US lags in reacting to longterm trends in energy, pollution, and global warming

After the American Century

The times are out of joint. The short term outlook is good, if by this one means unemployment is low, interest rates are low, economic growth stronger than it has been in years. But the long term outlook is terrible, if by this one means global warming, species extinction, political polarization, and overuse of the earth's resources.

So the question becomes, at what historical moment will these short and long-term trends intersect? When will pollution become so severe that it hurts the economy, for example? When these two trends meet, pulling and pushing in opposite directions, the short-term ones will lose the battle.

Some countries are far more ready to weather this storm when it comes. Holland builds dikes; the US builds on the flood plain and offers FEMA support to rebuild there after hurricane winds destroy homes schools, prisons, etc. Holland obviously is smarter about this than the US. Some countries are going in for recycling in a big way. Some countries are reducing their use of fossil fuels, requiring effective insulation of all new houses, building mass transit, etc  But the US is not doing these things

Instead, the Trump Administration is allowing pollution levels to rise, denying the existence of global warming, pushing for greater use of coal, and opening new lands to oil and gas exploration. These actions are setting the US on the course toward failure. When the long term trends overtake us, as they must, the effects are going to be more strongly felt in the US economy because we did not get ready.

I could produce statistics to back up all these points, but those who don't believe in any of these long term trends are not going to be convinced. So we drift on, embracing the failed policies of the past. Assuming humanity survives for at least several more centuries, the chapter on how the US faded away as the world leader will make for melancholy reading. After the American century, indeed.

The Longterm Perils of Fracking

After the American Century

Fracking is much in the news. This new way of extracting oil and natural gas is controversial because, while it lowers energy prices and generates jobs, it has an environmental cost. If North Dakota is booming and crying out for more labor, deep beneath the surface of the state fracking is pumping chemicals into the bedrock.  No one knows with certainty how this may affect the ground water a generation from now. North Dakota is extracting oil using this method, while it is being used in Pennsylvania and New York to extract natural gas.

Regardless of where fracking is taking place, the public does not know what exactly is being injected into the ground, because industries regard this as a trade secret, and no legislation forces them to disclose what exactly they are doing to the land. However, some of these chemicals used in fracking are known, including hydrochloric acid, boric acid, sodium chloride, and ammonium chloride. Many of the chemicals are "biocides" that are intended to kill bacteria.  Others seek to change the ph of the water.

It may seem amazing, but the "Safe Drinking Water Act" has an exemption for hydraulic fracturing (or fracking). The act specifically does not control or regulate, "the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities." (See the Environmental Protection Agency.) There are rumors that some oil and gas drillers are using nano-technologies whose environmental consequences are not known.

Fracking demands large amounts of water, between two and eight million gallons for a single well. Permits have been issued for more than 80,000 wells, and these typically have pools of waste water nearby. Lawsuits in several parts of Pennsylvania and New York have established that this chemically charged waste has polluted drinking water. The contamination is necessarily a mix of chemicals injected by the drillers and substances already in the ground that were released along with the oil and gas. These also include the methane being sought; Duke University scientists found methane in many wells near fracking operations in Pennsylvania. It may be that methane is not toxic in small does, but it definitely is "an asphyxiant in enclosed spaces and an explosion and fire hazard." A methane-polluted well is unsafe as a domestic water supply.

Safe Water Drinking Act to remove a special exemption for hydraulic fracturing - See more at: http://www.dcbureau.org/201203097069/natural-resources-news-service/cuomo-and-corbett-ignore-health-concerns-from-gas-fracking.html#sthash.iZpPPkht.dpuf

Safe Water Drinking Act to remove a special exemption for hydraulic fracturing - See more at: http://www.dcbureau.org/201203097069/natural-resources-news-service/cuomo-and-corbett-ignore-health-concerns-from-gas-fracking.html#sthash.iZpPPkht.dpuf

The long-term pollution of water is an obvious danger that is being downplayed in the rush for quick profits, but there is another danger that is less discussed. Fracking has given the oil and gas energy regime a new lease on life. Just five years ago one could argue that both national security and the danger of global warming pointed to the need for a rapid conversion to alternative energies. But in 2014 US oil and gas production is soaring to the point where the government is under pressure to allow the nation to become an oil exporter again. The falling cost of natural gas is making the US highly competitive in some industries, in contrast to Europe where gas prices are noticeably higher. In the short term, this stimulates the economy, but in the longer term it encourages Americans to remain high energy consumers, embracing an unsustainable style of life.

The current American oil and gas bonanza will delay, perhaps for an entire generation, the transition away from fossil fuels to sustainable homes, vehicles, and consumption levels. Leadership in the new technologies of wind, solar, and bio-fuels may continue to slip away from the US to foreign competitors. Germany, for example, has made a major commitment to becoming more energy efficient, even as it is abandoning nuclear power. The Danes have developed one of the world's largest and best windmill industries.The Chinese are investing heavily in solar energy and have out competed the US for foreign markets.

Fracking may be good for the American economy in the short run, but in the long run it cannot be very good for the land itself. Furthermore, it misdirects economic development toward an inefficient, high-energy dead end. It will not reduce the cost of oil, because that is shaped by world demand, which is rising rapidly. It will retard transition to a sustainable energy regime, and it may well undermine US competitiveness in the growing area of alternative energy technologies.

The United States is opting for a strategy of quick profits and "pollute now, pay later."  Most of the costs will be paid by later generations.