The Independent often runs news coverage about renewed oil activity and affordable housing developments on the Central Coast. The headline of an April 16 letter opposing a residential development says the quiet part out loud: “Build Somewhere Else.”
The coverage concerning the renewal of oil activity in the area has a similar tone but on a larger scale. I want to address the larger issue of renewed oil production, but, as a retired engineer with expertise on energy and environmental issues, I want to focus on practical rather than political or regulatory issues.
We use a wide variety of petroleum-derived products every day. That consumption includes fuels used for transportation of goods and people, powers large-scale agricultural and construction machinery, provides emergency services, and enables military activity in remote situations. But also, there are many essential products, like nitrogen fertilizer; single-use, sterile medical equipment; weight-reducing plastic components of electric vehicles, wind turbine blades, and insulation for electrical wiring that cannot be made without chemical feedstocks. Those feedstocks are produced from petroleum and natural gas. In many cases substitution is simply not possible, so the idea of not producing any petroleum anywhere is simply a path to nowhere. The demand for the products will not disappear so the chemical feedstocks must be produced.
If the argument to be made is “not here,” then the next question must be: where? Saying “Not here” just avoids the question, and the point needs to be made that everywhere else is always somebody else’s back yard. A not in my back yard (NIMBY) philosophy cannot resolve the issue. If avoiding tough decisions could generate power, every political speech, policy paper, and protest would keep the lights on and food on the table for everybody at reasonable cost.
Contrary to some well-publicized opinions, a future, all‑renewable system does not provide a solution. That proposed system does not exist, and even the most unrealistic theories and timelines do not eliminate all the need for liquid petroleum products. (The exception would be the Shipstone of Robert Heinlein’s excellent works of science fiction.) Hoping that tomorrow’s technology will solve today’s needs does not change the fact that for the foreseeable future, the petroleum-based products Californians use must come from somewhere.
If the Central Coast should not produce petroleum, then where should it be produced? Another country with less oversight and weaker environmental rules? If it is reasonable for any community to say they do not want drilling nearby, it is also reasonable to expect realistic answers about where the essential supply should come from, and how it would be transported to where it is needed.
Energy decisions involve tradeoffs. Avoiding the tradeoff does not make it go away; it just shifts the impacts to someone else’s back yard.
