Overreaction can lead to bad energy, environmental policy

The Oklahoman, Oklahoma City

April 13--ON energy and environmental issues, the impact of overreaction can outweigh the consequences of denial. Such is the case in Vermont, where environmental advocates' opposition to nuclear power has led to an increase in the greenhouse gas emissions they believe are destroying the planet.

For more than 40 years,
Vermont Yankee, a 604-megawatt nuclear plant, supplied electricity to the Northeast. Yet environmentalists opposed the plant's continued operation because of that one word: "nuclear."

Activists predicted renewable energy sources would quickly replace the plant's output. That hasn't been the case. A recent report by the Institute for Energy Research notes that since the plant was closed in 2014, "natural gas generation increased in New England by 5.5 percentage points" and "with it, carbon dioxide emissions."

In other words, activists demanded the elimination of a power source that didn't produce carbon dioxide emissions in order to avoid potential environmental problems that had never occurred, which required replacing that nuclear power production with sources that do produce carbon dioxide that those activists believe causes global warming.

Admittedly, we question the degree that mankind can impact global temperatures. Even so, if environmental activists truly believe their own global warming hype, their demands to close
Vermont Yankee were clearly counterproductive.

In Vermont, overreaction to a hypothetical problem produced no tangible benefits. A similar scenario could play out in Oklahoma.

The recent release of a U.S. Geological Survey map identifying areas with the greatest earthquake hazard showed the earthquake risk in Oklahoma is comparable to California. The main difference is that the quake risk in Oklahoma is tied at least in part to high-volume injection wells.

For some on the environmental left, the map justifies an end to all hydraulic fracturing in Oklahoma, period. Yet that would be economically devastating in a state already dealing with an energy bust. It also would reduce fuel supplies nationwide and drive up consumer costs in numerous fields.

Worst of all, that pain would be pointless. As the Washington Post editorialized, "fracking per se does not seem to be the big problem in the United States." Instead, the Post noted the earthquake link is tied to the disposal of wastewater produced by wells, which is

typically injected back into the earth.

"These findings lead to a very different conclusion than the one the ban-fracking crowd prefers," the Post editorialized. "If wastewater disposal is the underlying problem, regulators can force drillers to dispose of their wastewater differently."

The Post urged policymakers not to ignore problems, but also cautioned against giving in "to the overheated criticisms of some environmental groups," saying the country should continue to "reap the economic and environmental benefits of low-cost and cleaner-

burning natural gas." (Notably, the Post is a liberal-

leaning editorial page.)

Contrary to the claims of some environmental activists, much of the reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in recent years hasn't been the result of increased regulation, but is instead the product of natural gas replacing coal in electric generation. Thanks to fracking, natural gas has become far cheaper. And since natural gas is cleaner burning than coal, its use in power generation has reduced atmospheric emissions.

The Post is correct to urge continued support for fracking while addressing any peripheral impacts through sensible regulation.

Whether environmental activists like it or not, fracking is good for Oklahoma's economy and the

environment.

___

Visit The Oklahoman at www.newsok.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.