Is Renewable Energy Doomed?

In June 2013, US President Barack Obama gave an address at Georgetown University in which he detailed the country's dependence on fossil fuels. During the speech, he also revealed plans to pursue renewable energy resources in a vigorous manner. According to "Mother Jones" magazine, however, Obama's resolutions will not manifest themselves in the real world. In fact, "Mother Jones" believes that global warming will continue to progress at an alarming rate: perhaps even more quickly than previously anticipated.

If you consider the heady, fuel-intoxicated muscle-car decades, America's progress toward renewable energy sources seems clear. After all, US drivers get more miles per gallon now than at any time in the past—and there are solar power panels on the roof of the White House. It seems the country's attitude toward fossil fuels has evolved from widespread ambivalence to a largely polarized spectrum of opinion.

In August, "Mother Jones" reported on the renewable energy concepts put forth by Obama, stating that his words, while encouraging, were just words. The magazine raised several valid issues in its editorial, including the ever-increasing amount of investment in unconventional oil-extraction techniques like hydraulic fracturing (fracking) as well as arctic and offshore drilling.

Many scientists are understandably concerned about the negative effects of unconventional techniques used for oil and gas extraction because some methods release methane, a greenhouse gas, directly into the atmosphere. While innovative, fracking and other unorthodox fossil-fuel-extraction methods also require enormous investment—presumably at the expense of investment in wind power, solar power, and other renewable energy resources.

"Mother Jones" asserts that this continued trend toward unconventional fossil fuel extraction can only mean one thing: human beings are becoming more—rather than less—dependent on oil, natural gas, and coal. There will be no "renewable energy era," according to the magazine. Instead, it declares that humankind is approaching a third carbon age—and impending environmental doom. The magazine assures readers that, like an addict, the collective human entity is consistently tempted by nonrenewable fuels and will do anything to obtain them, no matter the economic or environmental cost.

However, "Mother Jones" is only right if current trends continue ad infinitum. Certainly if powerful businesses are allowed to pour money into fracking and other types of unconventional oil extraction, the result will be further pollution and destruction of the environment. Nevertheless, there is an important kicker: "Mother Jones" is a left-wing political magazine, so anything it prints must be considered biased from the outset—even if it is correct.

As a left-wing publication, "Mother Jones" is obligated to oppose the right and draw attention to unfavorable issues—or potentially unfavorable issues—created or furthered by its political opponents. It's the nature of the game: like any political entity, "Mother Jones" needs to generate support to remain afloat.

On the other hand, its existence as a political publication does not automatically make "Mother Jones" wrong. Instead, the magazine's status should be taken into account and other sources used before readers draw a conclusion. At the very least, the article's call for increased public awareness of and continued support for renewable energy sources is entirely correct. Indeed, the electorate should remain informed and vocal about the need for green power.

In a nutshell, the upcoming environmental disintegration predicted by "Mother Jones" may be correct but only if investments and interests continue the way they have until now. On the other side of the spectrum, humankind may find its way back onto a safer path more quickly than expected—after all, the first nonrenewable energy era happened almost overnight. Perhaps an increased focus on renewable energy will also occur at a similar pace.

(Photo courtesy of suwatpo / Freedigitalphotos.net)