The Washington Post has published an easily fact-checked falsehood about clean energy — for the umpteenth time (see “WashPost op-ed page remains the home of un-fact-checked disinformation about clean energy and global warming“). Not surprisingly, columnist George Will is the source (see “WashPost lets George Will publish a third time global warming lies debunked on its own pages).”
I don’t have time to waste dealing with all of the bad analysis in his most recent piece, “Awash in fossil fuels,” but let’s focus on just one key non-factoid:
But surely now America can quickly wean itself from hydrocarbons, adopting alternative energies — wind, solar, nuclear? No….
Today, wind and solar power combined are just one-sixth of 1 percent of American energy consumption.
Uhh, no. And it would have only taken the WashPost’s nonexistent fact checker about 60 seconds to find out the correct figure.
Any decent fact-checker looking for information about U.S. energy consumption would of course start with the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The most recent data is most easily accessible at their Short-Term Energy Outlook Page. In Table 1, you can easily find out that the U.S. consumes, roughly, 100 quadrillion BTUs of energy a year, which makes it incredibly easy even for non-mathematicians to do the math on what percentage is provided by different power sources. In Table 8, you can see we consumed 0.514 quads of wind in 2008 and 0.09 quads of solar (don’t miss the residential number).
And so, in 2008, wind and solar combined to provide 0.6% of American energy consumption — six-tenths of 1%, not one-sixth of 1 percent. But, of course, Will and the Post said “today,” and wind power is growing rapidly despite the great recession thanks to the stimulus (see “U.S. wind energy industry installed 1,649 MW in third quarter, more than Q2 and Q308“)
Mathletes and fact-checkers can use the quarterly figures to see that we have consumed nearly 72 quads in the first nine months of 2009 while wind and solar combined to deliver about 0.55 quads. So the correct statement is:
Today, wind and solar power combined are three-quarters of one percent of American energy consumption.
So Will was only wrong by a factor of more than 4.
But, of course, the entire point the Post was letting Will make was about weaning from hydrocarbons and adopting alternatives. So that means we should include biomass, and hydro, and geothermal and other alternatives, not just wind and solar.
Today, renewable energy provides about 7% of American energy consumption, and is growing faster than any other energy source.
I am glad Will is pointing out the U.S. appears to have a lot more natural gas than people thought, as I’ve been doing for many months now — see There appears to be a lot more natural gas than previously thought (Part 1) and therefore unconventional gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet (Part 2). But as usual, he can’t see the deforestation for the trees:
Such good news horrifies people who relish scarcity because it requires — or so they say — government to ration what is scarce and to generally boss people to mend their behavior: “This is the police!” Put down that incandescent bulb and step away from the lamp!”
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism.
Yes, this is a standard piece of nonsense from right-wing Post columnists (see “Krauthammer, Part 2: The real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science“).
Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in spreading misinformation on clean energy, ignoring climate science, attacking climate scientists, and asserting that the only reason people want to reduce pollution is to boss people around. The name is conservatism.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Just now BBC World Service “World Have Your Say” has Lindzen and Booker on. There’s a bit of a counterpoint (a little disjoint IMHO) starting at about the 15 minute mark, and sure enough it’s made to sound like a real debate. *sigh*
Lindzen hung up because of an African worried that the current nasty drought in and around Kenya is AGW-related. At about 25 minutes it’s Pat Michaels, who says he’s very active in working with the IPCC and that the models are wrong. It looks like the program goes on for another 30 minutes. Stream here.
And now I’m being moderated, making these comments nearly pointless. Eh.
[JR: Not you. Certain words, though. You can probably figure out which one.]
Conservatives are funny. I could spend years studying them, and still wouldn’t understand what goes through their minds.
“Global warming’s a scam.” -Conservative holding sign at Greenbuild
“What do you say to NASA, NOAA, NAS, AAAS and every national academy of sciences in the world who are all urging action?” -Me
“Uh..they are doing it to earn grant money…” -Conservative (who then challenges me to look at both sides and not be brainwashed)
Article covering some good points on MSM and CC…
Why media tell climate story poorly
http://www.thestar.com/ business/ cleanbreak/ article/ 729339–hamilton-why-media-tell-climate-story-poorly
I apologize on behalf of my profession.
scientists such as Betancourt are realizing the climate changes observed are not happening in a gradual, predictable fashion but, instead, in sudden steps. Systems reach a certain threshold of environmental stress and then “pop,” they act quickly to restabilize.
These changes also happen regionally, making it difficult for people in one region of the world to appreciate disruptive changes going on elsewhere.
Not surprisingly, those looking to stall action on climate change – or who altogether deny that humanity is contributing to global warming – are exploiting this complexity and lack of certainty.
with an economic downturn, during which people are concerned most about their finances. There’s also a strong likelihood that people want to hear that maybe this climate change stuff is all a bad dream.
It’s much more difficult to have a story in the newspaper or a TV news segment, explaining the latest study in Nature or Science, than it is to have an unqualified scientist or “spokesman” offer a pithy, controversial quote or sound bite not necessarily grounded in fact.
many journalists under deadline and without the time to verify credentials, journalists who do not follow climate science and the news around it, continue to give these so-called experts a soapbox to stand on. Even those with time to spare often offer up the soapbox out of some misplaced attempt at balance, giving the impression that the scientific community is deeply divided.
Once their comments are published, the blogs take over and public confusion grows deeper. Mark Twain said it best: “A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its boots.” The Internet has only accelerated the speed of travel.
it’s a shame.
I asked Betancourt during his New Mexico talk why the scientific community has not done a better job of battling the misinformation campaign and speaking as a more united front.
The problem, he said, is working scientists don’t tend to be communications specialists but are up against people who are. So, for honest, accurate describing of the science of climate, “it’s more up to the media, and less up to us.”
[JR: Tyler's great. I'll just repost this.]
Newspapers frequently declare that their decline will lead to the end of informed public debate, because they claim to be the last redoubt of quality, investigative journalism in this world of new media.
If they want to claim the high ground, they will need to walk the walk and reinvest in quality and substance over style and opinion. The Op-Ed pages of have for too long been given a free pass in otherwise reputable publications.
To add additional perspective to the numbers, although renewables account today for 7% of America’s energy consumption, that’s less than in the 1980s when renewables accounted for 8%. Since the 80s, total energy use has generally grown faster than the rate of renewable energy use.
This is a meritocracy in the Bizzaro World. If you consistantly get your facts wrong you get to the top of the Punditocracy pecking order.
Andy, that is an amazing statistic. Can you give me a source for this?
Including the very mature and often ecologically disastrous source hydroelectric power as a relevant renewable in the debate about future sources is in my opinion counter productive. Given the well founded opposition to new hydro projects, the actual currents is running towards the taking down of small dams to allow migrant fish access to rivers, there will probably be a net reduction in hydro electricity produced, in the lower 48, in the future. I think including hydro in the mix distorts the picture. including hydro falsely inflates the current minute role of renewables in the energy mix and falsely decreases the percentage gains being made in the truly relevant technologies.
Joe, it wasn’t clear from the EIA tables, but I think your numbers understate the contribution from wind and solar, and possibly hydroelectric power. The other energy sources provide electricity through burning to generate steam and turn turbines, i.e. a process that is only about 35% efficient. Wind and solar energy numbers go directly to electricity. Unless they are multiplying by a heat-equivalent factor. Either way there’s a confusing factor of roughly 3 that could easily fool a fact-checker…
[JR: I'm not sure. You could be right, but it wouldn't change the wind and solar #s by a factor of 3.]
a 60 second Google netted me this:
“The new wind projects account for about 30 percent of the entire new power-producing capacity added nationally in 2007 and will power the equivalent of 1.5 million American households annually.”
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ ens/ jan2008/ 2008-01-31-091.asp
Not a great result, but certainly better than Will’s.
Robert,
Here’s the source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_5.pdf
Divide the next-to-last column by the last column and multiple by 100.
You’ll see the peak for renewables was 1982 at almost 9%.
Andy
[JR: It really shows you what we could have done if conservative ideologues hadn't taken over our energy policy or blocked progressive policies at ever turn.]
JR:
I’m not sure who isn’t a “conservative idealogue” since both D’s and R’s have occupied the White House and/or controlled Congress since the early 1980s.
Alternative hypotheses that explain renewable energy’s declining share of total consumption include 1) renewable promotion policies have increased renewables but not at a rate faster than consumption has grown; and/or, 2) policies aimed at reducing total consumption have either failed to do so or been inadequate to account for population increase (read “immigration”), i.e., reducing per capita energy use doesn’t reduce total use if there are more capitas, e.g., CAFE standards.
[JR: It ain't hard. Look at the voting records. Reagan gutted renewable funding nearly 90%, eliminating tax credits, etc. When Clinton tried to increase funding, Gingrich stopped it.]