Sadly, coverage of today’s Earth Day celebrations will be dominated by a combination of ‘feel-good’ activities like planting trees or cleaning up garbage along a river-bank, and stories about the horrendous fate awaiting us if we don’t straighten up and fly right (or eat our vegetables or sit up straight or something). And a lot of focus will be aimed at finding someone to blame, including the rich (for their consumption), the fossil fuel industry (which forces us to use dirty energy), and well, a whole bunch of the usual suspects.
Unfortunately, there will be a lot more heat than light, as they say, with the most attention going to the loudest, most extreme voices on left and right (mostly on left). Groups like Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion will be given a platform (virtual and actual), despite their long history of unscientific claims. (Okay, Extinction Rebellion hasn’t been around long enough to have a long history; I’ll get back to you in a decade.) My favorite of today’s stories: “In the United States, activists from the Extinction Rebellion group blockaded a New York newspaper printing facility, where they called for more media coverage of climate change.” Really, that’s the problem? On Earth Day, climate activists rally against fossil fuels | Reuters
And of course, this occurs against a background of the Russo-Ukrainian War and the concomitant energy crisis, which has seen the usual political finger-pointing (much of it valid but much off-target). "When Germany continues buying gas and oil from Russia, it means that they are paying their money to construct new military machines, new bombs, which are killing Ukrainians," Natalia Gozak, head of the EcoAction civil society group, said from Lviv.” On Earth Day, climate activists rally against fossil fuels | Reuters
Soaring prices have resulted in demands for cheaper energy, while nearly everyone involved insists that if only they had more money, there would be no energy crisis. Jason Bordoff and Meghan O’Sullivan in Foreign Policy try to split the difference: “More fossil fuels are required at this time to meet the world’s current energy needs. But Biden also acknowledged another difficult truth: The world needs to move much more quickly toward a clean energy future.”
Russia's War in Ukraine Offers Chance for Energy and Climate Cooperation (foreignpolicy.com)
Pretty much everyone favors clean energy (even the coal industry argues for clean coal technology) but few agree on either what constitutes ‘clean’ or the best way to accomplish that. For instance, the billion-plus energy impoverished who suffer here and now from indoor air pollution would probably embrace propane or even coal-fired electricity over wood stoves and dried dung, while the rich would tsk and offer cake in the distant future to those wanting bread. (Marie Antoinette would be a solar power promoter if she were alive today.)
Which also highlights the shortcomings of a Biden policy announcement this week, wherein the government will tighten environmental reviews for construction projects, such as highways and pipelines. While some will hail that as a great win for the climate, a different story suggests the opposite: Rystad Energy has noted that gas flaring has dropped sharply in the past couple of years, including in the U.S. shale patch, which is attributed to better practices in the oil field. I suspect increased pipeline takeaway probably deserves much more credit, as it allows associated gas to be commercialized instead of flared. In fact, some of that gas is now being sent to Europe helping to alleviate the tight natural gas market there, reduce emission from coal power and cut reliance on Russian supplies. It seems like a clearcut win for the environment, European economy and energy security.
Planting trees and cleaning up garbage are certainly to be praised, but I’m guessing that no Earth Day stories will suggest building more pipelines as a way to reduce emissions.
