by Ray Grigg

The ancient Chinese sages teach of the special need for clear thinking and calm bravery in times of danger. Their wisdom reminds us that we should always be cultivating these attributes but they are particularly important in situations of risk and threat. Precisely the time when we most need disciplined patience and insightful clarity is when we are most inclined to panic and revert to old responses that are reflexive, habitual and ineffective.

We are beginning to see such ineffective responses to the issue of climate change. Politicians and the public and are now realizing that global warming is actually happening, that it is serious and we must take corrective action. In the evolution of awareness, we are just beginning the move from indifference toward panic. And just when we need cool reason and strategic wisdom, we are inclined to try solving new problems with old solutions.

Biofuel is a striking example. We now know that converting grain or biomass to ethanol is not the solution to our energy problems. Biofuel uses valuable cropland, extra petroleum-based fertilizer and entails more transportation and processing costs than most other energies. It also result in food shortages, social unrest and political turmoil. The effort is simply not worth the marginal benefits ‹ if, indeed, there are any.

Nuclear power is another. The cost of building large stations is huge and rising. The time taken to plan and construct them also makes them impractical as a solution. Disposal and supervision of radioactive waste remains a multi-millennial problem. As well, uranium supplies are limited and would still expose nations to strategic shortages ‹ just like oil. And the price of dismantling old reactors is staggering. At a minimum of $500 to $800 million per reactor, the world is facing at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years to decommission its 440 aging reactors and decontaminate their sites ‹ whatever "decontaminate" means. And this dismantling cost produces no new energy.

Methane is yet another. As a fossil fuel, it adds its share of carbon dioxide to global warming. Methane also requires hundreds to thousands of drill holes with connecting networks of roads, pipes and power lines. Compressors create noise pollution and massive amounts of contaminated water may require disposal. Methane extraction usually trashes any place where it occurs. Witness several US states, Alberta and northeastern British Columbia. Now the Flathead River Valley, described as the "Serengeti of the North" for its incredible concentration of wildlife and powerful scenery ‹ it is the northern extension of America's Glacier National Park and Canada's Waterton Lakes National Park, and is a critical link in a "Yellowstone to Yukon" (Y2Y) wildlife corridor ‹ is now under threat from methane drilling.

The latest faux-fad for producing so-called clean electricity is run-of-river hydro electric projects. The Chinese are building them in Tibet. Export Development Canada, Canada's official export credit agency, is allegedly funding environmentally damaging projects in the wilderness of Chile's extraordinary Patagonia region. And, in another area of world-class scenery and dramatic mountainous splendour, Plutonic Power is planning on a $3.5 billion project at Bute Inlet in British Columbia's Coast Mountains.

BC has a history of producing most of its electricity from rivers and dams. And, relative to the old standards of burning fossil fuels or building nuclear reactors, this strategy has been fairly successful ‹ our electricity is less expensive in dollar and environmental costs. Since most of BC's candidate rivers have now been dammed, however, the habitual and reflexive solution for more electricity is run-of-river projects.

As BC's government encourages opportunity and private business smells large profits, run-of-river has become ‹ like salmon farming ‹ BC's next "gold rush". Hundreds of rivers and tributaries are being "staked" for water rights, and the "super natural" heritage of a scenically exquisite province is in danger of being scarred and degraded by networks of water diversions, penstocks, tunnels, roads and transmission lines.

The wisdom of proceeding with all such projects is now cast in doubt by one of the most comprehensive and thoughtful studies on energy production to date. Dr. Mark Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at America's Stanford University, examined most forms of energy production and ranked them relative to their damage to global climate, water supply, wildlife and human health, along with land-use impacts and security issues. This is Dr. Jacobson's ranking, from cleanest, safest and most sustainable to dirtiest, most dangerous and least sustainable: wind and wind-storing hydrogen, concentrated thermal solar, geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics, wave, hydro-electricity, coal, nuclear, ethanol (grain) and cellulosic ethanol (biomass). Hydro-electricity ranks 8 of the 12, just above coal and nuclear. (As a fossil fuel, methane would probably just rank ahead of coal. And he did not consider conservation, which would likely be the best option.)

Clearly, we are living in extraordinary times. And, clearly, our escalating environmental risks and energy challenges require a paradigm shift in our problem solving. Impairing and degrading some of the most special places on the planet for second-rate energy is both counterproductive and irresponsible when we have smarter and more benign sources available. With so many intelligent options before us, we don't need old rationales that justify more destruction of a planet already in peril from excessive abuse. Instead, we need cool, pragmatic and visionary thinking to guide us wisely into a sustainable future.