BioZone : Eco-nomics

"Clean coal?" Really? It's a wonderful way to appeal to the average voter in a political climate that clamors for sustainable energy while opposing investment in the harvesting of natural resources like sun and wind, but as Mitt should know by now, just saying something doesn't make it true. Coal, Petroleum, and Natural gas are all fossil fuels; million-year-old bodies of plants that were compressed into an energy-rich goo. They can only be extracted through strip mining, stripping away the forest and soil, building hundreds of miles of roads and pipes that disrupt the rest of the landscape. Waste water from the mining process filled with toxic chemicals is stored indifferently in artificial lakes, and the land is completely unusable for anything else after the mining is complete. In the case of natural gas, the process of extraction, or "fracking" has even been known to contaminate ground water and cause outbreaks of disease human communities. Of course, companies that extract fossil fuels claim extraction will not damage the land, the same way cigarette companies used to deny that cigarettes cause lung cancer. BP certainly made that promise when it began drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and then cut their budget on safety and maintenance. They broke no laws, or restrictions. Of course, many drilling companies are more responsible that BP, and the damage they cause spans a smaller area, but all fossil fuel drilling and mining operations cause permanent damage to the land.
Mitt is trying to make it out like caring for the environment means you don't care about people; that you have to chose between having a job, and not destroying the air, water, and the habitats of other beings. However, protecting the environment also improves the economy. All ecosystems provide humans with "ecosystem capital;" goods from that ecosystem that can be used to make goods. Every single good in the economy comes from the ultimately comes from a forest, an ocean, or a pastureland. Humans can harvest a certain amount of ecosystem capital and the beautiful thing is that what is it will GROW BACK, meaning that amount of goods can continue to be harvested FOREVER. This is called a "sustainable yield." A certain amount of pollution can also be put into a natural ecosystem with out damaging it forever. If a person or an industry takes more than the sustainable yield, meaning more than what can be grown back, its spending more ecosystem capital than is earned. People tend to think of harvesting from a forest or an ocean as withdrawing money from a savings account, meaning that it shouldn't be spent all at once, but it shouldn't just sit there forever with nobody using it. However, economists, ecologists, and social scientists agree that the well-being of human communities is intrinsically connected to the well-being of the environments they are in. Taking too much from an ecosystem, then is more like regularly maxing out your credit card when you have an adjustable rate mortgage. You can live a nice life for a little while, but sooner or latter you're house is going to get taken away. Think about it; we live here! You wouldn't fill you're house or apartment up to the celling with trash because you were to busy at work to take it out. You wouldn't smash down the walls and sell off the pieces. So why do that to forests, which our comfort and security also depend upon?
The foundation for the anti-evironmentalists claims that eco-conciousness is bad for the economy is that businesses have to spend more on proper waste disposal and they cannot always harvest as many resources as they would like. They therefor have fewer profits and therefor are less competitive and can create fewer jobs. However, a study by M.I.T. can out in that argues environmental regulations actually make businesses MORE competitive. The main difference between conventional and "green" technology is that green tech is way more energy efficient. After the initial investment in the new technology, costs of production and maintenance go way down. This means they can produce goods at a much cheaper rate. The same goes for solar and wind energy. Why would you use energy that costs millions of dollars to extract, process, and ship when you can use energy that falls from the sky for free? Energy companies know this, and they know that if we continue to use fossil fuels at our current rate they will be gone in approximately 200 years. The use of solar and wind power is inevitable. Many companies even made attempts to develop and promote green energy production. That's why BP is "Beyond Petroleum." However 200 years worth of oil represents 200 years worth of what is currently an extremely lucrative business. Companies have already paid for the fossil fuels and the rights to drill it, so if oil suddenly became less profitable, because people figured out solar was way cheaper say, they would lose a lot of money. For this reason, they have an interest in developing technology to produce solar and wind energy, but preventing it from being widely used until all the fossil fuels are used up. Our political leaders and most of our citizens do recognize the damaging effects of a fossil fuel based society, but feel the transition to a more sustainable lifestyle would be to serve, especially in an economic crisis. However, the transition need to happen soon. Many people are not convinced of or concerned about global warming, it is very real and very serious. Though cost estimates of the damage it will cause vary greatly, the lowest has been placed at 500 trillion dollars worldwide over the next 500 years. The freak weather and higher food prices that have proved fatal for many people around the would already struggling are only the beginning. Extraction of fossil fuels damages the forests and oceans which absorb some of the extra carbon dioxide, increasing the rate at which the planet is warming. There is one ultimate limiting factor to economic growth, more limiting than any environmental regulation could ever possibly be; if the air, water, and land are wreaked, if all the resources are used up, everyone will die.
Mitt, instead of trying to develop fictitious "clean coal" to help out your billionaire buddies invest in some sustainable energy sources. You're right; we have to do what makes the most economic sense. The use of solar and wind energy inevitable, necessary, and ultimately cheaper than fossil fuels
in both money and lives.

Natural gas fracking operation in Pennsylvania. Fracking has been called "green" and "renewable" but is is neither. Fracking contaminates groundwater with chemicals used to bring the natural gas to the surface, the removal of forests exposes land to erosion, and changes the weather patterns.