The Energy Conundrum

THE ENERGY CONUNDRUM: ROLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PRACTITIONERS

Larry Gordon, MS, MPH, DEAAS, DHL

Sanitarian

Past President, American Public Health Association

Retired New Mexico Cabinet Secretary for Health and Environment

TOPICS

AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION PROPOSED ENERGY POLICY, 1972

1981 APHA PRESIDENT'S COLUMN

ENERGY ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

INVOLVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PRACTITIONERS

TECHNICAL AND POLICY TRAINING ESSENTIAL

VENTURING INTO ENERGY POLICY

SOME POLICY ACTIONS TO BE SUPPORTED

Comparatively few environmental health practitioners have a working concept of their roles in the technical and policy aspects of energy production and utilization.

Most environmental health professionals are narrowly oriented to their particular programs and, with few exceptions, the issue of energy has not been programmed into their roles. Likewise, under-graduate and graduate educational institutions and usually have not programmed energy problems into environment health curricula.

Larger operating agencies like the U.S. Public Health Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have developed cadres of personnel to ensure that the environmental health aspects of energy issues are properly considered. However, at the state and local levels, few operating agencies have allocated positions for personnel competent in the environmental health technical and policy aspects energy production and utilization.

Despite this relative inactivity regarding energy problems by academia and operating agencies, most environmental health practitioners agree that energy is a critical component of environmental health.

The energy coundrum has evaded solution for decades. While not the first, the following is an example of early environmental health policy recommendations developed in 1972 as a policy proposal for the American Public Health Association:

PROPOSED ENERGY POLICY

AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION

______

The problems relating to an adequate supply of energy are matters of grave concern for this and future generations of Americans. While a safe, dependable energy supply is of the utmost importance to the national economy and individual well-being, the byproducts of energy production are well known as detrimental factors to human health and well-being, and to the quality of the environment. Because of the many and varied relationships between energy, health and environmental quality, the American Public Health Association finds that:

• Most experts agree we must look to energy sources other than fossil fuels as early as possible.
• Although energy produced from fission may produce less pollution than that of fossil fuels, it is still by no means clean energy. As yet, adequate solutions have not been found for the disposal of radioactive waste and the problems of thermal pollution in an aquatic environment.
• There is a need for early massive research and demonstrations in the area of geothermal energy, fusion, solar energy, and fuel cells.
• The proliferation of freeways increases the tempo of fossil fuel utilization and significantly adds to pollution, disrupted patterns of living, community eyesores, environmental injuries, and undesirable patterns of land use.Rapid mass transportation is a “must” not only for urban areas but as alternatives for many interstate freeways.
• Proper land use and subdivision designs are also necessary to solve the problem of misuse of energy and the resulting impact on environmental quality.
• Population stabilization isa basic component in stabilizing energy production and decreasing the resulting pollution problems.
• Citizens are increasingly and properly concerned about power plants, not only with the adverse health effects of certain pollutants, but also with the impact upon the aesthetic environment (i.e., natural beauty and visibility).
• The National Power Plant Siting Act only serves to transfer pollution from overpopulated urban areas to relatively clean areas of the Nation. This ultimately results a uniform blanket of smog to the detriment of all citizens of the United States.
• Controls for pollution from energy production must be based on need, rather than the “state-of-the-art” or the latest limits of technology.

Respectfully submitted,

Larry Gordon

Member, APHA Executive Board

And in 1981, the following was published as the APHA President's Column:

the nation's health, march 1981

.

The American public and their political leaders have finally become acutely and painfully aware that the burgeoning appetite for energy is taking an unreasonable toll of the economic pie and is creating unacceptable health and environmental problems. The problem is world-wide and the underlying predisposing issues include a rapidly expanding population and gluttony of energy from non-renewable sources. The U.S. Government has failed to place priorities and make the necessary commitment to develop renewable energy sources which ultimately must be developed if our technology, civilization, and standard of living are to survive. The majority of our political leaders still seem to be insufficiently informed and motivated to act against interests which continue us on the ultimately self-defeating course of relying on non-renewable energy sources. The official agency charged with the responsibility of providing expertise and leadership in energy matters (the Department of Energy), has changed its course little, if any, from the course of its predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission

Federal proposals for energy development have continued to recommend larger and larger governmental support for energy development from such short-term and non-renewable sources as synfuels and nuclear fission, with only a pittance for the energy needed from renewable sources on a long-term basis. Political leaders continue to recognize renewable energy resources as the best and ultimate, but the political reaction has been rhetoric rather than funding and action.

Solutions to the energy crisis must take due notice of the underlying issues of over-population, non-renewable energy resources, and the lack of a realistic conservation ethic.

The United States has no comprehensive energy policy or rational leadership in energy matters. There exists a patchwork of bumbling plans and confusion, largely designed to appease powerful interests. Recommendations and decisions are being made largely by those technocrats representing such powerful interests. The technocrats have understandable but inappropriate biases and conflicts of interests, and are not pursuing a mission of serving the public welfare.

Conservation of energy offers an immediate and effective methodology for significantly reducing energy consumption. There is no tight or predetermined correlation between energy use and economic vitality, and a healthy economy can be maintained with a greatly reduced reliance on energy. Conservation through technical improvement, "meticulous engineering," and personal sacrifice, could result in zero energy demand growth beyond 1985. For example, automobiles can travel twice or three times as far on a gallon of gas, and such improvements are already being made. Other technological changes are involving computers, advances in steel and aluminum processing equipment, fuel cells, heat pumps, etc. Changes in consumer behavior including such things as insulation, mass transit, decreased travel, decreased electric lighting, and car-pooling are being increasingly utilized. Price incentives, tax incentives, regulatory controls, alteration of advertising, educational campaigns, and changes in research and development emphasis offer conservation improvements which have barely been considered or addressed.

Solar resource systems could provide energy as solid fuels (wood); liquid fuels (from grain); gaseous fuels (methane from manure or plant residues); hydroelectric power; photovoltaic electricity; wind-generated electricity; and direct heat for home, businesses, industries, and institutions. The mix of solar resource systems could be varied and integrated for different climatic areas. Solar energy does not involve an economy of scale, local solar systems reduce or eliminate transmission costs and losses, and solar systems are less likely to create unacceptable health and environmental problems.

It will take 25 to 50 years of transition to bridge the gap from the current non-renewable energy sources to renewable solar resource energy. Bridging energy during this period must be derived from a changing transitional mix of fossil fuels and fission until the required level of solar energy systems are functioning. The United States has recognized the need for solar systems for more than a decade, but has only responded for funding non-renewable systems at a disparate rate while essentially ignoring the long-term needs for renewable solar energy. Only recently (January, 1980) did the U.S. Government make a crash commitment to alcohol production, and this was the right decision for the wrong reasons (subsidizing the Agricultural interests rather than rationally developing alcohol production).

The self-interest of' the majority of our citizens and future generations wouldbe best served by the solar resource alternative.

Both of the foregoing should be altered if written in light of current information (2012). They are included simply to indicate that national and international public and private sector policy makers have failed to make the necessary difficult decisions for many decades.

ENERGY ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS

Energy is vital to our modern society,but it has public health, environmental, economic, politicaland security considerations. Every proposal for a unified energy policy has been met with opposition from environmental advocates, public health interests, other citizen groups, economic interests, NIMBY concerns, or elected officials. Such groups have not shared a common interest and have frequently worked at cross purposes.

Every source of energy has environmental health ramifications, and none is entirely clean orgreen. Such ramifications include land use, solid wastes, hazardous wastes, noise, atmospheric visibility, toxic chemicals, geothermal problems, global climate change, atmospheric pollution, safety, possible bioterrorismand transportation issues.

There is a positive correlation between air pollution created by the burning of fossil fuels and human health impacts including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, asthma, reduced lung function, lung cancer and premature death. Air pollution resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, including greenhouse gases, such as CO2, accumulate in the atmosphere and contribute significantly to increasing global mean temperatures and global climate change.

The secondary impacts of global climate change, including food insecurity and population displacement due to increased incidence of extreme weather events and other climatic changes, may result in social and economic disruption, increasing susceptibility to political unrest and violent conflict.Our energy infrastructure and the extraction of oil and other fossil fuels exacts heavy environmental and public health impacts, and has traditionally been a target for attack and sabotage throughout the world, resulting in oil spills, habitat destruction and human casualties, and the United States' energy infrastructure is vulnerable to such attacks.

The production of energy by nuclear power plants also creates numerous environmental health and security vulnerabilities that remain unresolved, including the disposal of radioactive waste, proliferation concerns, the threat of nuclear accidents, terrorist attacks and other acts of sabotage. An accident or attack at a nuclear power plant could result in release of radiation leading to radiation sickness, genetic mutation and cancer, and the contamination of large tracts of land.

INVOLVEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PRACTITIONERS

Environmental health practitioners have a solid record of achievement in a wide variety of environmental health issues. However, most have not been involved in energy development and utilization.Most environmental health practitioners are competent to engage in such technical issues related to energy production as solid wastes, hazardous wastes, toxic chemicals, air pollution, noise pollution and water pollution. And some afre competent to deal with the land use and transportation aspects of energy production.

Needs and opportunities for involvement of qualified environmental health practitioners abound in every area of energy production and utilization. Such opportunities are in technical issues, as well as in policy and leadership roles. Unless prohibited by policy, practitioners should become involved even in the absence of specific authorization.

TRAINING ESSENTIAL

.

Contintuing education/short courses are not availabe except in a few isolated cases. Such training should be developed by universities, official agencies, professional associations, and the private sector to enable environmental health practitioners to offer quality services and become effectively involved in technical issues as well as influencing public policy. Some training related to the various technical issues and well as public policy is available through the public, private and academic sectors, as well as such associations as the American Public Health Association, the National Association of Boards of Health, the National Association of County and City Officials, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, and the National Environmental Health Association.

VENTURING INTO ENERGY POLICY

Energy policy is developed at all levels of the public and private sectors, but the most criticalenergy policy issues are the responsibility of elected officials.

• Politics determine who gets what, when and why. The results are policy. Practically every environmental health practitioner practices politics in some manner, but the politics of elected officials are vital.
• Every energy policy issue is deemed "critical" in a positive or negative manner by someone.
• Elected officials focus primarily on the needs and desires of their own constituents. A case must be made to indicate the impact of the policy recommendation on such constituents.
• Elected officials are much morelikely to be influenced by thoughtful, individually worded lettersrather than by "canned" letters and postcards that are usually ignored as obviously emanating from a single source.
• Practitioners who have developed an ongoing relationship with elected officials and the media are more likely to have their requests considered.
• Elected officials receive masses of requests daily, so only the well justified requests will be seen by the elected official rather than by an aide.

SOME POLICY ACTIONS TO BE SUPPORTED

Scores of environmental health related energy policies are worthy of support by environmental health practitioners, and the following rank high for individual and organizational political action:

• America's current and future energy needs must be met through a balanced approach that protects our economy and supports and fundamental environmental health values. Energy policy must reduce our country's dependence on imported oil and shift our focus to renewable forms of energy. Transportation issues must be a critical component of a comprehensive policy. The nation's transportation sector, which is 95 percent reliant on oil, is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and is a large contributor to our need for foreign sources of oil.

• Environmental health practitioners should support investments in alternative energy technologies and abundant domestic energy sources, like natural gas, as part of a comprehensive domestic energy portfolio. Our nation needs to employ an approach to our energy challenges that incorporates a spectrum of domestic energy solutions, including incentives for growth in renewable energy and energy conservation programs, support of domestic natural gas, and implementation of conservation incentives.

• Environmental health practitioners should play a role in ensuring that our country relies increasingly on a diverse energy supply, especially energy we can produce ourselves. It will be better for environmental health to develop relatively clean energy sources such as, but not limited to, wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, agricultural biomass, hydroelectric, and/or geothermal.

• Environmental health practitioners should advocate a deliberate transition to an energy strategy that includes the promotion of energy conservation, including the adoption of responsible fuel-economy standards; improvements in energy efficiency, the development of renewable fuel sources for energy production, strengthened controls for greenhouse gas emissions and air hazardous pollutants, and the expedited institution of safe and renewable energy sources.
  
• Environmental health practitioners should support immediate legislative and regulatory efforts to reduce adverse health impacts and to mitigate global climate change, particularly through multi-pollutant control strategies that include health-protective limits on emissions of hazardous air pollutants, including carbon dioxide and other industrial greenhouse gases, in manufacturing, transportation, energy production, and where feasible,othersources.
  
• Environmental health practitioners should support adequate funding for research, development, and utilization of renewable energy technologies.
  
• Environmental health practitioners should ensure development of educational opportunities to learn more about the environmental health and global effects of energy policy through content in curricula in educational institutions developing personnel for the environmental health workforce.

• With a burgeoning population and rapidly increasing energy demand, "All of the Above" will continue to be necessary.

While not speaking specifically about the energy conundrum, in 2012 Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) noted her frustration with the Congress. "It's become all about the politics, and not the policy. It's not about governing, it's about the next election." Senator Snowe's statement is descriptive of the energy conundrum.

THOUGHT PROVOKING REFERENCES

Bill Gates on energy innovating to zero

Rob Hopkins: Transition to a world without oil

Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?

Steven Cowley fusion is energy's future

International Journal of Green Energy

Energy Sources, Part A, Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

American Public Health Association: Affirming The Necessity of a Secure, Sustaionable, and Health Protective Energy Policy, 11/9/2004

Hidden Health and Environmental Health Costs of Energy Production and Consumption in U.S.

IOM.edu: The Health Impact Assessment of New Energy Sources: Shale Gas Extraction

The World Economic Forum