By Mark J. Perry.
"If you want to know the
state of America’s environment today, a good place to start is with the
dramatic decline in airborne emissions from power plants over the past
decade.
As they
generate electricity, hundreds of fossil-fuel power plants across the
country emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide into the
air. The first two substances cause acid rain and contribute to
respiratory ailments and are the emissions of most concern to public
health. The third is the principal greenhouse gas that accompanies the
burning of oil, natural gas and coal because of their carbon content.
According
to the Energy Information Administration, there has been a sharp
reduction in power-plant emissions over a 10-year period. Since the
start of the shale revolution in 2006 and leading up to 2016, annual
sulfur-dioxide emissions dropped 81 percent, from 9.5 million metric
tons to 1.8 million tons, and nitrogen oxides fell from 3.8 million
metric tons to 1.63 million tons, a reduction of 57 percent.
And
over the same period, annual carbon-dioxide emissions dropped 22.5
percent, from 2.5 billion metric tons to 1.9 billion tons. Today
carbon-dioxide emissions from power production are at late-1980s levels.
Think about it: Even as electricity production has risen, carbon
emissions fell.
These
numbers should bring home a clear message: The fossil fuel revolution in
the United States is profoundly changing not only the economics of oil
and gas production but also the environment. When it comes to
electricity, the economics increasingly favor low-cost, abundant natural
gas.
Moreover,
natural gas is replacing coal, not only in the United States but also in
China and India, two countries with fast-growing economies that are
beginning to use imports of liquefied natural gas for electric power
production. It’s a powerful demonstration that the significant benefits
of the shale revolution are beginning to reach other countries and that
the United States has the know-how and resources to play a major role
globally in reducing carbon emissions.
Everyone
seems to recognize this except U.S. environmental groups and those
politicians who are eagerly courting their endorsement by supporting
efforts to ban the production and use of fossil fuels.
Environmentalists
participating in the keep-it-in-the-ground movement want to replace
natural gas with renewable energy sources like solar and wind. That
misguided approach, which would unnecessarily send energy costs soaring,
is technologically unfeasible and is far from the most efficient way to
achieve environmental progress.
Greater
use of clean natural gas has already helped us take a significant
environmental leap forward. While solar and wind power will continue to
become more market competitive, we ought to lean on the resources that
are already winning in the marketplace today.
Regrettably,
the proposition that reducing the U.S. carbon footprint can be done
without natural gas has been gaining ground in political circles.
Democrats in both the U.S. Senate and the California Assembly have
proposed legislation calling for a full transition to solar and wind.
But relying entirely on
renewables is both foolish and unrealistic. Solar and wind are growing
as energy sources, and a case can be made for investing in renewables.
But
sacrificing natural gas is ill-advised. Given that solar and wind
energy are intermittent, it would require a fundamental change in our
energy system and impose enormous costs on the nation’s economy.
Those
who cling to the belief that natural gas can be replaced forget that
the reason you hear so little about acid rain these days is that
sulfur-dioxide emissions have declined significantly over the years.
Climate change is still a concern to some.
However,
the significant reduction in power-plant emissions to the lowest level
in almost 30 years proves that we can grow the economy and have a
healthy environment, too.
And
it’s a demonstration that the technology revolution — and a dose of
reason and resolve — can address climate challenges without changing the
way we live."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.