Energy Usage and Sources

We no longer can continue to pollute our atmosphere nor ignore the very noticeable changes in our climate. It is certain that we are well into the Anthropocene era and are the first species to evolve that has the capacity to damage or even destroy the planet on which we live. Yet we are addicted to inexpensive energy and, like most addicts, cannot kick the habit. 

Part of the difficulty is that we approach renewable energy as a zero-sum game to be played out in the short run. The reality is that a changeover will require years and the development of new technology to bring about a conversion. The bloviating of arbitrarily timed goals for political purposes solves nothing. If the economics are not there, the change will not occur. The most recent example of this is the use of coal: it was the availability of inexpensive natural gas that allowed the use of coal to diminish. All the political promises and legislation would have done nothing if there had been no alternative power source.  When the inexpensive alternative appeared, the collapse of the coal industry was rapid and will prove to be permanent. To live on earth requires more than just a nod to pragmatism.  

The conversion to sustainable energy will indeed be a zero-sum game, but one played out over several years – and that makes all the difference. The petroleum companies will play a role in this. They have the size and funds to initiate new ventures and decades of knowledge about energy development and use. They already have entered into alternative energy ventures individually and as consortia and will put their vast experience to use. When one considers the array of possibilities for energy generation, such as: wave movement and warm currents in the oceans; solar power in its varied forms; geothermal sources; nuclear fission; the burning of hydrogen instead of methane; new battery technology that will boost the efficiency and longevity of stored electricity, can one imagine that petroleum companies will not morph into energy companies? 

Pushing this change are the alternative energy companies, large and small. The unavoidable example is Tesla which has become large and influential. Just the fact of its existence makes clear that monumental change is coming. Solar power companies now operate in a global market when not even a decade ago there was doubt that the business was viable. One has only to mention Iceland to evoke all the possibilities of geothermal power. France has used nuclear power for decades.

The changeover is happening. We are in the midst of it. It will play out over time and it will not be an abrupt change. Rather, the gradual introduction of a new technologies or economic gains that were not there before. Consider the example of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19. These were theoretically possible until the pandemic caused the federal government to focus a research and development program on them and provided the funding to sustain it. These vaccines will revolutionize vaccine science and therapeutics and probably cancer therapy as well. Similarly, unsuspected advances will wean us from petroleum in the not too distant future.  This does not mean that we should be complacent as we wait for non-polluting energy to be developed. We still are faced with serious public health problems.

Public Health Consequences

We continue to poison ourselves though it is clear that help is on the way. The trick is to maintain the planet and the human race until the cavalry arrives. This requires that we pay attention to environmental destruction and societal health. These are significant public health issues. The pandemic has filled the headlines, as fracking wells continued to poison us quietly in the background.

With respect to fracking, these are difficult times. Many or most have chosen sides and the remainder is barraged with information and misinformation in an attempt to sway it one way or the other. Money pours in to persuade voters and legislators that more fracking is the only way to avoid statewide poverty and economic collapse. The grass roots push back with mothers and children as shock troops wondering aloud just how much air, ground, and water pollution we can sustain before the earth just crumbles in a series of earthquakes and toxic fumes. Earlier efforts to restrict fracking in Colorado finally resulted in SB-181, passed by the legislature, that put restrictions on oil and gas companies with respect to residential fracking. Colorado also voted to restrict residential fracking to a radius of 2000 ft. from human habitation. Most research says 2500 ft, but one takes what one can get in these disputes. 

 Maryland, New York, and Vermont do not permit fracking because it is unsafe for the public health. Five countries have enacted bans and six have called for a moratorium. There now are more than 700 studies on the impacts of fracking and more than 80% document risks or actual harm. The real and potential health consequences of fracking are enormous. Fracking releases volatile toxic compounds at every stage of development. All of these are deleterious and at least one of these, benzene, is carcinogenic. The EPA has stated that the cancer risk from benzene occurs at any level of exposure and the World Health Organization has stated that there is no safe exposure level for benzene. It well known to cause acute myelogenous leukemia and is statistically associated with other cancers of the bone marrow – acute and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. This has been known since the 1960s from studies on oil and gas workers and other populations exposed to benzene vapor. There is no doubt about it. Among the other noxious compounds released during fracking are toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. All four of these, including benzene, can affect the nervous system and are known to cause birth defects, and damage the liver, kidneys, and lungs. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment showed an increased risk of neurological problems, and eye, nose, and throat symptoms when the levels of the multiple air pollutants from oil and gas wells were combined. 

Epidemiological studies show a significant association of mild to severe asthma in persons living close to active racking operations. Other studies in Pennsylvania showed an increase in cardiac and neurological hospitalizations in two counties with active fracking operations compared with a neighboring county that had banned these operations. A study in rural Colorado between 1996 – 2009 showed that mothers who lived in the highest density of and greatest proximity to fracked wells were twice as likely to have babies born with neural tube defects and were 30% more likely to have babies born with congenital heart defects compared to those with no wells within 10 miles. A recent study found that children and young adults diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia were as much as four and a half times more likely to live in areas with the highest density or proximity to wells as compared to those not living within a 16-kilometer (10 mile) radius. In addition, the Colorado School of Public Health in 2012 showed that persons living less than a half-mile (2680 feet) from a fracking site were at greater risk for neurological and respiratory diseases and congenital birth defects in babies than persons living farther away. These cancer and other risks increase with time of exposure. Children are at higher risk if they grow and develop near fracking wells. All of the this has been documented thoroughly in the scientific and medical literature.

So, there are at least two issues: the immediate need to reduce or eliminate the public health risks of fracking and the longer-term need to change from petroleum to renewable energy. They obviously are linked but can be dealt with separately. We are addressing the former with legislation and public pressure now, and with slow but increasing success. We must not relax this effort. The latter will require scientific and commercial research and a demonstrable economic benefit if alternative energy is to replace petroleum. The example of coal is relevant. 

The pressures of science and public opinion are making themselves felt on the oil and gas industry. Petroleum stocks are falling in price and employees are being laid off. The former is not too important, but the latter is. We must shift these people to new work on realistic, renewable energy. If many jobs are lost, the transition will be very slow; if jobs simply are changed, then acceptance will be much easier. Renewable energy will require some combinations of nuclear, solar, wind, battery, and geothermal power. There will be many job opportunities as these industries develop and usurp the markets now dominated by petroleum. 

Commercial interests already recognize this but many resist by rushing to frack areas before legislation can be passed to prevent it. This is disastrous for the public health and must be countered vigorously. There also must be accommodation by environmentalists as well, and not just a loud “No!” whenever alternatives are discussed. This will take time and shouting for it to be changed immediately will accomplish nothing. If we all do not accommodate, using the data that science and medicine give us, then we are doomed to fractious encounters that produce little of value. As a physician, I believe good preventive medicine, good public health, and good pediatric health demand this change. An expeditious, yet feasible, conversion to non-polluting energy sources is in the best interest of everyone. We all must continue to work in some grim-faced harmony toward that goal.