Fighting Global Warming Locally

Over the weekend, I watched a feature on The History Channel, purporting to detail the seven biggest threats to human survival. Some, while seemingly fantastic – asteroid collisions or super-volcano eruptions – enjoy scientific, historic support. (About the former, the possibility of a defense exists; as respects the latter, pray hard) Others, like a biological-warfare created pandemic, or an all out nuclear war, require us to be vigilant (the forces of good – to wit, us – need to ensure that nut cases like the unlamented Saddam Hussein, the "mad mullahs" in Iran, and Kim Jong Il never obtain an effective force of nuclear or biological weapons – or, if we’re resolute enough – never get them at all.

But the number one threat to human survival, as posited by the sages of cable, is global warming.

Global warming, Al Gore – that noted scientist – informs us, is the direct and proximate result of human activity pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And Something Must Be Done. Interestingly, the folks at THC avoided suggesting a solution, but during the "solution" section, actually showed a picture of a nuclear power plant, demonstrating that they're actually serious about taking action. Many of the folks most passionately associated with the global warming scare are not.

Now, never being enamored of the Rule of "Experts", I concede Gore’s right to hold an opinion based upon his view of the science. Indeed, an intelligent layman can, in fact, assess the dangers presented by global warming, as well as assess the costs and benefits of any proposed "solution".

That the planet has heated somewhat is essentially beyond dispute. For the purposes of argument – despite massive climate changes on Earth over the eons, utterly unrelated to humankind – assume that human activity causes it. Further assume that the Panglossian view – that we reside in the best of all possible environments and that any change will be catastrophic – is also true. How, then, should we deal with the problem? And, from a local perspective, what action should NJ government take – if any – to contribute to a solution?

This issue merits particular attention, as a clean, safe source of power which does not contribute to global warming is coming under increasing attack right here in New Jersey: our nuclear plants.

A small group of hysterics opposes the relicensing of the Oyster Creek plant (full disclosure; same is about 10 miles from a home I own in Ocean County). They posit all manner of "China Syndrome" scenarios, the chances of which, while not zero, are vanishingly small.

Life involves risk. Unfortunately, many folks fear the infinitesimal risk of a very large catastrophe more than vastly larger chances of more mundane risks. Hence, some folks fear flying despite the fact that one faces infinitely greater danger of death on the highway en route to the airport than on the plane itself. The "environmentalists" play upon this human tendency to gin up opposition to nuclear power, while presenting precisely no options to compensate.

The story in today’s Ledger notes that the groups which oppose nuclear power contend that we can simply rely upon other sources of energy in the region. No, we can’t, and certainly not consistent with meeting other environmental goals. First, mothballing nukes would inevitably increase carbon production, as coal, oil, or gas fired plants must come on line to bridge the gap. Second, those "other sources in the region" may not exist. The New Jersey Wind Panel found, earlier this year, that "New Jersey faces a serious and growing energy crisis that cannot be ignored." They estimate a power gap for NJ at 2,000 megawatts in 2009 and specifically rejected the notion of relying upon power sources elsewhere. Seemingly, shutting down a major contributor to NJ’s power grid constitutes a poor way to address an "energy crisis".

Too, no one truly believes that Oyster Creek will be the last nuke to face hysterical opposition. If the opponents prevail today, they’ll be after every other nuke, too, not only in NJ, but regionally, if not nationwide. From whence will the power come to fill the resulting – massive – gaps?

Not from wind energy, at least, not any time soon. It took fifteen months for the Wind Panel to study the issue and report back to the Governor – that more study is needed. Given the fact that many in the environmental movement believe that ANY construction offshore amounts to a desecration of the planet, such off shore construction will prove controversial in the extreme. Given the inevitable 15 years of lawsuits, we may be talking about fusion before we talk about windfarms.

And, most assuredly, not from solar. While fine for pocket calculators, solar power is simply too diffuse and too expensive to provide a practicable alternative. One advertiser offers a 5000 watt system for $42,000 (according to another site, that’s enough to run your electric oven – and nothing else.). Even with a 50% governmental subsidy through BPU (presently on hold), it would take the average homeowner about 20 years to recoup the costs – not including the inevitable maintenance – assuming it totally eliminated his electric bill, which isn’t likely.

In short, the environmentalist always seem to support technology which does not exist. Or which is hugely expensive and, hence, impracticable. And their answer to questions respecting power is ALWAYS the same: use less. Conserve. Ride bikes. Wear sweaters. Turn up the thermostat in the summer, turn it down in winter. Walk. Etc.

Obviously, conservation makes sense (recollect that the root of the word "conservative" is "conserve"). But it’s also a double edged sword. Much conservation equipment requires a significant up-front investment. (Compare the cost of a fluorescent bulb with a standard incandescent). And people kinda like staying warm in winter, cool in summer. Selfish of them, perhaps, but they’ve grown accustomed to it.

If New Jersey residents wish to be good environmental stewards – and, yet, not wholly abandon modern living – the last thing they should be thinking about is abandoning the cleanest, least problematic form of energy generation based upon wholly hypothetical concerns. NJ is already out of compliance with clean air standards, in no small measure due to out-of-state, coal fired power generation (the power from which the so-called environmentalists suggest we use here instead of clean nukes). We would be trading the completely theoretical possibility of assertedly massive harm – however remote – for the very real and immediate harm associated with additional coal, gas, or oil fired plants.

In short, whether viewed from the perspective of our health, our foreign policy (more imported oil and gas?), our environment, or our lifestyle, turning off the nukes represents the polar opposite of good policy.

All human activity involves trade offs, assessing the costs versus the benefits of a particular action. Handling the environment is no different. Alas, environmentalism has become, as Michael Crichton, of Jurassic Park fame, notes, less a science than a religion, a faith immune to logical argument. One which sees human activity – "development" – as inherently destructive, wholly separate and apart from, and outside of, "nature". One which concentrates wholly on the asserted "harms", refusing to recognize any offsetting benefits, of human activity.

If we treat global warming as the horrendous threat many folks believe it to be, it behooves us to find alternatives for producing power which tread less heavily upon the planet. Nuclear power and hydroelectric power represent our best solutions at present, with wind power (exploring both on grid, with wind farms, and individual units servicing individual homes or businesses) the power of the (somewhat distant) future. If the costs associated with solar power decrease to reasonable levels with new technology, great. Ditto with fusion.

But we need to go with what we’ve got available today. If we’re going to foreswear burning things, that means splitting atoms and damming up streams. And if the State wants to realistically contribute to reducing global warming, its policy should be to encourage both.