An observation worth noting … and pondering, from J. David Hughes:
A new energy dialogue is needed in the U.S. with an understanding of the true potential, limitations, and costs—both financial and environmental—of the various fossil fuel energy panaceas being touted by industry and government proponents. The U.S. cannot drill and frack its way to ‘energy independence.’ At best, shale gas, tight oil, tar sands, and other unconventional resources provide a temporary reprieve from having to deal with the real problems: fossil fuels are finite, and production of new fossil fuel resources tends to be increasingly expensive and environmentally damaging. Fossil fuels are the foundation of our modern global economy, but continued reliance on them creates increasing risks for society that transcend our economic, environmental, and geopolitical challenges. The best responses to this conundrum will entail a rethink of our current energy trajectory.
Who doesn’t like a simple, trouble-free story? In these times, saddled as we are by a host of economic, cultural, and political woes, who wants to add energy-supply problems to the mix? I know I don’t, and I can’t imagine too many people won’t agree.
But when organizations and spokespersons are deliberately withholding important information that would help citizens prepare and plan for challenges ahead, or when they cherry-pick only those few factors to fit their self-serving narratives, we have a problem.
And the problem is that the problems will become bigger problems absent some integrity and honesty from sources who do in fact know more and know better.
In the scientific world, people are judged by the content of their ideas. Advances are made with new insights, but the final arbitrators of any point of view are experiments that seek the unbiased truth, not information cherry-picked to support a particular point of view.
Our former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu offered those comments in his official letter of resignation, delivered to Energy Department employees In February of 2013.
Why is this principle so disdained by too many in both the media and the fossil fuel industry (forget about those on the far Right)? Is what’s good for me/my company today the operative and wisest strategy?
No credible spokesperson with working knowledge of the fossil fuel industry will doubt that fracking has boosted oil production in recent years. But to make that statement without adding all of the equally relevant information about costs; decline rates; environmental and community consequences; quality; depletion of conventional supplies; energy investments, and financial commitments which all factor in to an honest and full assessment of energy supply and production, the obstacles and challenges become that much more difficult to address and overcome.
As a result, the rest of us will find ourselves burdened with far more challenges, far fewer resources available to address them, and far fewer options on a much shorter timeline because too much truth was obscured or simply lied about in order to protect the few in the short-term. What happens then?
Certainly some small groups profit from the careful selection of choice information and no more, but you can be damn sure that is a small group—and we’re not in it.
(Adapted from two blog posts of mine. 1. 2)
Top Comments Submission Made Easy
|