“Externalities” of Fossil Fuels
Externalities are the costs associated with a certain transaction that are not captured in the transaction itself, but are passed along unaccounted for (“externalized”) onto other parties who are often unaware of what’s hitting them, or, at best, unable to do anything about it.
With respect to energy generated from fossil fuels, this means costs like lung disease, climate change, ocean acidification, and loss of biodiversity that are ignored in the price we pay for the energy that comes from coal, oil, and natural gas. Lung disease becomes the suffering of those with cancer and asthma, and the financial liability of the healthcare system. Long-term environmental damage becomes the misery of our children and grandchildren.
One of the externalities that normally goes unmentioned, if not totally unnoticed, is the costs associated with accidents like oil spills. Yes, we hear about the Exxon Valdez and the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but derailments of trains carrying significant amounts of oil, like the one discussed here, in which a CSX train carrying 3 million gallons of North Dakota crude jumped the tracks and caught fire (pictured), generally don’t make the news.
Craig,
I have to point out here that this is why the far left – yourself included – is wrong about the Keystone pipeline.
The percentage of transported oil that is spilled when transported by train is hundredsfold that when it is transported by pipeline. By making a symbolic stand that does absolutely nothing to impact oil production and nothing to impact oil consumption, the rejection of the Keystone pipeline has absolutely resulted in an increase in the amount of oil spilled, because it’s still being produced and sold, it’s just transported by train instead of pipeline.
Symbolic stands mean nothing. It’s only by making the practical, hard data based choices that we really move forward.
Please understand that I still have a great respect for you and the work you do to help improve the environment. But the far left made the wrong call on the pipeline. There are multiple train accident/spill events every year. This one was just a little more dramatic than most.
Yes, we’ve had this conversation, and I grant that, at a micro level, the rejection of the pipeline could easily have a negative environmental effect, for the precise reasons you’ve stated: our refusing to allow it will not deter the use of petroleum, and it cause more spillage at the same time. Yet I believe that symbolism actually is a big deal. The U.S. needs to establish an energy policy whose headline is this: “We’re Phasing Out Fossil Fuels, Oil Companies Be Damned,” or perhaps, “We’re Phasing Out Fossil Fuels, And, Believe It Or Not, The Oil Companies Are Leading the Way.” The second part is less important than the first.
In any case, this all has to start somewhere, and this pipeline is as good a place as any.
This is exactly why so many people have been against the Keystone pipeline, and also, as you say Dr. Doty, is so important to consider ALL viewpoints (and, sadly, all business sides), because oil is still being produced, and sold, and, as a result, must be transported somehow.
The end result: oil spills, we just have to decide which type of oil spill, how often, and where.
Human beings keep on doing things with a very short sight, and greed has a lot to do with it.
WE have so many examples of “great” discoveries with the “best ” possibilities, but never considered the “other” possibilities (like collateral damage, unidentified possibilities, etc.)
Nuclear power is good, but the collaterals? Oil is good (business), but pollution, oil spills, collaterals? DDT, it kills all the insect, but also humans, sand so on…
We never stop to think it’s too good to be true.
God gave us natural energy, natural food, natural medicine, but we have to turn everything into business (= GREED).
And of course, we, as humans aren’t perfect, so we must also be ready to take responsibity and change courses when needed. We must also be prepared for the unespected, and make laws to pin the responsibility on whoever is responsible for collateral damages.
Steven,
For full disclosure, I’m not a Dr.
My father – Dr. Doty – earned his PhD when I was very young, and has since my father has become one of the most respected men in his field. Often Craig will refer to “Dr. Doty” when discussing renewable fuels synthesis or carbon recycling. When he does so he’s referring to my father.
I’m a first-rate analyst, but I have not earned a prefix to my name.
🙂
I do agree on the damage we as a society are doing, and that in all cases we need to more carefully consider the externalities of our actions. But I supported the Keystone pipeline because I understand the difference between taking an action that matters and taking an action just because. The pipeline would have resulted in less oil spilled, and less energy wasted in transporting the oil. Rejecting the oil will result in more oil spilled, and more energy wasted… and thus (perversely) more bitumen harvested – because the increase in energy required for transport will result in a slight increase in global oil demand, which means more tar sands production…
The other perverse fallout here is the certainty that the Keystone will be passed at some point in the future, when a less environmentally-friendly administration is in power who has less concern for safety regulations and oversight during the construction.
I usually don’t harp on issues that I lost on, but in this case Craig brought up a train derailment as one of the externalities of our oil dependence… I thought I’d remind him that the far left is directly responsible for several dozen of this type of mini-disaster… all of which of course will occur at some future date, but they’ll happen.
We made a Faustian bargain when we went all in for fossil fuels. We’ve received many tremendous benefits as a result, but Faustian bargains all work out the same way, and extricating ourselves from this one is going to be very messy (though not as messy as simply living out the terms).
There are not great options, and in many cases there aren’t even good options. In every case we just have to try to find the best way forward that we can, which is often going to be difficult to see.
Glen, sorry you are not a Dr., you might get an honorary one for your work, which I admire, not just because of your long term dedication but for your down to earth points of view (which I suspect is why Craig admires you too).
New technology is always a result of hard work, a lot of research y a lot of iinvestment, monetary and timewise.
The point here is that we, as humans are making desicions based on short term solutions and sadly, most of the time, business. As technology and demand grow, so does the needs of the many, and that means opportunity to make money, and as this evolution of our society is growing and speeding up all the time, more and more desicions are made with less time to discover all of the collaterals and soon become a huge business and the impetus they carry makes them difficult to turn and make corrections. Money is a huge mass on business, so it just keeps on growing and becoming a monster (like the oil business).
First we don’t realize the problem, then it’s too late. It will take another big business or big effort (maybe too big) to turn this beast around.
We have to evolve our renewable energy business faster than we have and hope to grow a bigger impetus for humanity’s survival.