The Inconvenient Truth: When Green Energy Pollutes

What do protestors in the fields of Arctic Norway, rural Nevada, the Chilean Desert, and countless other spots in the world have in common? They’re local protestors animated by a backlash against the pollution of green energy, be it mining or generation.

While the most cited downside of the green energy transition is its financial and technological costs, it is crucial to remember that green energy also bears environmental costs. These costs are far more localized and immediate than the dispersed and global benefits they bring. In a purely philosophical and utilitarian consideration, green energy is an overwhelming net positive. Nevertheless, neither should this net positive be used to dismiss the legitimate concerns of often marginalized locals. If companies and policymakers do not account for this localized backlash, local environmental activists may ironically impede the green energy transition through political action fueled by justified skepticism.

No major green energy source is immune to this dynamic. Hydroelectric power, which is based on damming rivers and flooding vast areas when reservoirs are created, destroys aquatic wildlife, alters downstream habitats, and causes the subsequent release of greenhouse gases such as methane. The energy generation from rivers necessitates the construction of dams, which function as artificial barriers to both water and its inhabitants. As a result, fish are impeded from migrating for reproduction, rivers lose the capacity to transport sufficient water and sediment to support downstream flora, and the stagnant water in dam reservoirs facilitates the production of greenhouse gases by bacteria. Russia, for example, lost billions of dollars worth of caviar production and prime pastureland when it built a cascade of hydropower stations on the Volga River. Many thousands of acres of forests were destroyed in Siberia when the mighty Ob and Yenisey were dammed. Likewise, China’s Three Gorges Dam was an engineering marvel that replaced the use of millions of tons of coal but displaced millions of people and was so contentious that it caused an ill-fated revolt in China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress, when it was voted on.

Solar power problems stem mostly from the reliance on toxic materials and substances for panel manufacturing and maintenance, often resulting in localized pollution at the place of mining. Harnessing energy from the sun also necessitates the clearing of vast land areas, which are then covered with solar panels. These panels contain hazardous substances, such as lead or silicon tetrachloride. Additionally, many solar power systems require water resources for cooling purposes. With so many solar panels in the desert, local communities are burdened with the challenge of allocating limited water resources for local needs or global benefit. This situation escalates competition over water resources, posing a growing issue.

Wind power’s environmental disadvantages are similar to both solar and hydropower. Turbines pose a threat to surrounding animal species, especially birds, contribute to the accumulation of non-degradable materials, and generate noise pollution when turbulence causes their propeller blades to create disruptive sounds.

The rotating propellers of windmills cause direct harm to birds, bats, and, if situated near the coast, fish. These animals may sustain injuries upon collision with the propellers or poles. Wind turbines are not easily recyclable and contain easily degradable dangerous chemicals such as bisphenol A (a turbine coating that damages fertility) epoxy resins (a hardener which if ingested or enters water supplies causes many health problems), and others.

To ensure that localized environmental challenges do not hinder humanity’s battle against climate change, several crucial steps are required. While hydro, solar, and wind power have made significant strides, progress does not end there, as some of these technologies have not fully matured. Numerous emerging energy production technologies hold promise and deserve careful consideration. Among them, hydrogen, advanced small-modular nuclear reactors from Westinghouse or NuScale, and others alongside geothermal and tidal wave technologies stand out as potential alternatives worth exploring further. Fusion is, of course, the holy grail that, once operational and economic, may put all other alternative energy tech, as well as fossil fuels, out of business.

Modernizing Conventional Green Methods: While hydro, solar, and wind power have proven to be beneficial in cutting carbon emissions, it is crucial to address their potential side effects. By allocating funds for research, we can achieve scientific breakthroughs, discover more environmentally friendly technologies and materials, and enhance the overall efficiency of renewable energy. The sundry efforts of energy giants such as GM or BP are valuable here. This will buy time to ensure a more equitable green transition.

Engage in responsible policymaking. Responsible policymaking plays a vital role in the transition to green energy. When formulating and implementing new green legislation, it is essential to assess the local impact of renewable energy facilities. This entails considering factors such as landscape design and the protection of animal habitats. Furthermore, thorough research should be conducted to understand how these projects will affect local communities, ensuring their interests and well-being are prioritized.

Embracing accountability. Often, green energy advocates prefer neglecting their opponents’ arguments about the harmful environmental effects of green energy extraction methods. The rhetoric that such methods may massively destroy habitats, despoil aquifers from mining, or employ pollutants in manufacturing but still yield a net benefit is not productive. Instead, a more accountable approach should be adopted, minimizing negative environmental impacts.

Green energy fights pollution and global climate change, but even the greenest energy sources pollute at some level. Investing in energy transition requires mitigating the harmful effects of green energy extraction and production, accounting for despoiling of public goods just as the green activists demand we do when it comes to fossil fuel production and pollution. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.