Renewable energy isn't radical, it's practical

When the Hungry Horse News gives editorial space to industry organizations, like Count on Coal Montana, they should really setoff the columns as advertisements and charge accordingly. Rather than enlightening readers, the sole purpose of these fact-deficient pieces is to generate income and favoritism for their respective industries.

Count on Coal Montana’s April 23 guest column is a classic example of what I’m talking about. At a time when climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that human-induced climate change is happening faster than initially predicted, Count on Coal’s spokesperson, Shelby Demars, actually had the gall to claim that suggestions from environmentalists were “radical,” with “life-altering consequences.”

Which is more life-altering, reducing pollution or the thousands of respiratory ailments and premature deaths caused by coal each year? Coal has a long record of killing people, but no one has ever died from breathing air too clean.

Which is more radical, environmentalist proposals to increase renewable energy use, or Count on Coal’s assertion that coal can actually be clean? According to Count on Coal, a world dominated by renewable energy isn’t feasible, yet carbon-capture storage is something we can count on.

Just think how long coal-generated electricity has been around, yet effective large-scale carbon-capture storage is still a pipe dream. In contrast, renewable energy already shows much more promise. Sweden generates 55 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, and numerous other countries are leaving the U.S. (with only 14 percent renewable use) in the dust. Rather than follow Count on Coal, who tells us it can’t be done, America needs to catch-up in the renewables race, and ultimately lead.

But if we really want to save our planet, America must embark in a renewable energy research and development program using the same vigor it had for the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program. Then we must share our accomplishments with the world. After all, everyone shares in the consequences of climate change.

Elsewhere in Count on Coal’s column, the organization accuses environmentalists of being opposed to “improving clean-coal technology.” While I can only speak for myself, if such technology could be proven safe and effective, I can’t imagine many environmentalists opposing it. However, if carbon-capture storage is so wonderful, why aren’t power plants already using it?

The coal industry is responsible for 37 percent of America’s electrical power, so obviously they aren’t hurting for money and should be long past needing corporate welfare. Rather than bashing environmentalists through AstroTurf organizations like Count on Coal Montana, perhaps they should concentrate their efforts and profits into implementing the clean technologies they keep talking about.

Furthermore, Count on Coal’s accusation, “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,” only shows the arrogance of the writer. Just who, other than Mr. Strawman, is saying that poor people should “only” have expensive energy? Renewable energy doesn’t have to be expensive. Prices have already dropped dramatically, and they will continue to plunge as technology advances.

Count on Coal Montana’s insistence that environmental groups are “proposing to relegate almost half of the world’s population to permanent energy poverty” is obviously a favorite talking point, as others supporting dirty old energy have used the same words.

The truth is that in developing countries, renewable power is already more efficient than fossil fuels. Small solar systems can be set-up in outlying villages, giving clusters of houses ongoing power without the need for smelly generators or costly electrical grids. And in large cities, solar and wind power can provide long-term energy savings, while dramatically reducing health care costs.

If coal is such a winner, why can’t industry lobbyists like Count on Coal Montana tell their story without hyperbole or attacking people who are only interested in a healthier, more sustainable future? I suspect it’s because coal and other fossil fuels industries know they can’t poison our planet indefinitely, and they want to grab their profits while they can.

Fortunately for the rest of us, we don’t have to sell out our children to pad our portfolios. As we transition to renewable energy, plentiful green jobs will naturally follow. We just need the willpower to kick-start the process.

Marty Essen lives in Victor. He is an Amazon No. 1 Best Selling Author and one of America’s most frequently booked college speakers. His Web site is www.CoolCreaturesHotPlanet.com.