Recently, Senator Mitch McConnell distributed a statement opposing an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to limit fossil fuel emissions from power plants. In it, he implies that fossil fuels equal affordable energy, that decreasing reliability will lead to blackouts, and that we cannot turn to alternative energies because they are not as affordable nor as reliable as fossil fuels.
I don’t agree with McConnell’s contentions.
McConnell supports his argument in part with a quote from National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) CEO Jim Matheson, presented as an expert opinion. Matheson claims that “Nine states saw rolling blackouts last December as the demand for electricity exceeded available supply, and proposals like (the recent) EPA power plant rule will greatly compound the problem.”
Numerous news sources cited the primary causes of the blackouts as unusually cold weather and aging equipment. Matheson’s conclusion that more regulations, particularly those called for by the EPA to limit emissions, could cause more rolling blackouts is not categorically false, but it tells only half the story.
The blackouts which particularly affected Kentucky were caused by a damaged natural gas pipeline in Texas. Fossil fuel-powered plants were ill-equipped to handle the demands caused by the extreme weather, so additional regulations on these plants could further strain them and could possibly lead them to underperform were similar severe cold snaps to occur in the future.
However, this assumes that more renewable-energy plants will not be built. Matheson conveniently leaves out the fact that while fossil fuel plants struggled to function in the cold, renewable-energy plants kept on chugging. If Matheson were truly worried about rolling blackouts, he would be demanding that these aging and ill-equipped natural gas plants be razed and replaced with renewable-energy plants.
Obviously, Matheson’s claims are positioned to protect the market rather than the environment, and the fears he claims to have about Americans being without power are instead fears about fossil fuel plant owners’ profits declining. So why does McConnell hold up Matheson’s words regarding emission regulations as fact?
As McConnell indicates in his issued statement, he disagrees vehemently with the promise President Biden made during his 2020 campaign: “We’re going to end fossil fuel.”
Recently, New York was filled with smoke from wildfires that have been raging in Canada. Due to a rise in temperatures that scientists say is driven by climate change, the forests of our northern neighbor have dried into a massive tinderbox.
Ten months ago, in the very state McConnell was elected to represent, Eastern Kentucky saw some of its worst flooding in a century. Thirty-nine people died and hundreds of homes and businesses were destroyed.
Scientists say that events like the wildfires in Canada and the flooding in Eastern Kentucky will become more frequent and more severe due to climate change.
Does McConnell share the delusion that other congress members seem to hold that global warming/climate change is a hoax? Or does he believe the more “moderate” view that climate change is real but is not affected by fossil fuels? Based on his previous statements, McConnell apparently holds the same view as virtually all climatologists, that climate change is indeed happening and is caused mainly by manmade emissions from the use of fossil fuels.
However, he had this to say in his response to the “Green New Deal” proposed in 2019, which would have greatly expanded emission regulations: “The question is how do you address (climate change)? The way to do this consistent with American values and American capitalism is through technology and innovation. And there is no question that is the way to get results, not to shut down your economy, throw people out of work, make people reconstruct their homes, get out of their cars… this is nonsense.”
It’s not clear what McConnell’s “innovations” might involve, but he does call fossil fuel in the very headline of his statement “affordable” and implies by extension that renewables are “unaffordable.”
Of course, fossil fuels have been used far longer than most other modern energy sources, and the market has made them (relatively) cheap and easily accessible. Options like wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro power have not been around long enough – nor utilized enough – to have gained the same level of consumer acceptance and trust.
But this is rapidly changing. In the last decade, renewable energy has plummeted in price. While not yet reaching the ubiquity which fossil fuels have reached, many companies have adopted it, and scientists and engineers have formulated ingenious ways of integrating it into our economy and into our power grid.
Other countries have gone even further in embracing renewable energy. Denmark, for instance, has built the majority of its energy output—more than 60 percent—around renewables. China, one of the greater contributors of emissions, is nearing 50 percent. Even the U.S., which McConnell says can’t possibly transition to renewables, is at 20 percent with potential for greater and more rapid growth.
In fact, not only is renewable energy far better for the environment, it is more than competitive with fossil fuels in price and in some cases cheaper. The hallowed free market that McConnell invokes is succeeding in that regard.Estimates vary somewhat, but geothermal’s $56-93 per Megawatt-hour (MWh) compares favorably with coal’s $65-152 per MWh and is on par with gas’s $45-74 per MWh.
Solar energy is a bit more complicated, as its cost depends on how it is used, but most estimates put it between $28 to $41 per MWh with many proponents calling it “the cheapest form of energy.” Onshore wind’s $26-50 per MWh is also but a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels, and these prices will continue to fall as technology advances and renewables are further adopted.
Critics point to problems in the practical applications of renewable energy, with electric vehicles being the most consistent target. But the technology is quickly evolving and improving. It will take some time – after all, even the combustion engine took years to perfect – but the wait will be worth it.The bottom line is, we can transition into cleaner energy, and the faster we do that, the faster we can end our dependency on fossil fuel and begin to reverse the effects of climate change.
Clean energy is reliable, is cheaper, and is a viable replacement for fossil fuel, but McConnell says it isn’t. Why would McConnell, a congressional leader with all of the best experts and information available to him not know of the far-from-recent advancements in clean energy? The answer is clear.
McConnell is either unable to embrace or unwilling to admit the truth.
‘; var element = document.getElementById(“sub_message”); element.appendChild(subMessage); console.log(“Code Loaded!”); } else { var subMessage = document.createElement(‘div’); subMessage.id = ‘sub-message-top’; subMessage.class = ‘panel panel-default’; subMessage.style.backgroundColor = ‘#eee’; subMessage.style.borderRadius = ‘5px’; subMessage.style.padding = ’10px’; subMessage.style.marginTop = ’25px’; subMessage.style.marginBottom = ’25px’; subMessage.innerHTML = ‘
Support local journalism.
Subscribe Today ‘; var element = document.getElementById(“sub_message”); element.appendChild(subMessage); console.log(“Code Loaded!”); } }