Op-Ed: Remaining Fossil Fuels Must Remain In the Ground

August 28, 2023, 8:47 am 6.8k Views 62 Comments

By Seth Steiner, Los Alamos

OF CANARIES AND POODLES

Altho neither a birder nor an ornithologist, I am a fan of The Canary opinion column in the Santa Maria Sun. It’s snappy and entertaining. But last week it bordered on the bird-brained.

This bird looks and sounds yellow. It ought not to quake and quiver. Refuse to be caged by ExxonMobil’s naked threats to sue the County. Buck up, bird up, do the right thing and fly free.

Recall 2015 when over One Hundred Thousand gallons of Exxon oil spilled at Gaviota. Last week our Board of Supervisors met to decide, in effect, if Exxon could reopen the same corroded and still uninspected pipeline.

Supervisor Steve Lavagnino asked a question, intended to be a zinger, of all opposing the reopening, “Do you drive a car using gasoline or an EV that rides on asphalt roads?” Actually, that’s not a serious or pertinent question.

We’ve built a world that depends on burning fossil fuels and now it requires a major renovation. We have plenty of oil and always will. We are weaning ourselves off of it in favor of clean and renewable fuels. Regardless of Exxon’s insatiable greed, we are well along on this better path now.

Most remaining fossil fuels must remain in the ground if the world is to remain livable and if we, children, canaries and angry poodles are to survive and thrive together.

Op-Ed’s are written by community members, not representatives of edhat. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat. [Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at info@edhat.com.]

Avatar

Written by Anonymous

What do you think?

0 Points

Comments

1 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

62 Comments

  4. Most climate change scientists have the honesty to allow that extraction and refining of lithium, cobalt, and rare earth mineral have large carbon and environmental footprints impacts. They claim that despite the costs, the forward progress is worth it. sometimes at the beginning of a technology shift, you get one step forward and 0.9 of a step back and you take that.
    I agree with them on that number. I’ll gladly give everyone here 90 cents for every dollar they want to give me

    0

  5. But some of the stuff from the eco community is a bit of a reach. This mornings LA Times has discussion of argument that dams should not be built as they are the source of methane or C02. I know the unspoken story is that the dam opponents want the status quo forever. Still, the dam in question seems desirable from a social view in that it is only to capture heavy flow in big storm runoff situations which protects the river and associated species I would think. And dams can and have been removed when they are either not serving their purpose or a better alternative occurs. Not sure what I think about this argument myself but it does push the pocket in the minds of most Californians. But with regard to this op ed, we are so close to transforming our society from fire based energy to cleaner energy that I don’t see any purpose in pumping oil out of Santa Barbara county nor, especially, in piping it across pretty iconic land.

    0

  7. That trope is as old as time it seems. Supporters of fossil fuels attempt to discredit with the faulty logic that if you drive a car, you can’t oppose continuing to destroying our planet.
    Once my solar powered flying man-sized, recycled paper and bamboo vehicles are perfected we won’t need asphalt roads.

    0

    • ALEX – I do the same. There are those here who I can have an interesting convo with and find common ground and there’s those who I’m here just to grind into hysterics. CHIP used to be in the latter category, but now with this whole, renewables cause more cancer and death than oil and gas, I just can’t anymore.

      0

    • Sac–the “logic” is infantile. It’s either or–either accept things as they are for all time or basically kill yourself–otherwise you’re a environmental hypocrite!
      And yeah, I’ve seen people tell those who are concerned about environmental impacts that they should literally kill themselves and eliminate their carbon footprint if they are so darned worried.
      You an’t have real conversations with people with that perspective. It’s an absolute waste of time. Nine times out of ten I just show up to troll and insult and trigger them for my own amusement–at least that way they provide some benefit.

      0

    • Really? If you are so adamant about something, why not go all in personally instead of pushing others? It IS hypocrisy…WTF? From not having an electric car, only, to using plastics, buying for nonconforming countries, etc. Every time you buy from Amazon, you’re a hypocrite. That’s just a fact. It has nothing to do with others who push oil. Own your beliefs!

      0

  8. Why do liberals always have to force their beliefs on others? There is no mandate requiring the use of fossil fuels. Various religious cults have given up lots of things they believed to be harmful throughout history. Feel free to travel on a horse if you want to, just don’t try to force me to live like we’re back in the 1800s.

    0

    • CHIP – LOL… you know damn well that the need for cleaner energy is not “a belief,” it’s a necessity if you have an ounce of care about your future, your kids’ future, their kids’ future, etc. Are you seriously saying you don’t believe we need cleaner forms of energy?
      Yeah, Tesla’s are basically a horse and buggy….. man oh man, CHIP.

      0

    • Sac, low cost energy is essential if you care at all about the future. Shutting down a reliable source of low cost energy is misguided and irresponsible. Throughout human history, various religions have predicted all manner of disaster based on their faith and traditions. In many cases, these religions have imposed their beliefs on others with unfortunate results. For example, the Mayans were faced with climate change that was far more harmful than anything happening now. Drought became an existential threat to their civilization (what caused climate change then?). In response, they started making sacrifices. This escalated to the point of human sacrifices. Much like the climate sacrifices we make today in the form raising costs for the poor and engaging in environmentally destructive and inhumane mining and manufacturing practices among vulnerable populations overseas, the Mayan’s climate policy proved ineffectual. If only the Mayans had discovered fossil fuels, they could have overcome the drought and their civilization would still be around today.
      https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/150127-maya-water-temple-drought-archaeology-science

      0

    • “Shutting down a reliable source of low cost energy is misguided and irresponsible.” 1) We’re not shutting anything down. 2) Renewables are far cheaper than oil and coal, it’s well established fact. In addition, since fossil fuels are NOT renewable (ie, they are running out as we speak), supply and demand dictates they will be far more expensive the less we have. 3) If that energy source is killing our planet, why would we continue using it if there are cleaner alternatives?

      0

  9. Love the ol’ “Just cuz I drive an ICE car doesn’t mean I am all for ICE cars or drive on asphalt.” Very strange. No doubt that in the future we will come up with a better solution to getting from point A to point B without harming the environment. In the mean time, if you truly believe oil is soooooooo bad, you can give up your cars (ICE and EVs) and start walking or start taking the local buses. Not convenient? Then don’t try to inconvenience the rest of us by saying you’re saving the planet by driving your not-so-eco-friendly hybrid or EV. Don’t castigate others because they cannot afford a non-ICE vehicle. As a matter of fact, if I drive (and I do) an old beater from the 80s or 90s, I’m saving more penguins, dolphins, whales, ozone layer, glaciers, the oceans, and so on than those who decide to (and can afford to) buy a brand new Tesla or other brand in the name of “greeness.” EV sales are slowing to a crawl, and in China, EVs are going to waste and being sent to the junkyard. That’s not very eco-friendly. Go figure.

    0

  10. We still need fossil fuels to be part of a diversified energy portfolio until such time as other alternatives can RELIABLY satisfy a growing long-term energy need (think server farms, increasing population, etc. among other things) then, by all means, turn off the spigot at that time. But not until.
    Until then make use of EVERY arrow in our quiver:
    1. Wind
    2. Solar
    3. Hydroelectric
    4. Nuclear
    5. Natural Gas
    6. Oil
    7. Whatever else I couldn’t quickly think of.
    Please, use common sense, not irrational emotion.
    Oh, and for water needs –
    1. More de-sal plants along the west coast.
    2. More storage capacity, i.e., new dams. Or, at least de-silt where possible.
    3. Cover the aqueduct to recover water lost to evaporation.
    4. Pipeline from somewhere else that has overabundance of water? Propably a “pipe dream.”
    5. Find a way to divert water that is lost to the Pacific Ocean from places, among others, like the
    Sacramento delta.
    6. Other ways that don’t easily come to mind. Anybody?

    0

    • SACJON – I, for one, do not hold out for perfection. After all, “perfect is the enemy of the possible,” or something like that. You might be confusing me with other posters.
      I am simply an advocate for the common sense use of EVERYTHING. I’m perfectly happy with renewables, but not to the exclusion of other sources.

      0

    • CURMUDGOEN – correct. We are not at the point yet of completely relying on renewable energy. I’m not sure anyone in government is seriously advocating for that. What we need though, is to keep developing and deploying wind and solar and not holding off until it’s “perfect.” That’s unrealistic. Waiting for perfection is just an excuse to avoid it. Heck, why would we hold renewables to a higher standard of “perfection” than we do for fossil fuels?
      No energy source will ever be 100% perfect. That can no longer be an excuse to avoid those that are still better than the status quo.

      0

    • SAC if you exclude natural gas, you might be right, but we have natural gas. It’s very clean compared to other fossil fuels, incredibly cheap, abundant, easy to transport with existing infrastructure, domesticly produced, very efficient for heating (even when compared to electric heating sourced from solar/wind. The largest driver of CO2 reductions has been switching from coal to natural gas.

      0

    • JAK – good points. I don’t think it will take decades and definitely not centuries to establish them to be cleaner than fossil fuels. They are right now cleaner in every way. Coal and oil are deadly and polluting in their development (mining and drilling), production (refinement) AND use (burning coal and running gas engines, etc). Wind and solar are dirty only in the development phase (mining for materials for batteries, panels, etc). So, as of now, we have a better solution. Further, lithium (the dirtiest part of renewables) will soon be phased out as other battery solutions, such as sodium ion, come on line in mass production.
      At its highest and most advanced technological point, fossil fuels are still far worse for our health and our planet’s health than the current tech for renewables. Yes, renewables are not yet perfect and they never will, but we can’t keep putting off wide spread implementation while still relying on fossil fuels as the bulk of our energy. We can’t yet completely shut down coal and oil, but we need to be pushing far more for widespread renewable sources.

      0

    • Sacjon, why would we hold renewables to a higher standard? I for one think that we ought to hold them to a higher standard because they are not yet established which means that it will generally be easier to develop them to higher standards than to retrofit the well established sources of energy to be their best. Fossil fuels and hydroelectric power have been developed and used for a couple centuries now. It hopefully will not take that long to establish newer and better sources but it will take decades if not centuries and it would behoove us to develop them more carefully and with more thought to possibly long term consequences than we did with coal etc.

      0

  11. Until EV’s are perfected, we will need fossil fuel! Ev’s are not a free environmental, nor positive for humanity “free lunch”. A car battery requires 500,000 pounds of earth, mostly dug by slave wage workers, with a large percentage of children among the diggers. At present, most chargers take a long time to top off a battery from 50% to 100% capacity, if you can find a charger and one thst works. Tesla has its own limited network of chargers, but the car itself is far from a quality driving machine.
    EEV’s do not work best in extreme heat and extreme heat is our future. The coolest summer we will ever have had was in 2022! We have a duty to ourselves to extract as much oil as needed for the foreseeable future. Depending on hostile countries for our oil is a fool’s game. Where is all this charging electric energy supposed to come from in this all electric car future? The utilities can’t keep it flowing 100% of the time as it is. There is no perfect answer, but our national security is at the top of the “must have” list.

    0

  12. I think we need to come up with a way for people to opt in or out of climate policies. For example, liberals who support wind and solar could opt to pay $0.30 to 0.40 per kWh for their electricity based on their climate beliefs, and everyone else could pay $0.15. Liberals opposed to fossil fuels could opt to pay $6 per gallon for their gas, and everyone else could pay $2. Liberals opposed to desal could pay a fortune for their water and dry out their yards, and everyone else could have green lawns and cheap water bills. If you want to make sacrifices for your climate religion, go ahead and make them. Just stop trying to drag me down with you!

    0

    • CHIP – you clearly have no clue what this is about. Renewables aren’t just important for climate change, it’s important to stop polluting our planet, killing tons of wildlife, giving people cancer, ruining ecosystems, etc.
      I don’t care if you don’t “believe” in climate change, but are you seriously saying that the pollution and death caused by coal and oil is just fine and dandy?

      0

    • Sac, if you take put the climate religion part aside, the belief that CO2 will cause global warming and the demise of life on earth, then you are advocating for far more environmental harm than fossil fuels. So called “renewables” cause far more pollution, kill more wildlife, cause more cancer, and ruin more ecosystems than fossil fuels. I think everyone is in agreement on that, right? The discussion is about whether you believe CO2 emissions are going to bring the end of times upon us or not.

      0

    • CHIP – ” So called “renewables” cause far more pollution, kill more wildlife, cause more cancer, and ruin more ecosystems than fossil fuels.” WRONG. Absolutely 100% wrong and you’ve been provided with the links to studies showing you’re wrong every single time an article is published here about this issue.
      You are liar. I’m done. But hey, provide some evidence that wind/solar cause more pollution, kill more wildlife, cuase more cancer and ruin the planet more and we can maybe have a civilized discussion. Until then, I’m done. I won’t engage with habitual liars here any more.

      0

  13. The Gaviota Coast is a rich bio-diverse region. It serves as a transition zone between northern and southern California creatures, both terrestrial and marine species. More than 40 sensitive vertebrate and imperiled species and 525 known plant species inhabit this area. The 5 Channel Islands comprise the National Marine Sanctuary. Oil extraction is a dirty industry. Union Oil’s Platform A blew out in our Santa Barbara Channel in January 1969, the largest oil spill in the USA at that time. Over 10 days, 80,000-100,000 barrels of crude spilled into the ocean, local beaches and on the 4 northern Channel Islands. An estimated 3,500 sea birds were killed as well as dolphins, elephant seals, and sea lions. The Plains All-American Pipeline ruptured in May 2015 spilling more than 123,000 gallons of crude onto the Refugio shoreline and into the ocean. Based on history alone, the sensitive habitat of the Gaviota Coast is not the place to extract petroleum. Period.

    0

    • STRAY I agree. The issues with oil extraction on the Gaviota Coast are many. But I also do not think wind turbines belong there or offshore anywhere. Why doesn’t anyone talk about the vast amount of land that renewable energy requires and destroys? Why doesn’t anyone talk about how many animals are killed or ecosystems fragmented or ruined? Rich biodiversity exists in areas where wind turbines and utility scale solar projects are sited. Wind turbines are killing condors in Tehachapi. To think that massive vibrating turbines in the ocean won’t have a detrimental impact on ocean life is ignorant. Californias lofty goal of a zero emission future is currently not realistic. All sources of energy damage the environment pick your poison.

      0

    • Totally Clean!!!! Have you not been alive for the last 80 years? Right now Fukushima is pumping radioactive water into the common oceans that will pollute that for the life of the human species. Chernobyl is a no go zone indefinitely. We have to face the serious pollution from the US atomic programs in eastern Washington that threaten the Columbia River and basin. Even in the fervid imaginations of mad scientists the idea that we can transport and store nuclear waste for thousands of years is some sort of sick joke. No, we cannot compromise on the short term sirene song of nuclear power. There are all kinds of better alternatives right now and even more close at hand.

      0

    • CHIP – yeah, we all know that. The reason you are a liar is for saying, “So called “renewables” cause far more pollution, kill more wildlife, cause more cancer, and ruin more ecosystems than fossil fuels.” That is a lie. You’ve been shown evidence to the contrary ad nauseum and have failed to provide any supporting your claim.
      Backpedaling is useless. Please stop lying. It’s sad.

      0

    • The rare earth mining required for so-called “renewable” energy releases tons of radioactive waste, in addition numerous other environmental impacts. It’s incredible the same people who oppose nuclear power because of concerns about radioactive waste support rare earth mining practices that release radioactive waste into the environment as their alternative. Here is an article from Harvard addressing the waste products of “green” technology.
      https://hir.harvard.edu/not-so-green-technology-the-complicated-legacy-of-rare-earth-mining/

      0

    • Again, why would anyone believe anything said by a fossil fuel propagandist who says that climate science isn’t science and that CO2 isn’t known to cause global warming?
      As for green energy production not being 100% rainbows and unicorns–yes, we know that, contrary to that other propagandist Edney. Remember, folks, these are fundamentally dishonest arguments and the people who make them are not good people.
      As for nuclear power, there are legitimate debates among *people of good faith* … but this is Chip. Note the structure of his argument: he says that, if you’re opposed to nuclear power because of concerns about nuclear waste then you should be opposed to green energy because of nuclear waste. But a) He thinks that opposition to nuclear power is irrational, so he’s advocating irrational opposition to green energy–this is how a propagandist argues, not someone of good faith. b) Radioactive waste is fundamental to nuclear power plants, is high energy, and is not comparable to the low energy radioactivity of tailings from mining. c) What matters is a *comparison* between the costs of green energy production and the costs of fossil fuel energy production–which are immense and include an existential threat to humans (among others). Propagandists ignore the negatives of what they are promoting and only point to the negatives of what they are opposing (of course we see this in politics all the time, like that dishonest jerk who rails against people who voted for Newsom without mentioning the guy he ran against). d) Chip’s link doesn’t exist. I did, however, find this lovely article from professional propagandists of the nuclear industry: https://www.ans.org/news/article-2599/renewable-technologies-cant-escape-the-issue-of-waste-management/ … it’s very illustrative of propagandist techniques that they compare forms of energy production in terms of *tonnage* of waste … but maybe there’s some other problem with spent nuclear fuel that doesn’t apply to spent solar panels and windmills.

      0

    • You’re correct Opossumboy and as passionate as the regulars below may be, some of their assumptions are wrong. Like the expense, on a per unit of electricity basis nuclear is one of the cheapest non-fossil fuel energy sources. Compared to a 1 square mile nuclear plant, you’d need 300-400 square miles to build a comparatively size wind array, and even then it only produces power when the wind blows, or about 70-100 square miles for solar, which only produces when the sun shines and basically eliminates any natural environment beneath it. All the nuclear generation waste ever produced can fit inside a single football stadium in safe sealed concrete canisters. The nuclear power accidents we have had are the result of poor designs from the 1960’s and/or serious corner cutting and fraud, designs that would not be used in a modern reactors which use meltdown proof tech. Even then more people are killed falling off roofs and wind turbines each year than have ever been killed in nuclear power accidents. It is safe, plentiful, cost-effective, reliable, and fossil fuel free. If you’re a climate alarmist that thinks the world is going to end in a decade if we don’t stop using fossil fuels ASAP, then you better get behind nuclear power, if not, then your admitting team climate apocalypse is grossly exaggerating the negative impacts of climate change and fossil fuel use. Do you want to save the planet or not?

      0

    • Fission power is hideously expensive, agonizingly slow to come on line, and produces waste products that are exceedingly dangerous for millennia. Only a fool would think fission is a path forward.
      Those who tout new, safe designs for fission reactors are delusional, as they as yet exist either as vapor ware or as small pilot projects that do not address problems of scale, nor the always-present problems of disposing with the waste products.
      This is just another delay tactic promoted by the carbon fuels industries as a distraction from what we should be doing, which is eliminating those fuels. They just want to keep their subsidies and profits rolling in, regardless of what that means for the future of a livable environment.

      0

    • Please read how it happened: https://www.britannica.com/event/Chernobyl-disaster it was 100% avoidable. It wouldn’t even be possible to intentionally do that to a modern reactor. With the enormous amounts of carbon-free energy nuclear can provide, and the signficiant disaster predicted by the climate alarmists if we don’t cut our carbon emissions drastically and ASAP, you can’t seriously deny the massive benefits of of nuclear power because of the grossly negligent acts at a poorly designed reactor, built in the 70’s, with technology from the 60’s in Soviet Russia.

      0

    • Voice, it is NOT TRUE that Chernobyl is “now safe” and you do a serious disservice to make such a claim. The reactor site in particular is completely off limits and will be so forever. There is a restricted zone for 20 miles around the plant that is not to be inhabited though some fools do so. There is a “limited tourist permit” that has more to do with bringing in money than with public safety. See: https:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/02/24/chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-questions-explained/6923621001/ And while you may wish to blame Chernobyl on bad design what about Fukushima etc. We always find “bad design” after the fact. It is a convenient scapegoat and worthless in planning our future.

      0

  16. The raw materials behind plastics and other petrochemicals are fossil fuels. As traditional demands for oil – vehicle fuels – are declining as the transport sector is increasingly electrified, the oil industry is seeing plastics as a key output that can make up for losses in other markets. Investing in plastics has therefore become a key strategy for fossil fuel firms. The largest companies producing plastics are often subsidiaries of international oil and gas companies, such as Shell (Netherlands/UK) and ExxonMobil (US), or of national oil companies, such as Sinopec (China) or SABIC (Saudi Arabia). So if you think getting rid of fossil fuels for cars is going to solve our world problems, get ready for the “Plasticene” period of human existence. Our oceans, landfills, and human diets (eat fish anyone?) are all getting contaminated by plastics.

    0

  19. That would be optimal. It would likely save the planet. Although, there is a party going on, Humans, are ragers.
    Everyones invited, Global-Consumption-Totally-Rad-Terminal-Level-Event in effect. Featuring artists such as, Burning Jet Fuel, The Gas Powered Hybrids, Big Carbon Foot Print, The Big Electric Grid, The Fire Storms, and many others. Such as Big Business and The Corporate Giants. Plus, just added, The Multinational Corp! and a brand new act THE RAGERS (ALL CAPS) Enjoy, the Show, it is gonna be pure Fire!! LOL

    0

Remoteness Did Little to Reduce COVID-19 Spread to Amazonian Tsimané

Marilyn McMahon, Veteran News-Press Reporter, Dead at 93