Does the Environment Still Matter?

The Environmental Imperative for Renewable Energy: An Update Does the Environment Still Matter?
	A. INTRODUCTION: A LOOK BACK In late 1995, the newly formed Renewable Energy Policy Project released its first publication, an issue brief by Irving Mintzer, Alan Miller, and Adam Serchuk. The Environmental Imperative: A Driving Force in the Development and Deployment of Renewable Energy Technologies outlined the environmental rationale for developing renewable energy resources for electricity generation, with an emphasis on the air pollution and greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuel. We concluded that "global energy systems developed their current appetite for fossil fuel...through an economic sleight of hand which permits energy consumers to ignore the staggering environmental costs of their choices." We affirmed that "future energy systems, whether they rely on markets or governmental mandates, must manifest greater economic honesty. Once they do so, we believe the world will turn increasingly toward renewable energy." Has anything changed since 995? Not the environmental imperative itself: it has become even clearer that renewable energy must play a growing role in our long-term electricity strategy. (We must also boost energy efficiency and replace coal with cleaner fuels.) As we acknowledged then, all technologies for producing energy levy an impact on the environment. The nature of that impact often depends on project-specific characteristics; there exist both renewable and nonrenewable energy installations with unfortunate consequences. Nevertheless, on the whole, renewable energy proves far more benign than the alternatives. The future must be renewable. Yet much has changed in the past half-decade. Most significant, policy makers and regulators worldwide increasingly allow individual suppliers and users to decide how to produce and deliver electricity. This "restructuring" of the electricity business will change the role of environmental issues in energy decision-making. To take one example, our original Environmental Imperative discussed the calculation of environmental "adders" for conventional generating resources. These hypothetical sums represent the cost to the environment of using a given generating technology. In theory, they help identify the generating (or demand-side) option with the lowest total social cost. While still illustrative as a conceptual tool, and arguably still warranted on theoretical grounds, regulators in many jurisdictions have abandoned environmental externalities as a ratemaking device. In coming years, as regulators relinquish their authority to determine what kind of power plants get built, and how much customers must pay to use them, power companies will produce the power that they think their customers want - in accordance with a very large body of environmental and other regulation - and customers will buy the power that best suits their needs. Presumably, customers will consider price, price volatility, power quality, reliability - and, perhaps, environmental impact. In short, the environmental impact of making electricity may remain important. We expect that in coming years, environmental action will consist of living green, voting green, and buying green. As citizens, Americans must continue to support public policy and policymakers who protect the environment; as consumers, we will also increasingly have to take responsibility in the marketplace for personal environmental stewardship. The challenge for renewable energy businesses and advocates will be to make environmental information available to consumers, and to show them why it matters. This updated Environmental Imperative outlines the main environmental impacts of current conventional electricity generation, as well as those resulting from renewable energy technologies. ¹ It represents a primer, not the final word. Due to space and resource limitations, it does not consider all the options available; regrettable gaps remain for solar thermal, microturbines, and a range of experimental renewable and conventional technologies. Readers should remember that some data presented here are uncertain, and many issues remain controversial. Although we have tried to avoid errors in the sources consulted, REPP does not take responsibility for any that remain. This report does not review environmental regulation, outline a social marketing campaign, or present a policy program. Readers interested in appropriate responses to the material presented here may consult other REPP publications (see inside back cover). Rather, the report surveys major impacts of electricity generation on air, climate, land, water, wildlife, and radiation levels, thereby outlining the environmental imperative for renewable energy. B. WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPERATIVE? A complete life-cycle comparison of different electricity options remains beyond the scope of this survey. ² More important, we already know the basic outline of our environmental dilemma. The beginnings of a response to the dilemma seem equally clear. Taken together, the following issues constitute the environmental imperative facing us: All energy use affects the environment: Gathering energy for useful purposes alters the natural cycles of planetary ecology. At their most severe, effects include perturbation of the global climate; threats to endangered species and thereby to biodiversity; health risks through respiratory disease, cancer, and other ailments; irreparable destruction of public land; and the production of toxic waste. For a given resource, technology choices and management practices can often alter environmental consequences: For instance, pollution controls can reduce the emissions of combustion based power plants, and wind turbines can be designed and sited so as not to threaten birds. Renewable energy technologies are, in the vast majority of cases, preferable to conventional technologies: Renewable energy technologies carry their own risks. In general, these are far less than those of conventional technologies. Most conventional energy technologies are ultimately unsustainable: Some of the impacts of conventional energy production, such as the production of greenhouse gases by coal combustion, land disturbance due to coal mining, and the generation of nuclear waste, seem so intractable as to exclude these technologies from a sustainable energy strategy. In short, renewable energy resources pose less environmental risk than conventional sources. With careful management, we can use renewable energy without perturbing natural ecological activity in a harmful way - although no energy technology has zero environmental cost. By contrast, reliance on conventional energy sources seems by definition to alter the balance of material and energy in the ecosystem in a dangerous manner. For this reason, renewable energy represents a vital element of a sound energy strategy.
	The Environmental Imperative for Renewable Energy: An Update
		Abstract Message from REPP Staff Does the Environment Still Matter? Air Pollution Climate Change Land, Water, and Wildlife Impacts Radiation Lifecycle Analysis Conclusion: A Clear Solution to a Complex Problem
	copyright © 2000 by Renewable Energy Policy Project