When it comes to many projects, endeavors, and merchandise touted as “green” these days, I find myself becoming more and more skeptical.
“Green” – for whatever reason – has come to symbolize environmentalism, likely through the association of green color with nature, health, and growth, and “green” energy generally refers to renewable and alternative production and use of energy.
An recent article in the Washington Post looks at five myths about green energy:
Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we’ll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, “green” energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes — and subsidies — in it, let’s take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what “green” means.
5 Myths:
- Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
- Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
- A green American economy will create green American jobs.
- Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
- The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.
Check out the full Washington Post article: Five myths about green energy.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I do know the whole “green” thing has a lot of coat-tail riders and that not everything that calls itself green actually is. Myth busting is good so we don’t all go off half-cocked in the wrong direction. And it’s good to see people discussing it and maybe coming up with better alternatives.
I have no problems whatsoever with not going green. I simply want India and China to be left alone to develop their power sector using coal to fire their thermal power stations. No sanctimonious carbon credit nonsense from any source. I also want these two countries to go all out to develop their automobile industry so that more and more people use automobiles and use more and more oil to power their vehicles. How does that sound Mike?
.-= Rummuser´s last blog ..The Story Of My Life. =-.
XUP – I guess the thing I’m concerned about most is that we go off chasing wonderful ideas and concepts only to find out later that they were half-baked and full of unintended consequences.
Ramana – I think it’s probably closer to the reality that the world will face in coming years. The economics of rising energy consumption is what will drive future innovation in energy production and usage, not an unnecessary carbon credit market that would be at significant risk from corruption.
Ethanol is a great example of people getting carried away with the idea of alternative energy. What a waste of resources.
.-= Cheerful Monk´s last blog ..Dog Heaven =-.
Jean – That’s one that really gets me, too. Unintended consequences, waste of resources, and, in some places, it’s almost impossible to get fuel without ethanol in it.
I mentioned ethanol before I read the article. I was thinking of articles I’ve read that says ethanol from corn takes more energy to produce than the gasoline it replaces. I decided to question my assumption and am reading some articles that refute that. I’m skeptical because of the politics involved. I’ve also heard that it can damages some cars…that seems to be substantiated. What do you think? The main thing is to not get carried away by something just because it sounds good.
.-= Cheerful Monk´s last blog ..Dog Heaven =-.
I did a quick look at some abstracts of papers dealing with ethanol. For the amount of subsidies being poured into this, it looks like there are a lot of issues. Here’s just one example:
I’m skeptical too. Hot trends are always suspicious.