Powering madness

For a while now I’ve been trying to wrap my head around how recent events in Japan and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico are similar in some way; what’s the link between them? I’m not talking about some weird conspiracy theory, like the one linking the Japanese earthquake and subsequent tsunami to Japan’s whaling activities. What I’ve been trying to understand is what got us here. How did we get to the point where two horrific “accidents” of this magnitude could take place, causing such incredible human suffering and environmental damage?

In the end, the answer seems to be a pretty straightforward one; well, spelling out the problem is simple enough, tackling it is something far more complex.

Quite simply, the BP spill and the nuclear threat in Japan are both a direct result of our thirst for energy. They are the by-products of our desperate search for ways to power our lifestyles in the 21st century. As the world’s population continues to spiral upwards and we endeavour to electrify and power more and more of the planet, we are being driven to new extremes in order to feed our burgeoning demand for energy.

As the demand for energy increases and traditional supplies are no longer able to satisfy this demand, so other energy reserves — previously too costly, or too risky — suddenly become attractive opportunities. The tar sands in Canada are one example of this: as oil prices rise, so it has become financially viable to literally obliterate entire landscapes in pursuit of oil. Fracking, and the impending movement of oil companies into the fragile Arctic ecosystem, are other examples of how rocketing energy demands are driving us to ludicrous extremes to power our economies and cars.

Sadly recent events in Japan have been another wake-up call; the earthquake and tsunami catastrophes made even worse, and far more dangerous, by the threat of a nuclear crisis which followed. Make no mistake: the earthquake and tsunami were natural disasters, but the ensuing nuclear threat is a wholly human-generated crisis. Our need to generate power has in this instance generated a whole lot more than we bargained for.

Perhaps if there hadn’t been such a demand for energy, the Japanese government may have decided that nuclear power was too risky. Perhaps if we weren’t so addicted to oil, the Canadian tar sands wouldn’t be, the Gulf of Mexico wouldn’t have been tapped and no one would even think of drilling for oil in the Arctic. Hydraulic fracturing in the water-stressed and environmentally-sensitive Karoo would also have been completely unthinkable and off-limits.

But sadly it’s not the case.

The demand for energy is such that within weeks of the worst offshore oil spill in US history, the moratorium on offshore drilling was lifted. Securing oil supplies at reasonable prices was something that could be weighed up against the environmental and human impacts of drilling in the gulf. The oil companies could get back to work.

Radioactive waste and the dangers of nuclear power generation are also something we are apparently willing to gamble with in the current energy landscape. And sadly the South African government is getting ready to place its bet, having decided that nuclear will be part of our energy mix in the future. The imperative to electrify and power our country has made the risks somewhat more palatable.

The scary thing is that with climate change, it’s predicted that severe weather events will become more frequent and intense in future, making offshore drilling and many of our other energy generation systems increasingly precarious. Perhaps it’s not surprising then that Germany has said it will be making an exit from nuclear energy in the near future, opting to go with renewable energy instead.

It’s time we face up to the full costs and risks of coal, oil and nuclear energy. They are dirty, climate-changing, ecologically destructive, and as we have seen in the case of nuclear, inherently hazardous to human health. Our energy wants are leading us to extremes and taking us into the era of mega-risk. This is the problem and it is not made any less real or less relevant by the presence or lack of solutions. Believing that renewable energies are not a replacement for our current energy systems, does not diminish the risks of nuclear or the costs of fossil fuels. Dismissing solutions doesn’t make the problem less real or something we can ignore — especially in this case where continuing with “business as usual” will only make the problem worse and the risks even greater.