Discussions about energy policy tend to draw a stark divide between “clean” (or “green”) and “dirty” energy sources, with the former largely referring to wind, solar, and hydro, and the latter targeting natural gas, oil, and coal. This distinction is generally accepted by the public and politicians, who abhor the economic and technological problems that force the continued use of “dirty” sources, assuming that “clean” ones will become cost-effective enough to take over eventually.
Often, the implied, sufficient condition that an energy source must possess to be defined as “clean” is whether or not the production process leads to greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power provides a good example of how this definition is applied: groups like the American Conservation Coalition and Nuclear Energy Institute call nuclear power “clean” because generating nuclear energy does not emit carbon.
Certain environmentalist groups, however, reject this definition of nuclear power, citing concerns about nuclear waste and uranium mining. Greenpeace declares that “[t]here is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants,” while the Center for Biological Diversity laments the “unfortunate legacy” of uranium mining “imperiling endangered species, causing egregious human-health impacts, and contaminating — often permanently — public lands and precious water.” Clearly, what it takes to be a “clean” energy source remains unsettled.
The debate over what it means to be “clean” came to the policy forefront in late June when Louisiana passed a bill reclassifying natural gas as a “green” energy source, authorizing state funds set aside for this type of source to go towards increasing natural gas production. Unsurprisingly, this move was decried by green advocates as a giveaway to the oil and gas industry with no basis in science.
Upon closer inspection, however, the classification of natural gas as a “clean” fuel holds some merit. Burning natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide as coal and 30% less than oil, while also releasing less sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and mercury. In terms of land use, a 2020 study by the Brookings Institution found that wind and solar require at least 10 times as much land per unit of power produced as natural gas, which had the greatest “power density” (energy produced per land surface area) compared to nuclear, coal, solar, and wind. Part of natural gas’s advantage in land use derives from the comparatively low amount of land used in drilling and transportation, as both of these occur underground via wells and pipelines.
Of course, natural gas has areas where it performs less well environmentally when compared to traditional “clean” sources. Fracking poses some risk to groundwater, and the natural gas production process causes methane emissions — although these effects occur to a smaller degree than is often claimed by opponents of natural gas production and trade.
In contrast, despite being quintessential examples of “clean” energy, solar and wind have environmental effects that are often ignored. Because wind turbines and solar panels only last for 20 and 25 years, respectively, they need to be replaced more frequently than natural gas facilities, which can last between 40 and 60 years. Wind turbines, solar panels, and their batteries require significant mineral resources — including copper, cobalt, nickel, lithium, and rare earths — the extraction and processing of which produce carbon emissions, erosion, and wastewater, while threatening species habitats. Largely due to ill-conceived permitting policies in the U.S., much of the mining for these resources occurs overseas in countries like China, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where environmental and worker protections are weak. A recent report by the Center of the American Experiment describes these poor conditions, such as a breach in a tailings storage facility in Indonesia putting workers and families at risk of exposure to heavy metals, and a tailings dam holding acidic waste from a Chinese-owned copper mine contaminating the Kafue River in Zambia. Pursuing net-zero goals would lead to even more environmental damage as the transition would quadruple mineral demand by 2040 in the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Sustainable Development Scenario.
Proponents of wind and solar counter that the materials used in turbines and panels can be recycled, limiting the amount of minerals used. Although some minerals, such as aluminum copper, can be recycled commercially, these facilities are not widespread for lithium, nickel, cobalt, and rare earths — and, as the American Experiment report points out, “[i]t is foolhardy to assume that technological advancements and increased recycling will significantly reduce material requirements in the foreseeable future.” Recycling itself also is not free of environmental harm; the IEA explains that poorly managed recycling can contaminate water, release harmful emissions, and involve child labor.
In a framework that considers all environmental effects, describing natural gas as a “clean” technology makes as much sense as applying that classification to solar and wind. However, when it comes to energy production, no source can be considered completely “clean” because all human activity necessarily involves environmental effects. Therefore, calling a source “clean” indicates more about whether politicians favor it than the extent of its environmental impact.
Because the question of what is a “clean” energy source is going to be determined by political processes, pursuing it as a policy objective will inevitably involve frivolous debate, and the definition of “clean” is likely to shift based on political whims rather than objective analysis. While it may sound counterintuitive, if environmental quality and the general well-being of people are the goal, policymakers are better served by avoiding the use of arbitrary labels and should instead prioritize developing a streamlined regulatory landscape for reliable and affordable energy production to occur.
As the bedrock of any economy, reliable energy production lowers costs for businesses and consumers, leading to greater income and, subsequently, economic growth. With these additional funds, people can mitigate the environmental effects of energy production through investment in preventative measures, clean-up efforts, and species protection, while also better protecting themselves from weather events.
The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) depicts the phenomenon of environmental outcomes improving as a result of growing income. According to the model, environmental degradation increases as poorer economies begin to industrialize because they lack the resources to mitigate the environmental damage of industrialization. This occurs up to a certain point, after which the level of environmental degradation begins to decrease as the economy grows because it can use its wealth to spend on improving the environment.
As the EKC highlights, wealth, not emissions-reducing regulation, leads to improved human welfare and environmental quality. For an advanced economy such as the U.S., this means that the best course of action involves pursuing energy policies that focus on allowing production, mining, and utilities to connect dispatchable and reliable generating sources to the grid. These actions lower electricity costs, making it easier for communities, businesses, and individuals to fund their activities and invest in environmental protection.
The facts show that natural gas is one of these sources, while also being comparatively better for the environment in certain respects. If environmentalist groups do not like labeling natural gas as “clean,” then they should find a new way of classifying energy sources that avoids unfairly punishing some sources in favor of others. By classifying natural gas as “clean,” Louisiana recognizes that affordability and reliability should take priority over net-zero goals. As a result, the state is ensuring greater prosperity for its citizens and more investment in its environment.
