Forbes | Dr. Scott Tinker | August 10, 2017
Passionate voices in environmental, political and even academic spheres have recommended elimination of 85% of global energy by keeping oil, natural gas and coal in the ground, thus cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions. This, they argue, is for the welfare of the global climate and of the impoverished who, they claim, will be hurt most by the impacts of climate change.
These activists suggest that fossil fuels can be replaced relatively easily with intermittent, low-density sources of energy such as wind and solar, as well as with massive production of chemical batteries in hundreds of new “gigafactories.” They have persuaded politicians to introduce “keep it in the ground” legislation, influenced regulators to subsidize renewable energy where renewable resources are poor, and helped to polarize the public.
The “keep it in the ground” mantra is misleading at best. At worst, the economic intervention that requires proliferation of “green” energy can actually hurt human development and endanger the environment. Access to secure energy — affordable, available, reliable and sustainable — is what underpins healthy economies, lifts underdeveloped nations from poverty and allows for investment in environmental sustainability. Lack of access to secure energy does the opposite, often forcing human migration from stagnant, impoverished nations.
One unified energy prescription for the entire world does not exist. Energy resources, including wind and sun, vary by geopolitical, geographic and geologic region. Energy regulation, policy and investment are also inconsistent across economies, and energy infrastructure varies from robust to nonexistent. Solar and wind represent a growing sector but still supply only about 2% of global energy demand.
In terms of fossil fuels, oil for transportation and coal for electricity generation have energized modern economies and positively impacted human health. Advances in oil and gas drilling and completion technology, improved environmental practices and more-modern regulatory policies have revitalized the industry in North America, making production from unconventional reservoirs, such as the shale basins in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Dakota and Texas, mostly economic. As similar innovations are applied globally, natural gas could substitute for coal in power generation — reducing CO2 emissions substantially, as it has in the United States. This approach should be applauded by anyone wanting to reduce global CO2emissions.
Read the full op-ed here.
Dr. Tinker is the director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at The University of Texas at Austin.