With the global recession currently gripping us, there’s a constriction of available funds to invest in clean technology. While governments are spurring an unprecedented level of interest and investment in cleaner energy, there’s also a growing backlash that questions whether now is the time to make these investments. If we simply look at energy costs traditionally, then this expense can easily be questioned. But the enlightened view, in this era of global change, factors in the connections between energy and environment.

In order to look at energy from a sustainability perspective, it’s important to factor in the social and environmental impacts of our energy decisions, in addition to their economic benefits — the so-called “triple bottom line”. Environmentalists have long complained that the true cost of energy aren’t being calculated, because the costs of environmental damage are typically absorbed at a later date by the people rather than providers. The health consequences of our energy choices are also becoming more apparent, particularly in the United States where health costs are on par with energy costs in terms of their ability to disrupt our economy.

Environmental Costs

Damages to the environment are traditionally ignored on our balance sheets, because they don’t represent an immediate expenditure. However, if we look at the long term accumulating impacts, and the cost to clean up our environment, these costs over time are significant. There’s a tangible cost to cleaning up soil and water pollution, but some of the other costs are harder to quantify.

It’s difficult to calculate the loss of productive forests and fisheries, but the long-term harm when these resources go away can be devastating. There are certainly tangible economic values of the resources, and there’s also a value to the jobs and economies that revolve around sustainable resources. Fisheries in New England, the Chesapeake Bay and now in the Pacific Northwest provide the starkest reminder of our reliance on an abundant and sustainable natural resource, for many towns have shriveled up when the resource is no longer available.

The growing threat of climate change could provide an overwhelming connection regarding the delicate balance between energy, environment and economy. The threat of sea level rise is perhaps the greatest danger, with much of the coastline of the world potentially under water should our ice caps continue to melt at a rapid pace.

Health Costs

There is growing evidence that the health care costs of energy are on the rise. Fossil fuels are responsible for air pollution and a rise in respiratory problems. Oil spills have an immediate impact on wildlife and can have long-term impacts on our soil and drinking water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just made a strong proclamation when they recently declared that fossil fuel emissions are a public health threat.

The direct connection between fossil fuels and climate were part of this declaration, with effects on health said to include more droughts, more extreme and more frequent heat waves, more intense storms, rising sea levels and harm to water resources, agriculture, and plants and animals in the wild. The EPA noted that the very young, the elderly and those in poor health could stand to suffer the most harm.

Security Costs

Protecting our nation’s access to fuel supplies in the politically unstable Middle East has the U.S. currently involved in two simultaneous costly wars. The U.S. sends hundreds of millions of dollars each day to the Middle East due to dependence on foreign oil, and that adds up to more than a $100 billion each year. These dollars are going to the OPEC countries that are largely dictatorships that are politically hostile to us.

The American military understands this direct connection between fossil fuel dependence and security. Not only does the American economy depend on exporters with potentially unstable governments, but the U.S. military is highly dependent on oil for their operations. In fact, the pU.S. military is the world’s largest single consumer of oil.

Given this dependence, many branches of the military are exploring and investing in renewable energy to power their bases. The movement of oil during a conflict is one of the military’s most vulnerable supply chain issues, so there’s also research underway to look into biofuels and other means of generating a secure and locally produced fuel source.

A cleaner and cheaper future presents itself when we look toward the development of renewable energy that is produced close to where it is consumed. Solar, hydro, wind, geothermal and biomass each provide viable alternatives to fossil fuel energy sources, and they largely come without environmental, health or security costs. It’s refreshing to see a growing new energy movement underway, and let’s be clear about the costs of the alternatives, so that we can achieve a new energy economy as quickly as possible.

Resources

Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession, by Matthew L. Wald, New York Times, March 28, 2009

The True Cost of Oil: $65 Trillion a Year?, by Chris Nelder, Energy & Capital, June 29, 2007

Read more related Spatial Sustain posts: