The so-called Green movement has captured people’s attention, yet the movement hasn’t received much objective reporting by the media.
It seems as though if it’s green, it’s good.
But is green always good?
When you look objectively at the Green movement, one is struck by the irrationality of the movement.
For example, two of the major objectives of the Greens are to:
- Cut CO2 emissions to stop climate change, i.e., global warming
- Become energy independent.
However their actions contradict those objectives.
Nuclear energy is the only method available for providing needed electricity without CO2 emissions, yet the Greens are trying to stop the use of nuclear energy.
The Greens are promoting electric vehicles to stop the importation of oil from foreign countries, yet they obstruct the development of oil resources in the United States.
There are other specific secondary objectives where their actions are also irrational, such as shutting down coal-fired power plants that emit mercury, while promoting compact fluorescent lamps that contain mercury.
Shutting down coal-fired power plants while also shutting down nuclear power plants can also be viewed as irrational.
In the past, rational behavior resulted in developing and using products that were cost efficient. The basis for this form of rationality was the use of return on Investment (ROI).
Until now, it has been common practice to require an ROI of two years for major investments, or perhaps five years if there were other benefits.
Rationality is being discarded by the Greens to promote specific Green objectives. For example, the PHEV and BEV are products that may never achieve any acceptable return on investment, but proponents use government, tax-payer money to promote the product because rational customers won’t pay the premium price. (See article The 20% Rule.)
Another example is promoting CFLs and light emitting diodes (LEDs) to replace the incandescent bulb. While a 100-watt incandescent bulb may cost $0.60, the CFL costs $2.00 and the 100 watt LED is expected to cost $30 or more. In most situations, CFLs and LEDs do not achieve an acceptable ROI, and may not achieve good lighting. (See article Lighting Ain’t Simple.)
Greens make the claim that saving electricity by using CFLs will cut the use of foreign oil and help achieve energy independence, yet oil generates an extremely small amount of our electricity, i.e., 1%.
Green groups promote wind energy and solar energy for the same reasons, even though wind and solar are unquestionably some of the most expensive methods for generating electricity.
Who are the organizations that seem to be acting irrationally?
A few include:
- Sierra Club
- The Union of Concerned Scientists
- The Natural Resources Defense Council
- Friends of the Earth
If they are acting irrationally in the eyes of the average person, they could be acting rationally for their purposes.
If they are acting rationally and being consistent with respect to their organization’s objectives, what are their true objectives?
I can’t answer that question, but I do wonder why they are attacking the development of oil in the United States, and why they are opposing fracking that will result in the United States having enough low-cost natural gas to supply its needs for over 100 years. Why do they oppose ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants when these very efficient units can be equipped to meet all Nox, SOx, particulate and mercury emission requirements, and why are they promoting renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that will burden Americans with very expensive electricity?
Green shouldn’t be the magic word that exempts organizations from objective scrutiny.
Green groups should be analyzed and reported on by the media, just as the media scrutinizes people who question the objectives of these groups.
Objective reporting of green groups is long overdue. It’s also important because the Greens are encouraging policies that impose high energy costs, and possible energy shortages on the United States.
I know of no one who opposes rational, beneficial environmental regulations. I know of no one who would skewer the planet.
Of course, the Greens will respond by saying that anyone who opposes their views about the planet are monsters, of one type or another.
* * * * * *
If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.
Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.
* * * * * *[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]
© Power For USA, 2010 – 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.