Occasionally, the Concord Monitor will print something against “type” and puts up an LtE / Op-Ed that is opposite their in-bred philosophy. This on environmentalists eschewing basic economics and science for ideological purposes (e.g., the Sierra Club’s “Beyond <insert fossil energy source here>” programs which stand on solely on one point – keep everything in the ground). A bit of a read but worth your time. And no, the author has nothing to do with environmentalism or energy fields – he just wants to run his company here but the environmentalists here are willing to hurt the economy for all simply to satisfy their few (reformated, emphasis mine):
The willingness of environmental activists and their elected and appointed allies to ignore the drumbeat of bad news about the security and costs of the region’s energy supplies is a stunning abdication of responsibility for sound public policies to protect both the environment and the economy. While responsible environmental policies are necessary, to assume that somehow New Hampshire and New England can quickly move from natural gas to 100 percent renewable energy, while avoiding any new transmission to deliver renewable energy, is naïve and dangerous.
The author misunderstands – for the environmentalists, this is a FEATURE, not a bug.
This assumption ignores the fact that New Hampshire’s electricity rates are consistently 50 percent to 60 percent above the national average, year-round, making us one of the most expensive states for electricity in the country. This has forced employers to explore options outside New Hampshire and New England to obtain lower electricity prices.
Environmentalists have made it clear – they are very much in favor of no-growth or decreased-growth policies as they see human activities as a blight upon the earth. There are too many of us doing too many things and it irks them tremendously that we Normals, who simply want to work and keep our families at a certain standard of living, reject their demands that we follow them back to the Stone Age, energy-wise.
- To ignore the concerns voiced repeatedly over several years about the lack of natural gas capacity into the region, along with the value of new electric transmission through New Hampshire linking New England with Canadian hydropower, is shortsighted and jeopardizes the electricity supply of a region that depends on nearly 100 percent reliability. Many recent events are being ignored by activists who are focused on absolute outcomes rather than a prudent transition. For example:
- In just 13 days in late December and early January New England nearly ran out of power, spent nearly $1 billion in additional cost to turn on shuttered oil plants for power (adding 1 million tons of the greenhouse gases it is trying to avoid into the atmosphere) and was forced to import liquefied natural gas from a sanctioned Russian company.
- In mid-January ISO-New England, responsible for the region’s electric power reliability, warned that by the winter of 2024-25 the region could face “rolling blackouts.”
- We should not forget the more than $7 billion in higher energy costs incurred in New England over the three previous winters and the $1 billion of additional cost borne by ratepayers during the 13-day cold spell earlier this year. Those costs are the equivalent of a tax increase – $800 million for New Hampshire – with no benefit to energy consumers.
Despite these high costs, an appeal in Massachusetts effectively blocked regulatory authority to approve funding for natural gas pipeline plans that would have improved reliability and lowered costs. Efforts underway here in New Hampshire to do the same should be soundly rejected.
Not to be overlooked is the recent action taken by the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee when it rejected, in a moment of irresponsible spontaneity, the proposed Northern Pass transmission line. This decision should be reversed immediately.
The impact of these reckless decisions undermines the case environmentalists make for a clean energy future. California, Texas and Oregon have dependable natural gas capacity and access to large hydroelectric projects that avoid the dramatic and dangerous price spikes that New England has experienced and will likely continue to experience. To be clear, natural gas power plants and electric transmission lines do not compete with renewables, but instead work in concert with solar and wind. When the sun goes down and the wind stops, natural gas generation fills the gap. Someday, batteries or other storage technology may supplant natural gas generation, but it will not happen overnight.
Environmentalists show they are unserious when they block such projects. After all, the US CO2 emissions, when compared against population growth, is going downward. Natural gas has been a huge reason why as formerly oil / coal plants have been replaced (although not at a sufficiently fast enough rate). That said, while smaller than huge coal fired plants, they aren’t cheap to build and when gas supplies become fragile, not cheap to run either. But again, the Sierra Club has shown its disdain with its “Beyond Gas” program that helps to make it harder to increase supplies of fuel stocks.
It’s like they hate poor people and working class people as their actions in real life and in the political realm go against what the regular Joe and Jane want – lower prices.
Notably, the electric power generation sector in New England has made great progress in reducing emissions. Sulfur dioxide emissions are down 96 percent with nitrous oxides down 54 percent and carbon dioxide emissions down nearly 40 percent. Natural gas, along with wind and hydroelectric power delivered over transmission lines, are the driving factors behind this success.
Sorry, Tom, but that’s insufficient. Any tour of the EPA website will show astonishing decreases in all kinds of pollutants over the last few decades but the environmentalists will not be happy until that Zero number is reached. You and I, living in the real world, know that the Law of Diminishing Returns will make that economically impossible to meet.
They don’t care. They don’t care that it will bankrupt families, having to choose whether to heat their homes in the winter time, cool their homes in summer, take a vacation (oops – wasteful use of energy there – just go take a walk in the woods; that’s all you “need” instead of going to energy profligate Disney parks and flying in polluting jets!)
For perspective, the electric power sector accounts for 20 percent of greenhouse gases while transportation and buildings account for 80 percent. Policymakers and influencers should focus more on the real causes of greenhouse gases and accept the glaring fact that unless New Hampshire finds a path forward to expand natural gas and electric transmission capacity they are jeopardizing the region’s economic vitality.
Again, a feature not a bug. They are looking for de-economical policies. Why? That will turn into depopulation of areas that will then become “pristine” again. They care, not for people, but only for their wrongheaded ideas of the world before humans. We people are bugs, not features, and we should subsume ourselves for the betterment of the world.
Yet, none of them, hardly, are willing to live by example. They merely exist to shove the rest of us to be first. There are other cultures that have done so – they are of kindred spirits.
Those same policy makers and influencers would do well to listen to Dr. Ernest Moniz, former U.S. energy secretary and MIT Energy Initiative co-founder. Dr. Moniz noted recently that “natural gas has shown itself to be an important bridge to a clean energy future.” They should also consider the experience of another major employer that supports Northern Pass, BAE Systems. They saw their energy costs in New Hampshire grow 24 percent from 2014 to 2016. A company representative stated, “There is no dispute that the best way to definitively lower electricity costs is to bring more reliable, affordable electricity into the New England power market.”
And the use of nukes – no CO2 generation operationally there, but again, there’s that “leave it in the ground” mentality.
(Tom Sullivan is senior vice president of operations for Sturm, Ruger, and Co., Inc.)
I like your products, by the way – but I know you need reasonable energy to make them and as you are finding out, environmentalists have become rigid and uncompromising. You are part of the eggs that must be broken so that they can have their omelette.