Ned Farquhar

Related articles:

Alternative energy will not save us Clean energy is key to future, readers say

General
A1 Communications
Cable Techs Health Care
Sierra Tucson
Eating Disorders Program Coordinator Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION

Gerald Marsh's opinion piece ("Alternative energy will not save us," July 8) boils down to one very basic concept: The way it is, is the way it will always be.

Developing oil shale, as Marsh proposes, would consume vast amounts of energy just to produce more gasoline, so we could become even more addicted to oil. The energy produced from oil shale would have a far larger impact on the climate than even the fuels we use today.

Like oil shale, the coal-to-liquids plants proposed by Marsh also would increase our addiction to oil and double the atmospheric impact of burning gasoline.

If we are going to subsidize energy development, it makes sense to focus those subsidies on energy efficiency and renewable energy — not new, expensive conventional energy sources that only increase our addiction to oil while dangerously polluting the atmosphere.

A huge new fleet of nuclear plants? The only questions relate to where we would safely store the nuclear waste for the next 10,000 or 100,000 years, the new terrorism and national security concerns raised by a larger dependence on nuclear energy, and the issues of nuclear proliferation. Our record on these issues is far from spotless.

We have an opportunity to create a much cleaner, sustainable and economically beneficial energy future.

It would rely on energy efficiency first. The U.S. economy is half as energy-efficient as those of other developed nations in Europe and Asia. As a result, we suffer when energy prices rise. Look at how Detroit has ceded automotive leadership to foreign automakers.

According to the Western Governors' Association, cost-effective efficiency investments could save Western ratepayers tens of billions of dollars in coming decades while displacing the demand for about three-quarters of our electricity demand growth.

Second, a new energy future will rely on new technologies. Switching from oil to electricity to power many of our vehicles, for instance, while adopting much higher fuel economy standards for conventionally powered cars, would save at least 30 percent of our daily oil demand by 2020.

This is demand that Marsh would meet by drilling every last drop in the American West, despite community and environmental impacts, and increasing rather than reducing our national oil addiction. For consumers, the plug-in car makes a lot of sense at $1 per 100 miles versus the $15 it costs to run on gasoline today.

Third, despite Marsh's knee-jerk opposition to government involvement, we need government limits on climate-changing emissions as well as government requirements to build more renewable-energy generating plants. Renewable energy requirements have been hugely successful — for local electricity, for reliability, and for clean air — in the states that have adopted them. The other states are far behind.

Without government mandates, we wouldn't have seat belts in our cars, the monetary supply would be in chaos and people would buy unsafe food and pharmaceuticals. Markets can't handle some tasks — such as protecting public health, reducing climate pollution or managing the monetary supply — without government oversight. It's fair to set high standards and clear rules, and let the markets respond with effective, long-term energy and climate solutions.

The answers to the world's, and America's, energy and climate challenges won't come from the people who propose to invest more and more in the direction we have already gone. The best answers will come from options that create real opportunities for new, sustainable and low-impact alternatives like renewables and efficiency.