made much more environmentally efficient. Bus transportation is inefficient. From riding the MTD myself (a statement, I suspect, few reading this essay can make), unless one is able to configure an almost straight shot, it can take hours for the simplest transportation. Almost the only people who ride the bus are young people and poor people. The idea that throngs of middle-aged, middle and upper income folks are going to start riding the bus is illusory. People who don’t ride the bus themselves shouldn’t tell or expect others to do so.
Regarding bike transportation, it is perhaps even more fanciful to think great numbers of middle aged, middle and upper income people are going to start riding a bike for transportation as that they will begin taking the bus. As it happens, I ride a bike. Bikes are impractical in inclement weather, and only one person can ride on them at a time. It’s not possible to carry all but a very few supplies or other materials on them. The idea of bike transportation supplanting the car in any meaningful way, other than for recreation, is unrealistic.
However, it is possible to develop much cleaner cars — lighter cars that don’t go as fast and get much better gas mileage. This is a feasible environmental policy in transportation. A major increase in alternative transportation is not, especially with an aging population. Nationwide, tens of billions of dollars are spent on alternative transportation policies, with very limited success and environmental impact. These resources, together with resources currently directed toward solar, could instead go to the real environmental solutions: scores of new nuclear power plants in the United States, elimination of coal by 2030, cleaner production and consumption of gas and oil, cleaner cars, and development of hydrogen as a major energy source.
Looking to the intermediate to long-term of the next 20 to 35 years, the replacement of petrochemicals and fossil fuels is most likely to come about through a combination of nuclear and other energy sources. Existing alternative energies — especially wind — can play a role in the transition from fossil fuels, but new alternative sources of energy, especially hydrogen, must also be developed. Fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) provided about 79 percent of energy consumption in the United States in 2022, nuclear energy provided about 8 percent, and non-nuclear non-fossil fuels provided about 13 percent (biomass: 5%, wind: 4%, hydroelectric: 2%, solar: 2%). A reasonable ballpark goal for 2045 would be: nuclear: 25 percent, gas and oil: 35 percent, hydrogen: 15 percent, and other non-nuclear non-hydrogen non-fossil fuels:: 25 percent. Going forward another 15 years, to 2060, nuclear could provide 40 percent of energy (especially with development of fusion), hydrogen could provide 25%, and other non-nuclear non-hydrogen non-fossil fuels could provide 35 percent. The use of fossil fuels for energy could come to an end over the next 35 years. This policy could be implemented globally.
There is more hydrogen in the universe than any other element. Hydrogen as energy produces zero greenhouse gas emissions in use. It can be used for power generation, some transportation (including trucks), and some industrial purposes (including cold storage). Hydrogen can also replace petrochemicals in fertilizers. Natural gas can be converted into hydrogen.
California is well-positioned to play a major role in the hydrogen revolution. The U.S. Department of Energy has selected the state to receive $1.2 billion for the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrocarbon Energy System (ARCHES), a milestone in the state’s effort to expand clean energy. The 2022 California Scoping Plan Update calls for increasing hydrogen capacity to allow decarbonization of hard to electrify sectors of the economy. The ARCHES program will be headquartered in the Central Valley.
The hour is late, the day is long spent, and the chances for success in reforming existing environmental policies are small. Yet, even now, if the will is manifested for the right environmental policies, much environmental damage can be mitigated and even forestalled. May it be so.
This essay is intended to contribute to discussion of these vital and essential questions. All who are genuinely concerned about the environment should welcome searing and searching questions and criticism of existing environmental policy approaches. The stakes are too high, and that’s how progress happens: “Ages are no more infallible than individuals.”
Environmental change is coming–there is no doubt about that. The Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica is melting. If it breaks off, which is likely with continued warming, other glaciers will follow and sea level will rise by nine feet or more.
Existing environmental policies aren’t working. Solar, wind, and riding a bike aren’t going to solve the environmental crisis–to the extent they remain the focus of environmentalists, they will increase the crisis. Rather, true environmentalists should keep one line here particularly uppermost in their minds and policy recommendations: “You are either for nuclear energy or you are for global warming; you are either for nuclear energy or you are for global environmental degradation.”
Dr. Lanny Ebenstein is president of the California Center for Public Policy and teaches economics.
Please note this login is to submit events or press releases. Use this page here to login for your Independent subscription
Not a member? Sign up here.
FOLLOW US ON
NEWSLETTER SIGN UP
Copyright ©2024 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here. Site by Trew Knowledge. Powered by WordPress VIP.