OpEd Contributor

[Print]  [Email]        

Exploding myths on energy, environment

By: Drew Thornley
Op-Ed Contributor
April 21, 2009

This year’s official Earth Day poster depicts a polar bear climbing a wind turbine that sits atop a sheet of ice floating at sea.  A catchy picture, to be sure, but hyperbole will not advance energy-policy discussions—especially when environmental goals must be balanced with the need to cope with a recession and rising unemployment. 

To ensure continued access to the reliable, affordable energy that is the lifeblood of our nation’s economy, policies must be rooted in facts and realities, not myths and pipedreams.

Unfortunately, results from a new survey conducted for the Manhattan Institute by Zogby Associates illustrate that a majority of Americans’ ideas on energy and the environment are not based in fact.  For example, 49% of respondents believe Saudi Arabia exports the most oil to the U.S., while just 13% correctly identified Canada as our top foreign supplier. 

Over two-thirds believe that we can meet future energy demand through conservation and efficiency – but energy usage has historically increased alongside efficiency gains, and conservation provides only marginal consumption reductions. 

Environmentalists tout wind and solar power, but collectively these sources generate less than 1% of our electricity. They are significantly more costly than their conventional counterparts – coal and oil – and provide power too intermittently to be added to our electric grid in large volumes. 

Still, over 49% believe renewable energies will soon replace conventional power sources, even while the Energy Information Administration projects that 85% of our electricity in 2030 will be generated by fossil fuels and uranium. 

No new nuclear reactor has been built in the U.S. in three decades, though 104 nuclear-power plants safely produce one-fifth of our nation’s electricity – with virtually zero carbon-dioxide emissions. No one has ever died from the actual production of U.S. nuclear power, a fact known by just 37% of respondents.

We’re warned that catastrophes might result from global warming unless we reduce our carbon footprint, though very little of the carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere is caused by human activities. Yet 63% of respondents believe human activities are the greatest source of greenhouse gases. 

Moreover, we don’t know how, if at all, actions to reduce emissions will benefit the global climate, particularly since projections show our future emissions will be dwarfed by developing nations, namely China.  All we do know is that any such carbon-reduction plans will come with a hefty price tag. 

Finally, we’re told we need to become energy independent, but vast areas of our natural-resource rich public lands and offshore waters are off-limits to extraction. We’re blessed with tremendous reserves of coal and uranium, yet coal and nuclear power are taboo. Ninety-one percent of our electricity is generated by fossil fuels and uranium, but instead of continuing to extract such resources safely, we put our hopes in alternative energies and fuels that are economically and technologically incapable of meeting large-scale energy needs. 

From the largest corporations to lone consumers, higher energy costs affect everyone, ultimately raising the prices of other goods and services. Nonetheless, the Obama administration has made it clear that achieving its environmental goals will, by necessity, make energy more expensive.  

It plans to spend of billions of taxpayer dollars to try to alter the global climate, prop up fledgling renewable energies and alternative fuels, and artificially create subsidized “green” jobs—while shunning the very resources that have successfully powered our economy and our standard of living.  The more prudent path is to pursue new resources and technologies that might one day make meaningful contributions to our energy supply – while not turning our backs on what sustains us. 

 A fact-based, energy reality check is a good place to start meeting our needs today and planning for tomorrow.

Drew Thornley is the author of the new report, Energy & the Environment: Myths & Facts, published by the Manhattan Institute.

 
 




To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

J E

Apr 22, 2009

Thank you. I appreciate intelligent insight in this crazy world. There seems to me to be way too many stupid people stating nonsense but being accepted blindly as wise and almost unquestionable.

 

Skeptical Republican

Apr 22, 2009

A telling inditement of the media's preference for sensationalism and wishful thinking over reality. This results in a mis-informed public that will subsidize programs like ethynol from corn (in my opinion it is obscene to convert food into fuel when so many suffer from poor nutrition) but protest nuclear power. The Obama proposal, Cap-and-Trade, is only going to enrich the government, begger our future, and deliver an unmeasureable reduction in CO2. Drill here and now and grow nuclear power...my idea of low cost, high impact energy policy.

 

Bob R Geologist

Apr 23, 2009

Our green lunatic fringe unfortunately are ignorant of the realities of the Natural World. All they can think about is sustainability of all aspects of our present world. This would be admirable if it were attainable. However, like it or not, mother nature has her own plan to work from. CHANGE is the normal order of the natural world. If we choose to follow the screwballs of our world, of which Al Gore is our most prominent example, humanity's days on Earth are numbered. Fortunately, evolu- tion is programmed into our genes and if we don't fight change, we will adapt to inevitable changes. Whales made the change from land to the sea. Otherwise, it was a nice ride while it lasted.

 

newspeak

Apr 23, 2009

A while back I saw an online ad that directly compared the "lots of jobs" created by green energy projects with the "few jobs" created by coal energy. I'm not sure that is actually true, but I do know that it was the first time I've ever seen low productivity advertised as a positive good.

 

Bekki M

Apr 23, 2009

I feel like I am constantly running into people obsessed with Glomal Warming, convinced the planet is on the down and down, and that in less than two shakes of a lamb's tale... "the polar bears will have no place to live." But, because I don't have the facts in front of me in order to refute them, they often come off as in the right. I must say, it is nice to finally hear some numbers. Thanks for the numerical, factual ammunition.

 

Ron Whiton

Apr 23, 2009

It is tragic that nuclear is not being pursued at very aggressively. The USA "invented" the nuclear power capability and it's use has been needlessly suppressed.

 

Mike Keller

Apr 24, 2009

For an example of an unexpected developing new technology, see www.hybridpwr.com

 

Diana

Apr 26, 2009

Very good commentary on a very sad state of affairs. I am totally disgusted every time I turn on the TV to see how all of the major networks and the majority of corporations that are paid advertisers, have gotten on board and support this junk science. It's absolutely shameful that there has never been any real debate and there never will be. Meanwhile, while our economy becomes devastated with cap-and-trade and our energy costs skyrocket, China, India, and other 3rd world countries go on their merry way, producing cheap energy with no restrictions put upon them.

 

R. R. Reynolds, geologist, retired

Apr 28, 2009

I agree 100% with Drew Thornley and I have been in close touch with this Green inspired nightmare ever since I retired over 20 years ago. I applaud their interest but I deplore their overblown, ham handed efforts to improve the natural world that they obviously do not understand.

 

Biomass

May 22, 2009

Biomass can produce 35% of our electricity and 85% of our vehicular fuel by 2030. Biomass crop yields need to exceed 20 dry tons of 8k BTU per lb per acre for this to happen. Their is one plant that meets this criteria and can be grown south of mid Ohio and east of Kansas. This crop is not being developed on a large scale. Why? Solar and wind are a bad joke. The uranium mining and fuel rod production produces way more radioactive waste than the spent fuel rods. All we hear about is the disposal of the spent fuel rods. Why?

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Sports

Houston Rockets coach Rick Adelman, center, reacts with his staff Jack Sikma, left, and Elston Turner, right, to a called foul against his team as they play the Atlanta Hawks during the third quarter ...

Tracy McGrady says he's ready to play, Rockets believe it's still too soon after knee surgery

Tracy McGrady is eager to play. The Houston Rockets say he'll have to wait. Full story

Economy

Thousands of Spanish farmers protest low prices paid for their agricultural produce

Several thousand farmers protested the low prices Saturday they receive for their products, saying that commercial middlemen take too high a cut. Full story

Entertainment

Pedro Almodovar discusses his childhood, his influences and what he won't put on film

Sex. Drugs. Prostitution. Pedophilia. Rape. Pedro Almodovar has been able to translate some of the most delicate subjects to the big screen with grace and humor. Full story