Column by Mark Wetherington

The issues raised by the demonstrators at the Capitol Power Plant March 2 should prompt Americans, and especially Kentuckians, to consider the impacts of coal and what place it has in the future of American energy consumption. Coal obviously has serious negative drawbacks and the sooner we can stop using it, the better.

However, is there not a bit of shortsightedness present in demanding “clean energy” while not advocating decreasing energy use as an integral part of the solution? Much of the energy, from any source, that is used today is used to power the lifestyles of a culture that is anything but “clean.” By simply demanding “clean energy,” the protesters in Washington ignored addressing the root cause of some of the most disturbing conditions of contemporary American society.

Since the mid 1990s, scientists and sociologists have increasingly reported on the physiological disorders that are reaching epidemic proportions in the United States, such as depression, obesity and childhood diabetes. Perhaps most disturbing is William Vega’s study of immigrants in the United States that found “socialization into American culture leads to a higher risk of developing psychiatric disorders.”

One has to consider that the 24 hours a day, seven days a week, fast food and television recreation lifestyle powered by cheap energy no doubt contributes to, if not causes, many of the most common mental illnesses found in Americans and encourages unhealthy, sedentary lifestyles. Switching to clean energy does nothing to address this urgent and fundamental problem and this is perhaps the biggest flaw in what is otherwise the responsible and admirable philosophy of its proponents.

Although I disagree with his support of coal, I wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman quoted in the report who criticized the protesters as “wanting a quick fix.” None of the clean energy supporters were quoted as advocating a more moderate use of energy, or the use of as little energy as possible, as a solution. Instead, they limited their focus to where energy comes from and didn’t try to raise awareness about the broader impact its use has on our population.

While eliminating the use of coal is a noble goal, it is a mistake to view it as the most desirable, ultimate end to the current discussion about energy in America. Replacing where our energy comes from but not discussing how much we use or what we use it for is akin to rebuilding a house of cards with post-consumer recycled paper and soy-based ink cards. It’s still a house of cards regardless, albeit one you can feel a little bit better about building. To expand further on this analogy, consider this scenario and ask yourself if it sounds like a bright future: Drive your hybrid car to a job where you sit in front of a computer powered by clean energy for eight hours, then stop by the organic drive-thru on your way home to watch TV for a few hours before going to bed. Wake up and repeat five days a week for 30 or more years. One should not be surprised to discover that this “environmentally-friendly” future is just as harmful to the health and happiness of people as was the era of “dirty” energy.

Only by examining the complex and far-reaching effects of energy, both clean and otherwise, can a meaningful discussion be had. Such a discussion would require us to weigh two concepts very dear to Americans, tradition and convenience, against the possibility of a new and more challenging, but likely more rewarding, future for ourselves and our children and grandchildren.