A Comprehensive, Dynamic Energy Policy

By Joyce Wilding

[We need to] find more ways to “lobby” for a comprehensive energy policy with appropriate plans for storing spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants, and tactics and strategies for sustainable power production and distribution. If the Bush Administration is persuaded to promote these it could gain some environmental legitimacy.

Episcopalians in many parishes throughout the church have promoted varied energy conservation projects and programs. Some have promoted green alternative energy programs. Few have found effective ways to work with public policy makers to get a comprehensive national energy policy implemented. And fewer still can effectively address nuclear energy and its role in meeting our power requirements while addressing impacts of greenhouse gases. Perhaps the data, information and ideas below will help Episcopalians find more ways to “lobby” for a comprehensive energy policy with appropriate plans for storing spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants, and tactics and strategies for sustainable power production and distribution. If the Bush Administration is persuaded to promote these it could gain some environmental legitimacy.

This article was primarily inspired by comments to the author from Norm Faramelli, reflecting on Peter Sawtell's article The Lesser of Two Evils in the October 29 edition of Eco-Justice Notes . That essay described the pro-nuclear power stance of Bishop Montefiore from England.

Norm Faramelli is an Episcopal priest who worked as a chemical engineer at MIT for many years. He served as consultant to the National Council of Churches in the late 1970s and was their representative in a debate on the Fast-breeder nuclear reactor with Dr. William Pollard, a scientist and priest at Oak Ridge, Tenn. At an Episcopal Urban Caucs assembly in the 80's, Norm debated another nuclear physicist from Oak Ridge on “nuclear power versus conservation/alternative energies.” He is an active member of ST&F network and Episcopal Network for Economic Justice (ENEJ). With this wealth of experience, Norm may help us to “reopen” dialogue about the pros and cons of nuclear power. The following information is adapted from communication between him and the author on November 20, 2004.  

Peter Sawtell (see article referenced above) effectively captures Bishop Montefiore's tradeoff between global warming and nuclear waste disposal. He shows a sympathetic understanding of the debate that is occurring in the UK; one that should occur in the U.S. as well. We need to move up to and beyond the Kyoto Treaty. We should not get stuck on whether the reality of global warming is primarily human-induced or the result of natural causes. We know that our contribution is accelerating whatever nature is doing, and that is sufficient moral ground for reducing the human contribution to global warming.

The Bishop Montefiore position is compelling if you grant three assumptions:

•  The current patterns of Western consumption will continue to expand in the West and will grow increasingly throughout the global economy;

•  Energy conservation measures will continue to limp along as they have in the past, and will continue to be seen as an addendum to the energy debate;

•  Alternative energy sources will continue to come on line at the same slow rate that they have in recent history.

In order to get out of the box that Montefiore outlines, we need dramatic changes on all three levels. If all three continue as is, then Bishop Montefiore is absolutely correct we must go pro-nuclear to address global warming. We need to work on all three levels simultaneously.

It is as if a growing “BTUs per person” metric was a valid indicator of human meaning and purpose. This is fundamentally a theological and ethical problem, not primarily a technical problem, although sustainable technologies play an important role in bringing about new solutions.

The first level relates to basic understanding of our meaning of the “good life” in the Western world – not the material essentials needed by most of the world, but an energy intensive standard of living in the Western nations (especially the U.S.) that is equated with the “good life.” It is as if a growing “BTUs per person” metric was a valid indicator of human meaning and purpose. This is fundamentally a theological and ethical problem, not primarily a technical problem, although sustainable technologies play an important role in bringing about new solutions. Alternative lifestyles based on less energy consumption are needed, and technical innovation can play an important role. It is also important to remember that our increasing reliance upon imported oil has a deep impact on national security issues facing the U.S.

The second level – energy conservation – is usually considered as an afterthought in energy debates. And even when sound technical measures have been adopted, such as fuel efficiency standards and pollution controls on the internal combustion engines, those technical gains have been squandered by switching to more energy intensive vehicles – like the SUV. It is clear that there is a connection between the first and second levels. It is ironic that after 35 years of a relatively significant environmental movement, it is “public transportation” and not the “private transportation mode” that is on the “endangered species” list.   Land use patterns that minimize energy use (especially in the transportation sector) are critical, but there are few in place in the U.S. Energy conservation is a not a panacea; there are problems associated with it. For example, the over-insulation of housing (without proper ventilation) can result in serious indoor air pollution problems (which from a public health standpoint offset the gains made by improving the quality of the outside air). Hence, there are always trade-offs. Technical fixes, although necessary, usually generate new types of technical problems that also have to be addressed.

The third level – alternative energy technologies – their development and rate of implementation is critical. Currently, they are creeping along, hampered (until recently) by low oil prices, the lack of adequate government investment, and limited markets. If their implementation rate is to be accelerated, more than rising oil prices are needed. There will be a need for intensive investment in the technologies (via government and private sources) but also a need to create new markets. For example, if the Pentagon were to be a major purchaser of photovoltaic cells, a large market would enable the production costs to be reduced. We have got to think out of the box that sees government's role solely as the ‘de-regulator' clearing the pathways and providing subsides to and tax breaks for private energy firms. (Some might say this is crazy-talk in light of the recent election results, but it is still needs to be said and promoted.)

Renewables, however, are not without problems. Solar farms do not enhance the natural landscapes. For instance, witness the current controversy surrounding the construction of a wind farm off Cape Cod and the Islands. As noted, there will always be trade-offs, hopefully, they do not always have to involve selecting the lesser of two evils.

Perhaps more members of all Episcopal networks need to better define and articulate the trade offs in the energy debates, and in particular, their ethical and religious significance.  

Joyce Wilding is member of the Episcopal Ecological Network (EpEN) national steering committee. She serves as the EpEN liaison to the Episcopal Church's national Science, Technology & Faith (ST&F) body. Joyce is co-leader of the Sewanee ENTREAT Science & Religion programs in Sewanee, Tenn., and environmental ministry leader at Christ Church Cathedral in Nashville, Tenn. She may be reached by email at wilding1@bellsouth.net .