A5

JANICE HARVEY
CIVIL SOCIETY

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

2 Comment(s)

An editorial in this paper (Jan. 2) posed an interesting dilemma to a government that has hitched its wagon to the energy development horse: As the demand for energy grows, how do we generate power without poisoning ourselves and our environment?

Enlarge Photo

File

Scrubbing technology at the Coleson Cove power generating station has reduced pollution; it hasn’t eliminated it. Columnist Janice Harvey argues that indefinite growth in energy production is neither possible nor desirable.

The answer provided was, simply, through applied research into "cleaner, greener and sustainable pollution control technologies." The two assumptions embedded in this proposition - that energy demand must keep on growing and that end-of-pipe pollution control is going to be sufficient to reverse the current negative ecological trajectory of our planet - are fundamentally flawed.

The utopian worldview that says the planet can sustain indefinite growth in energy production is grossly out of touch with the physical realities of the planet. There are very real limits to the supply of non-renewable fuels - fossil-based or uranium. At some point, perhaps not too distant, affordable supplies of non-renewable fuels will be gone. The concept of 'peak oil' has been common parlance in energy circles for years.

There are also social limits to the extraction of energy resources. While industry has gone to great lengths to mine the most inaccessible of these fuels, the Alberta tar sands, it comes at great ecological, human and financial cost. It is overly optimistic to assume society will continue to turn a blind eye to the destruction left behind. As we have seen from the uranium mining controversy here, the social and environmental acceptability of exploiting that fuel is becoming increasingly marginal. Besides the sacrifice of ecosystems and human health, and contribution to global climatic stability, the long term exploitation of both tar sands and uranium will require serious infringement of the democratic rights of affected citizens.

In short, net growth in energy demand is a dead-end concept, as is the idea that pollution controls will deliver us from "poisoning ourselves and the environment." The Irving refinery is a good example of the connection between growth and pollution. When the capacity of the refinery was doubled, pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (smog, acid rain) and carbon dioxide (global warming) also increased despite improved technology. Growth in production equals growth in pollution, even if emissions per unit of production are reduced through better technology. A second refinery will load up the airshed even more regardless of how high the legal standards. Only a zero-emissions refinery, which of course is an impossibility, could prevent that.

As for technological end-of-pipe solutions to pollution, while the scrubbers at Coleson Cove have made breathing in Saint John easier, compared to a low pollution fuel such as natural gas (still non-renewable), emissions from cheap petroleum coke fuel are still high. Further, pet coke combustion will result in a large increase in carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) which contribute to global warming.

Carbon sequestration - the injection of carbon dioxide gas into cavities in the earth - is the technical fix of choice to deal with this problem. According to the aforementioned editorial, the environmental and economic benefits of sequestration are "beyond calculation." Yet this technology, like the oxymoronic 'clean coal,' is still experimental and could only be applied where geological conditions permit and at some astronomical cost. Those conditions do not exist near New Brunswick's carbon dioxide polluting industries, so any benefits of this technology will remain incalculable here.

The many pitfalls that riddle the energy demand growth model are obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in that model. So while energy hub proponents in New Brunswick assume that energy demand must and will keep growing, and that this is sustainable as long as top-notch pollution controls are used, the real game is being played in the field of shrinking energy demand. The cutting-edge research investments are being made not in end-of-pipe controls - an outdated 20th century management approach - but in redesign of societal infrastructure such that energy demand collapses. This is what is behind the "Factor Four" design standards, among other initiatives.

Energy demand growth is not inevitable; it is a function of public policy. It is not an accident that California's per capita energy demand has flattened over the past 25 years while in the rest of the United States it has risen by 65 per cent. The next step is to move to absolute reductions. This will happen because it is in the best interest of the public and planet to do so. Jurisdictions that do not recognize this will be left in the dust.

Finally, for the record, the increase in trucking (read: emissions, traffic and road wear-and-tear) due to limestone imports for Coleson Cove does not qualify as 21st century progress.

Janice Harvey is a freelance writer and university instructor. She can be reached by e-mail at waweig@nbnet.nb.ca.