Many Americans are familiar with the biblical parable of the talents. A farmer goes on a long trip and gives varying amounts of money to three of his servants. When he returns, the servant who received five talents has traded successfully and turned them into 10; the servant who received two talents has turned them into four. But the servant who received one talent buried it out of fear. He is punished for failing to use what he had appropriately.
This parable is relevant to America’s energy policy. We have many “talents,” each at different stages of development. Solar power is a talent with promise, but its dependence on weather conditions and government subsidies means it isn’t always reliable. Wind power is also a talent, but similarly dependent on subsidies and subject to the happenstance of the wind (little in the summer when demand for electricity is high).
Hydroelectric power has been a reliable talent. But dam-building is expensive, and it has been discovered that hydroelectric turbines can harm fish migration and reduce oxygen levels in downstream water. Natural gas is a talent, but it involves horizontal fracking, and experts are still determining its total impact on the environment.
Coal, another energy talent, accounts for approximately 40 percent of all U.S. electricity production. Unfortunately, it has become the scourge of the Obama administration because coal emits carbon, even though coal-burning power plants have become substantially cleaner over the past several decades. Newer power plants emit 90 percent less carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates and mercury than do older plants. Coal-based emissions at power plants have been reduced by nearly 40 percent since the 1970s, even as our population and economy have grown.
This progress is largely attributable to advances in combustion and control technologies. Unfortunately, though, part of the administration’s efforts to stop climate change includes halting the development of cleaner coal technologies. The shorthand for this public policy is to keep coal in the ground.
Like with other energy talents, the development stage for even cleaner coal is only in midstream. Today, several methods to capture or reduce carbon emissions are being explored, including “per-combustion” capture, which involves the gasification of feedstock to form synthetic gas; “post-combustion” capture, which refers to the capture of carbon dioxide from exhaust gases; and “oxy-fuel combustion,” where fossil fuels are burned in a mixture of re-circulated flue gas and oxygen, rather than mixing with outside air.
So why bury coal, America’s most abundant energy talent? Why invest in making use of other energy resources which cannot meet the current demand for electricity in this country, and not also invest in the most dependable and affordable form of energy production? Why impose unrealistic regulations that coal companies cannot meet — as with the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan — instead of supporting the development of technologies that can capture or otherwise further reduce emissions?
At times, President Obama has endorsed an “all of the above” energy policy, including “continued investment…in clean coal technologies.” Now he appears to have reversed this position. Sound energy policy, however, supports continued advances in coal utilization to keep energy costs low and not disproportionately burden the nation’s poorest citizens through higher energy bills. It is in the national interest to utilize all of the bountiful talents of the United States, and it is the government’s role to find technology solutions rather than pick winners and losers in how energy is produced.
Regardless of your religion or faith, the wisdom of not burying one’s talents has universal application. America has a substantial resource in its coal reserves. Why not work toward improving all of our talents for a balanced, reliable and effective energy future?
Mark Latham is a professor of law at Vermont Law School, where he teaches torts, environmental law and business law. Victor E. Schwartz co-chairs Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.’s D.C.-based Public Policy Group. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
