Questions for protesting environmentalists

On April 26, environmental groups are planning events in several Montana cities intended to encourage support for eliminating coal, oil and natural gas from Montana’s and the nation’s energy portfolio.

Most of us can agree that our nation needs to be a leader in developing technology to reduce overall emissions in order to address climate change. But very few Montanans would be prepared to accept the radical, life-altering consequences that would result following what these groups are suggesting.

Rather than raise awareness for an issue that’s been a leading headline for years, wouldn’t it be better if these environmental groups used their April 26 rallies to answer a few questions? They certainly owe us an explanation if we’re to put any trust in their agenda.

Where would we get the energy to replace coal, oil and natural gas? According to U.S. Energy Information Administration data, fossil fuels accounted for 84 percent of American energy consumption in 2013. Nuclear provided 8 percent and renewables, including hydropower, the remaining 8 percent.

Over the next 25 years, the EIA projects that renewable energy will grow enough to supply 10 percent of our domestic energy needs, and the fossil fuel portion of the mix will remain virtually the same as it is today.

The takeaway from these numbers is that the alternative energy technology that exists today can meet only a small portion of our energy demand. Even over the next two decades, as we continue to put massive taxpayer subsidies into alternative energy, the growth potential in those technologies is very limited.

So the question remains: If we eliminate coal, oil and natural gas, where do we get the energy we need to power our lives and our economy?

And if we can’t replace fossil fuel energy, are these groups suggesting that we severely cut back on the energy we use? Should we ration electricity to just a few hours a day? Do we prohibit people from owning cars? What do we do with energy-intensive industries like manufacturing and agriculture?

How do we get energy to the 1 billion people in the world without electricity? Addressing energy consumption in the United States is one thing, but it’s an enormous challenge in the developing world. Currently 1 billion people in the world live without electricity, and another 2.5 billion people live with what is considered inadequate energy.

Those 3.5 billion people who live in energy poverty don’t just miss out on the latest smart phones and electric cars. They don’t receive proper health care or education, and they’re extremely limited in mobility and economic opportunities.

It’s impractical and stunningly arrogant to suggest the world’s poorest people should have access only to among the most expensive sources of energy. That’s why demand for coal has been so strong in developing counties — it’s the most economical way to bring energy to the people who need it most.

In the absence of affordable energy supplied through fossil fuels, are environmental groups proposing to relegate almost half of the world’s population to permanent energy poverty?

The radical agenda of the “keep it in the ground” movement is well intentioned but very poorly thought out. But fortunately we don’t need to go to their extreme to solve the challenges of climate change — we can do it by developing technology, like carbon capture and storage, that substantially reduces emissions. The question is: Why are so many environmental groups still opposed to improving clean-coal technology?

To maintain our quality of life and to elevate more of the world’s population to modernity means, we will burn increasing amounts of coal over the coming decades. The solutions we seek for the dual problems of climate change and energy poverty need to be rooted in reality, not idealism. The radical agenda of the environmental groups rallying on April 26 simply leave too many questions unanswered.

Shelby DeMars is a spokesperson for Count on Coal Montana, a statewide campaign to make Montanans aware of the benefits of the abundant coal resources in our state.