Robert Bryce Spreads More Falsehoods About Clean Energy

Posted By Lowell F. on June 9th, 2011

For several years now, Robert Bryce has established himself as a leading shillfor dirty energy, relentlessly spreading disinformation about clean energy. The titles of his books and articles – Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, “Let’s Get Real About Renewable Energy”,  and “James Hansen’s war on coal” – can save you from having to wade through them. In addition, Bryce  is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a front group that receives its funding from, among others, the Koch Industries Family Foundation.

So, that in a nutshell is where Robert Bryce is coming from – dirty energy all the way.  And that’s why we weren’t surprised to see Bryce’s latest screed, “The Gas is Greener,” in yesterday’s New York Times.  According to Bryce:

…while energy sources like sunlight and wind are free and naturally replenished, converting them into large quantities of electricity requires vast amounts of natural resources — most notably, land. Even a cursory look at these costs exposes the deep contradictions in the renewable energy movement.

[...]

…In the rush to do something — anything — to deal with the intractable problem of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental groups and policy makers have determined that renewable energy is the answer. But in doing so they’ve tossed Schumacher’s dictum into the ditch.

All energy and power systems exact a toll. If we are to take Schumacher’s phrase to heart while also reducing the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, we must exploit the low-carbon energy sources — natural gas and, yes, nuclear — that have smaller footprints.

So, we’re to believe that the full life cycle of natural gas and nuclear, including fracking waste disposal and uranium mining, totals less than the land footprint of solar and wind?  And we’re supposed to believe this, even though natural gas has been shown, in a recent study by Cornell researchers,  to not necessarily be a “low-carbon” footprint energy source?
Finally, did the New York Times bother to ask Bryce if he or his “Institute” have financial ties to the industries he’s touting? Such ties shouldn’t disqualify Bryce from submitting pieces to the Times, but he should at least be asked if he has them.
Similar Posts
Posted in Uncategorized

Comments are closed.