The anti-carbon crowd is on a roll.
The Obama Administration’s EPA is imposing new rules making it harder to mine and burn coal. The first-ever limits on carbon emissions are positioned precisely to keep any coal-burning power plants from being built in the future.
That, combined with the surge in deep shale natural gas production, is driving utilities to switch to natural gas, which produces much less carbon when burned.
A few years ago, that might have satisfied even the most extreme elements of the environmental movement. In fact, the Sierra Club once welcomed $26 million in donations from Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s second largest natural gas producer.
But those were the good old days.
The Sierra Club, fresh off what it believes is a victory in their “Beyond Coal” campaign, is now turning against gas. The powerful environmental organization has, you guessed it, started a “Beyond Gas” campaign.
“The emergence of natural gas as a significant part of our energy mix is particularly frightening because it dangerously postpones investment in clean energy at a time when we should be doubling down on wind, solar and energy efficiency,” said Sierra Club President Robin Mann.
The Sierra Club can make life extremely difficult for the natural gas industry through legal entanglements and by appealing to EPA sympathizers. But as long as gas prices are low, the environmentalists favored alternatives remain too expensive.
The true end game for the movement is for natural gas, as well as coal, to be regulated and priced out of the nation’s energy portfolio.
Adam James and Jorge Madrid, writing in the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said, “With coal and natural gas potentially becoming more expensive, the carbon rule will therefore help level the energy playing field (emphasis added) by creating an incentive for investors, utilities, and decision makers to break ground on new renewable energy projects.”
In other words, the best way to make alternative energy sources more marketable is to make coal and natural gas more expensive.
As if that’s not enough, James and Madrid also argue that taxpayers should continue to subsidize the alternative energy sources through “important policies,” including massive tax credits and direct cash grants.
Of course, the anti-carbon movement gushes with rosy predictions of how moving to “clean energy” will lead to economic prosperity and job creation. That ignores the reality that cheap energy is a driving force behind economic growth.
It was true for England in the 1800’s with coal. It was true for the United States in the last century with coal and oil. It’s about to prove itself again with shale gas and oil.
The typical counter argument is that one day we’ll run out of coal, oil and natural gas. Indeed these resources are finite, but thanks to improved technology we keep finding new ways to reach deposits that previously were inaccessible.
For a country that’s mired in debt and slogging through anemic economic growth, the resurgence in domestic energy production should be greeted as positive news. Instead, the green movement sees it as a threat and a reason to intensify its anti-carbon campaigns.