Passacosa

Saved By The Well

Tuesday 31 March 2015

In June of 2014, the EPA drafted new regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Environmentalists complained the EPA didn’t go far enough, while the fossil fuel industry derided the rules as a “war on coal.” As a show of bipartisanship, both sides agree that these new proposals are the most ambitious steps the Obama Administration has taken to curb the threats of climate change. Using the year 2005 as a baseline, the regulations require that the US reduce its carbon emissions by roughly 30% by 2030. Unfortunately, the EPA missed a perfect opportunity to spur water conservation with these new proposals.

When the President announced these new regulations last year, California was in the third year of one of its most significant droughts on record. Dire still was the report released earlier this month warning that California has only one year’s worth of stored water remaining. Considering that California’s Central valley is responsible for a majority of the country’s tomato, almond, grape, asparagus and apricot crops, this is very much a national problem.

Included among the EPA’s suggestions for meeting emission targets is the increased adoption of natural gas. Compared to coal, natural gas emits about 50% less carbon dioxide. Consequently, the EPA sees natural gas as the best alternative for many coal dependent states. But methane leaks aside, natural gas extraction requires a hell of a lot of water. So much so that it prompts asking: is reducing C0₂ emissions worth significantly depleting the country’s water supply? I’d much rather watch The Dust Bowl than live it.

Instead, the EPA should incentivize water conservation as part of its emission reduction targets. Penalizing electricity generation methods that consume lots of water would encourage the widespread adoption of alternative energy sources. As an example, one of the most under touted advantages of wind energy is its minimal use of water. Once operational, wind farms require very little maintenance, produce no carbon emissions and, most importantly, consume no water. The same is true for the solar photovoltaic industry.

Penalizing water consumption would discourage states like Kentucky from supplanting coal with natural gas. Such a replacement is akin to giving up alcohol for cigarettes: it would’ve been better to stick with the first one. At the very least, incentivizing water conservation would force the natural gas industry (and other water-thirsty industries for that matter) to develop techniques for recycling (currently) unusable wastewater. As it stands, the EPA sees no difference between a fleet of natural gas wells in Kentucky and a solar panel farm in Arizona, even though the former is far more detrimental to the environment. This needs to be corrected.

Rather than a simple emissions reduction percentage, the EPA could measure each state’s progress on a points scale. The water usage of each state’s generation methods would be incorporated with the original 2005 emissions baseline. The EPA would then calculate realistic emissions goals for each state via this “conservation metric” (CM). Each state-submitted proposal for meeting its emissions target would be scored according to the plan’s CM. Generation methods that require little or no water (e.g. wind and solar) would have higher CMs than generation methods that use lots of water (e.g. natural gas). Accordingly, each metric ton of C0₂ would have a CM value.

For example, the EPA’s C0₂ 2030 reduction target for Kentucky is 18%. Using the CM method, let’s say Kentucky’s baseline is 500 CM with a target of 950 CM by 2030. Kentucky’s plan must include generation methods that achieve that 450 CM increase. Ideally, this CM target is unachievable by displacing coal with only natural gas. Though highly simplified, this illustrates how integrating water conservation into emission targets is possible.

It’s undeniable that climate change looms as this century’s biggest threat. As a silver, albeit morbid, lining to this, the widespread effects of climate change won’t be felt for decades to come. More pressing is the water shortage that is wreaking havoc in California. And with a slight tweak, the EPA could tackle both issues simultaneously. Penalizing water consumption and rewarding C0₂ reduction would spur the energy sector to develop new and innovative methods of generating electricity that would have minimal impact on the water supply.

Water shortages and climate change, two inherently linked problems, force us to consider both our short and long term actions. Focusing our efforts solely on one issue at the expense of the other, would be catastrophic. To put things in terms the average American would understand: our tires are bald and we’re running out of gas. If we refill the tank but ignore our tires, we’ll crash. If we don’t refill the tank, it won’t matter if we’ve replaced the tires.

Or maybe it’s time to find an entirely new kind of transportation, altogether.