The Economically Detrimental Environmental Movement (Draft)

8/13/2019 The Economically Detrimental Environmental Movement (Draft)

1/7

Delgadillo 1

Victor Delgadillo

Professor Giuntoli

FYW 100

14 November 2013

The Economically Detrimental Environmental Movement

One of the largest movements of modern times, originating around postwar World War

II, is the Environmental Movement, also known as Environmentalism. In todays world of heavy

dependence on fossil fuels for energy, much of the efforts of environmentalists are to push for

cleaner, renewable sources of energy. However, there seems to be more evidence that opposes,

rather than supports, the ideology that modern energy practices are harmful to the environment.

Also, the cost of revamping the nations entire system for energy consumption would destroy the

United States economically. While it may seem beneficial to invest large amounts of money into

clean energy use and environmental acts immediately, evidence supports that such investments

are unnecessary right now, and would only be more economically detrimental than beneficial to

the United States.

The beginning of the modern-day Environmental Movement is usually linked with the

publishing of Rachel Carsons Silent Spring. Even though the Environmental Movement had

been around since the Civil War era, the publication of Silent Spring was the first time where

the public became united about the issue (Griswold). Eventually most of the harmful pesticides

became obsolete and replaced with newer, safer ones, and Environmentalism branched out into

many different categories, with the Clean Energy Movement being one of the larger ones.

Todays world has become heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels for many

important tasks like transportation, heating, and cooking, and to produce electricity. What the


2/7

Delgadillo 2

Clean Energy Movement is calling for is the transition of energy use from non-renewable

resources, like fossil fuels, to renewable resources, such as solar, wind, and hydro. The reason

being that renewable energy is much cleaner, hence the name Clean Energy Movement.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the sources of U.S. electricity

generation is about 37% coal, 30% natural gas, 19% nuclear, 1% petroleum, and 12% renewable.

That means that more than four-fifths of the source of our energy comes from non-renewable

resources. Going by just that statistic, it is obvious why there is a concern for cleaner energy

usage.

The problem is not using clean, renewable energy itself, but it is the way the Clean

Energy Movement wants to move towards renewable energy that will cause more harm than

good. The mission statement of the New Energy Movement, an organization that is a strong

advocate of the Clean Energy Movement, reads:

New Energy Movement acts to promote the rapid widespread deployment of

advanced, clean, and sustainable energy sources across our imperiled planet. This

transformation in the way our civilization generates and uses energy provides the

best physical means to protect the biosphere, remediate ecological damage, and

enhance the health and well-being of the global human family.

In their mission statement, the New Energy Movement points out that they want the

immediate transition to clean energy usage, with their reasoning being that the change is the best

way to protect the planet, fix the damage already done by the burning of fossil fuels, and better

the lives of the people.

The New Energy Movement is not the only environmental organization with this goal.

There are other environmental organizations that support the Clean Energy Movement that have


3/7

Delgadillo 3

a similar goal. Although the idea of converting our energy sources to all renewable sources might

seem like a good idea, the technologies used in the process of capturing that energy has its own

downfalls in that it is very expensive and takes up a lot of land.

An article in the New York Times titled The Gas is Greener by Robert Bryce talks

about Californias energy use and how they plan to convert to cleaner energy:

Meeting the one-third target [of 52,000 megawatts] will require about 17,000

megawatts of renewable energy capacity. Lets assume that California will get

half of that capacity from solar [power] Most of its large-scale solar electricity

production will presumably come from projects like the $2 billion Ivanpah solar

plant... [and] when completed, Ivanpah, which aims to provide 370 megawatts of

solar generation capacity, will cover 3,600 acresabout five and a half square

miles [In order] to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would

need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an

area more than five times as large as Manhattan.

According to that article, it would cost approximately $46 billion, and take up an area

five times the size of Manhattan, and it still would not be enough to meet one-third of

Californias energy consumption. Wind power uses even more land than solar energy,

hydropower disrupts the surrounding ecosystem because of damming, and geothermal power

uses far too much groundwater than is available in its process.

In order to meet the worlds total energy demands in 2030 with just renewable energy

would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines, each with twice the capacity of todays

largest machines, 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants,

490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants,


4/7

Delgadillo 4

and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems (Stover). Now compare that amount to the prices

and land needed, and it becomes clear that not only is it impossible to afford converting to

completely renewable resources, but there is simply not enough land to put all the power plants.

Not only is the idea of completely renewable energy impossible to achieve, it is

unnecessary. It is unnecessary to even increase the amount of renewable energy we use by much.

The New Energy Movement states that it would better the health of the people, but their health is

not really in jeopardy because of current energy practices. Global warming is just a theory that

has yet to be scientifically proven. The argument that we are running out fossil fuels is true, but

exaggerated. Fossil fuels are non-renewable, but technology is also improving as time goes on.

One process that has been developed, and has greatly increased the United States supply of

natural gas is hydraulic fracturing. Commonly known as fracking, [It]allows for extended

production in older oil and natural gas fields. It also allows for the recovery of oil and natural

gas from formations that geologists once believed were impossible to produceHydraulic

fracturing is also used to extend the life of older wells in mature oil and gas fields

(Hydraulic).

Although fossil fuels will eventually run out, it is not quite clear as to when they will run

out. One thing is for sure, there is an abundance of supply of them at the moment due to new

techniques and technologies, and it is very likely that those techniques and technologies will

become enhanced as time passes. Therefore, there is no need for an overhaul of our energy

usage.

The economy, which is not currently doing well, cannot take on paying for these changes

at the moment. Economists view the Environmental Movement as the biggest obstacle to

economic growth, which is essential to a healthy economy. Economic growth can be defined as


5/7

Delgadillo 5

when an economys production of goods and services increases. By interfering with growth,

the nations standard of living goes down. Most of the population in the United States cannot

afford to pay for the transition of their energy to renewable sources. The budget deficit, or the

national debt, is already far too high, so the government cannot afford to pay for the transition to

renewable energy either (Mandel 178, 235).

The only way for sustainable energy to become a main source of energy is through

gradual change, rather than rapid transition. There is not enough money or land to be able to

immediately move to renewable energies. Further development and research of the processes and

technologies used by the cleaner energy methods is required in order to make them the nations

main source of energy. As time passes, advancements will be made, and sustainable energy will

become affordable and practical.

Although the concept may seem to be appealing, the goal of Environmentalists of the

rapid and immediate transformation of the nations energy sources from non-renewable fossil

fuels to clean and renewable energy is impossible at the moment. Their exorbitant prices and the

amount of land they require make them a very impractical energy source. At the moment, the

worlds consumption of energy is far greater than what these new technologies can provide.

Through the technological advancements made in the drilling of fossil fuels, such as hydraulic

fracturing, there is now an abundance of supply of fossil fuels. The advantages of fossil fuels are

that there is a high supply of it, their output of energy is far greater, and their price is much lower

compared to the advantages of renewable energy, which only are that they are sustainable and

eco-friendly. This does not mean that we should focus only on fossil fuel research. The

unavoidable truth is that there will be a point where the supply of fossil fuels will not be able to

meet the demands of energy consumption. Therefore, it is imperative that the technologies and


6/7

Delgadillo 6

processes used by sustainable energy are further developed, and that renewable energy is

gradually integrated into the system, rather than a complete overhaul, which could be

catastrophic to the economy. Only through further research and technological advancements will

the renewable energy sources become affordable and practical to use. Until then, the nation

should continue with the use of fossil fuels, but should also slowly become less dependent on

non-renewable sources and ease the new alternative form of energy into their system.


7/7

Delgadillo 7

Works Cited

Brulle, Robert J. The U.S. Environmental Movement. Rep. N.p.: n.p., n.d. The U.S.

Environmental Movement. Drexel University. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.

.

Bryce, Robert. "The Gas Is Greener." The New York Times. N.p., 7 June 2011. Web. 28 Oct.

2013. .

Griswold, Eliza. "How 'Silent Spring' Ignited the Environmental Movement." The New York

Times. N.p., 21 Sept. 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.

.

"Hydraulic Fracturing: The Process."FracFocus: Chemical Disclosure Registry. N.p., n.d. Web.

13 Nov. 2013. .

Mandel, Michael.Economics: The Basics. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2009. Print.

"New Energy Movement."New Energy Movement. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

.

Stover, Dawn. "The Myth of Renewable Energy."Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. N.p., 22 Nov.

2011. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. .

U.S. Energy Information Administration - Independent Statistics & Analysis. N.p., n.d. Web. 12

Nov. 2013. .

Documents

The Economically Detrimental Environmental Movement (Draft)