Killing Us Softly with Their Lies

Killing Us Softly with Their Lies

Natural Gas Just Might Not Be the Answer

“[An] international team of scientists reported last year that planet-warming 

emissions from gas are rising faster than coal emissions are falling.” 

Los Angeles Times, November 30th.

Nobody is disputing that natural gas is a whole lot less polluting, a vastly lower generator of greenhouse gasses, than coal. We all know that no matter what governmental policies the Trump administration has pursued to encourage the use of coal-generated power, nobody on earth really wants it, demand is plunging, and those nations (including the US) that rely heavily on coal for electrical power are knowingly phasing it out. More coal plants and mines have shut down, coal miners laid off, during the Trump era than during the Obama years. The cost of truly eliminating pollutants from even the purest coal is so cost-prohibitive than the only semblance of “clean coal” is to pump the effluents underground for future generations to figure out what to do with it. Later.

But the fossil fuel industry, from oil to natural gas, is alive and growing. While there has been a rise in the number of electrically powered cars, you have to ask yourself how that electricity was generated. While alternative energy – mostly wind and solar – is clearly growing, most of that electricity still comes from burning fossil fuel. Fracking – which involves pumping pressurized and chemically treated water underground to force natural gas and petroleum into cavities where it can be extracted (see above graphic) – has created fossil fuel independence for the United States. It has also spawned unexpected earthquakes in Oklahoma, and water contamination from California to Wyoming. 

Dollars spent in extracting and transporting natural gas are both extending the viability of fossil fuel supported electrical power generation and are not being used to upgrade our power grid (wildly inefficient) and create sustainable, non-polluting alternative sources of electrical power. And let’s face it, the massive fossil fuel extraction, processing and power generating sectors are vastly more able to field lobbyists and fund political campaigns than the nascent alternative energy sector… which the most certainly do. 

They are equally adept at finding (or creating) sympathetic allies – from states with vast oversupplies of oil and natural gas to Native American tribes seeking wealth from their access to fossil fuel wealth. And there is more than a little “tokenism” in embracing Native American support; a small member constituency is often marketed as a groundswell of Native American commitment. There’s also been a movement afoot to draw in the potential negative impact on minorities of color who, from jobs to convenience, might be impacted by the reduction of natural gas from their lives. Power companies are not beneath spreading a false narrative to these minorities in the hopes of enlisting their political power to support their outmoded business model.

“As protests rocked the United States after the police killing of George Floyd, a government relations firm whose clients include oil and gas companies told news media that the mayor of San Luis Obispo was ‘getting a lot of heat’ from the NAACP over a proposal to limit gas hookups in new buildings. That was proved false when the local NAACP chapter said it supported the policy.

“Around the same time, Alaska’s all-Republican congressional delegation wrote a letter to federal officials complaining about the refusal of several banks to finance oil and gas drilling in the Arctic, writing that the banks were harming Alaska Natives by ‘openly discriminating against investment in some of the most economically disadvantaged regions of America.’

“Some of the most contentious debates involve natural gas… Gas companies say their product is cleaner than coal and will only get cleaner as they blend renewable fuels into their pipelines. Gas also benefits low-income families by keeping energy prices low, supporters say… In recent months, California officials have faced criticism from some lawmakers and Black and Latino groups who say the state has focused too much on reducing pollution and not enough on the economic effects of climate policies.

“‘It’s not enough to continue to say, ‘Poor people want zero-emission cars.’ That’s the farthest thing from their mind,’ state Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), who is Black, told the California Air Resources Board during a hearing on race and equity last month… Natural gas advocates also say eliminating the fuel would require people to give up their gas stoves. Sempra subsidiary Southern California Gas Co. has seized on this idea, using gas cooking as a talking point to foster opposition to all-electric building policies, which have been passed by nearly 40 cities and counties.

“Fossil fuel companies are ignoring the ways communities of color and low-income families are disproportionately harmed by polluted air and water, deadlier heat waves, more punishing droughts and other consequences of burning coal, oil and gas, said Leah Stokes, a UC Santa Barbara political scientist.

“The national uprising over racial justice and the COVID-19 pandemic have shone a spotlight on those injustices. Black and Latino people are more likely to suffer from the virus, and research suggests that greater exposure to air pollution may be one reason why.

“‘There’s definitely a marketing campaign to gaslight everybody, literally gaslight them, by saying, ‘If we do the [clean energy] transition, it’s going to harm front-line Black, Hispanic and Indigenous communities,’ ’ Stokes said…

“[G]roups such as the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network say the claims made by United Latinos Vote don’t represent the majority of their communities… A poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California over the summer found that 52% of Latinos and 46% of Black people are willing to pay more for solar and wind energy, compared with 42% of white people.

“Additionally, 70% of Latinos and 65% of Black people said stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost, compared with 53% of white people… Gladys Limón, executive director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, called United Latinos Vote an ‘industry interest group that describes itself as equity-based and cloaks itself by stealing the racial justice language of the movement.’” Los Angeles Times, November 30th. 

Yes, there will be change. Yes, some of that change may inconvenience more than a few of us. But next time you watch coverage of hurricane devastation, wildfires, plains flooding, storm surges and coastal flooding, ask yourself if that damage is simply an inconvenience. Not dealing immediately and effectively with climate change will begin to have irreversible devastating consequences. This is a problem for the here and now. Time’s up!

I’m Peter Dekom, and we need to live smaller, smarter and more responsibly starting yesterday.