POWER November 2015 - 6

SPEAKING OF POWER
Fuel Guidelines,
Fuel Consumption,
and Climate Change
S
ee if you can fill in the blanks: " A
debate has been created after a paper
was published in the BLANK Journal,
suggesting the new BLANK Guidelines . .
. are biased and based on an incomplete
survey of current studies. " That quote from
Digital Journal, referring to the British Medical
Journal and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines,
could just as plausibly have been about a
different journal and the Clean Power Plan
(CPP). Arguments over revised U.S. Dietary
Guidelines (due the end of this year) are
getting as heated as those over greenhouse
gas (GHG) regulations affecting power generation.
Both sets of guidelines (the official
designation for the CPP) concern the
fuels we consume, and the development of
both raised issues of how that consumption
is related to climate change.
Although most adults can choose the
food they eat, they cannot, for the most
part, decide what fuels are used to generate
their electricity. In the U.S., utility commissions
as well as state and federal agencies
represent individuals in matters concerning
what types of generation are allowed to be
developed. But whenever there's any sort
of regulation, even " guidelines, " there are
those who argue against the specifics-or
against regulation in general. I'm not in
the latter camp; the Volkswagen emissionstesting
" defeat " mechanism is just the latest
example of why we cannot simply trust
the market or corporations to always do
what's safe or legal. But in some respects,
the details of government guidelines may
not always matter as much as critics claim.
The Sustainability Issue
One argument against the CPP is that the
Environmental Protection Agency is misusing
the Clean Air Act to compel GHG emissions
reductions. A similar argument was raised
with regard to U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
These guidelines are updated every five
years, and this time around, there was
discussion about whether sustainability
should be a consideration in what foods
were recommended. When the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee proposed
earlier this year that Americans eat a lessresource-intensive
diet, the North American
Meat Institute (NAMI) fought back,
6
arguing that, pound for pound, meats,
though they require large amounts of land
and water to grow grains for feed, deliver
more nutrition and calories than grains
and fruit-an argument similar to the one
that fossil fuels have higher energy density
than wind and solar energy.
In the end, sustainability was left to
other government programs and initiatives.
Had it been included, the debate
would quickly have reached the boiling
point, as it would have pitted the meat
and dairy industries against grain and
vegetable producers. That's because different
foods require different amounts of
resources and result in different environmental
consequences, from water pollution
to GHG emissions. The production of
all foods, even organic ones, has environmental
effects. (The same dynamics are
true of electricity sources.)
Water consumption is an obvious example.
A single almond, according to NAMI,
can require up to 2.8 liters of water (which
sounds more dramatic than when expressed
as 0.74 gallons); but that's still less, on a
per-calorie comparison basis, than what's
needed for beef production. Then there are
the direct and indirect GHG emissions-from
the obvious emissions of methane from cattle
to emissions resulting from tilling fields
used for vegetable and grain production.
There is, however, a significant difference
between establishing GHG emissions
guidelines for already-regulated industries,
on matters where individuals have limited
power of choice, and making GHG reductions
or other sustainability goals a criterion for
dietary guidelines whose primary purpose
is to encourage individual humans' health.
Reducing the environmental impacts of our
food choices may be a worthy goal, but it's
more appropriately addressed as an educational
(and perhaps moral) issue.
Personal Choice Overrides
Guidelines
Telling Americans what they should or
should not eat is far more likely to prompt
a response than guidelines shaping how fuels
are used in power generation. (Google
Bloomberg soda.) For some, including children
who eat school-provided meals, those
www.powermag.com
choices are already curtailed. One mother I
know was aghast this fall when her eldest,
just starting kindergarten, was being fed
breakfast items far higher in sugar than
anything she would have served at home.
Yet, the school system dietician's choices
are based on U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
School menus aside, for the majority of
Americans, dietary guidelines are less powerful
than they seem. Freedom to choose
what we eat can be as personally meaningful
as one's choice of music. Although I
know individuals who actually are glutenintolerant,
and those who have food allergies
or medical reasons for avoiding certain
foods, many have adopted low-carb/highfat
or vegan or raw diets for purely personal
reasons-whether they be weight loss, religious
beliefs, or philosophical positions.
Most days, my attitude toward dueling dietary
choices is to live and let live. In a world
where millions still lack sufficient access to
nutritious food, most arguments about food
choices seem like shallow " First-World problems. "
Whatever happened to " everything in
moderation " ? That sounds a lot like the " all
of the above " energy plans put forth by both
federal and state leaders. Just one example:
New Mexico's Republican governor recently
endorsed an all-of-the-above energy plan for
her fossil fuel-rich state, which also is rich
in solar and wind resources.
Regardless of dietary guidelines, most
adults will continue to follow their own
paths-from paleo to vegan to locavore.
Their choices will be shaped by a stew of science,
guidelines, marketing, doctor's orders,
beliefs, and taste buds. The story's not much
different for power. When given a choice-
which is becoming more common with
dropping prices for renewables and battery
storage-consumers large and small will opt
to consume specific fuels based on a mix of
price, convenience, marketing, beliefs, and
self-image, so it shouldn't be surprising that
increasing numbers are choosing renewables
for climate-change reasons.
As for me, I'm in the omnivore, all-of-theabove
camp, provided everything is in sensible
portions and produced as sustainably as
possible. Now, it's time for my mid-afternoon
apple, almond, and chocolate break. ■
-Gail Reitenbach, PhD is POWER's editor.
POWER | November 2015
http://www.powermag.com
POWER November 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER November 2015
