Dear Environmentalists: You Won. Now Let’s Do Something Constructive

No one can argue that the modern environmental movement has changed the world.

• Starting in the 1970s, acid rain rallying cries led to regional cap and trade of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
• While CAFE standards were enacted during the oil embargo of the 1970s, environmental groups have fought for and won higher and higher standards for mpg over the years.
• The absolute domination of the global warming debate by environmental groups resulted in a large part of the world ratifying the Kyoto protocols.

These few examples demonstrate that environmentalists have been able to win the argument that our air and water needs – and deserves – to be cleaned up. They have proven they can win this and many other arguments time and time again.

Then why, over the past two years, has the environmental community turned on itself and begun squandering the gains that it fought so hard for? And why are they turning on the very people, businesses and governments that are trying to implement their plans for a cleaner environment? The environmental community seems to be hell-bent on unwinding their own gains by constantly “upping the ante” for what is, in their opinion, “green.” Now, the notion of sustainability, one of the most ill defined words in the English language, must be the new litmus test for “green”-ness?

Since the environmental community has won the hearts and minds of the world, a new and overarching problem has arisen – it’s called implementation. The public – having acknowledged the arguments of environmentalists – actually wants to be green. In a capitalistic society, the markets naturally want to provide green energy to a wanting public. As a result, capital begins flowing to green energy projects. Some projects are better than others, some more costly than others. Capital flows to the least costly and lowest risk projects. Some of these are wood fuel bio-electric plants that will burn trees to make power.

But wait . . . this feels like implementation. Environmentalists ask themselves, did we sign up for this?

“Upping the Ante” to Stymie Implementation

The Kyoto protocols tell us trees are the answer – at least trees that grow in the poorest countries of the world. The Kyoto protocols and every scientific study conclude that trees sequester carbon without reservation. If trees sequester carbon . . . that is if they store more carbon than they emit, this cycle must be carbon neutral by definition. Right? No, wrong answer – at least according to the Manomet Study. The environmental community just upped the ante. Burning trees for fuel is not carbon neutral. Actually it’s worse than burning coal. Really? Why? Because a study influenced by so called “environmentalists” said so. I am not alone in my confusion. Until the truth behind the study was discovered. And the truth is that the study is utterly bogus, funded by a family foundation conflicted by self interest (see Suz-Anne Kinney's post, Holding Margaret Sheehan Accountable on Biomass). The result was a study with parameters so narrowly designed that the ansswer was virtually predetermined.

Now that the Manomet Study has informed the trees of the world that they are not carbon neutral, lets add a little more obscurity just to spice things up a bit. Maybe we can avoid implementation!

Sustainability Standards

Let’s add a dash of anxiety to a pot of beauracrats and develop ill defined sustainability standards so we can stop any project for not meeting these amorphous standards. Or better yet, let’s put the burden of proof on the private developers to meet these standards. Ignore the fact that no consensus exists for how to measure sustainability. Forget that you can’t measure something if you don’t have the right yardstick. Don’t ask when the standards will be developed. (They are being considered by a working group in Brussels and a preliminary report is due in 18 months.)

The Obama Administration Saves the Environmentalists (From Themselves)

In a surprising about face, the Obama administration delayed the implementation of both the Boiler MACT rules and the ground level ozone standards until 2013, which among other things would have virtually guaranteed that no wood energy power stations would have been built in America. As one could predict, the environmental community is apoplectic. The administration abandoned us like children in the wilderness – they cry.

What environmentalists don’t realize is that they got a free pass, a get out of jail free card. Here’s why. After spending the better part of 20 years convincing the world (and quite successfully) that the valleys would flood, the poor would starve and mothers wouldn’t love their children if we didn’t limit carbon emissions, and even after trying to kill any biomass electricity plant with trumped up studies and opaque sustainability standards, environmentalists can still claim credit for saving the planet.

Because – despite their behavior – sensible heads prevailed, nonsensical emission laws will be delayed (likely forever or a very long time) and developers will build a few carbon neutral power stations that burn wood. And most important, the planet will be saved.

See, things are not that bad! Congratulations, environmentalists, you won!