When "Clean Energy" Isn't Clean

"Now, clean energy breakthroughs
will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there
will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge
you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity
will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar.
Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal,
we will need them all and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together
to make it happen." --President Barak Obama

During the State
of the Union address Tueday night, President Obama set forth an ambitious challenge
that by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy
sources. To do this Congress must eliminate the generous subsidies
given to the oil industry, and use the money to invest in tomorrow's
energy.

The idea behind this statement
is right on. The US needs to make a fundamental shift away from
dirty energy to clean sources. Leading that shift through innovation,
research, and education will result in more jobs and a stronger economy
to compete with a growing China and India in a changing world economy.

Yet throwing around the phrase
'clean energy' is misleading, especially in the manner it was defined
last night. The notion that nuclear power, coal, and natural gas
are clean is not only incorrect, but jeopardizes our ability to achieve
necessary long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The
fashionable, yet hollow use of this so-called 'clean energy' will
only continue to exacerbate our climate crisis.

What is 'clean' energy,
anyway, and what is 'dirty' energy? Last night, President
Obama included nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas as sources of 'clean'
energy, but are they really? I would say NO. Clean energy
needs to include the following characteristics:

1. Does not create
   environmental or public health dangers in extraction or use
2. Be economically
   feasible without large tax-payer subsidies, and able to answer a demand
   in the energy market
3. Be renewable- able
   to replenish itself naturally
4. Carbon free

The problems associated with
energy sources that fall under the label of 'clean' are numerous.
Nuclear reactors emit toxic radiation into the air and water, and cannot
compete with cheaper and cleaner forms of energy without billions in
government subsidies and financial assurances. Clean coal technologies
such as CCS are unproven and do nothing to reduce the environmental
and health impacts that result from the mining process. Natural
gas releases harmful pollutants, and the extracting techniques can be
extremely harmful to local communities. Clearly, these forms of
energy do not meet the criteria of 'clean energy'.

By promoting these harmful
energy sources as 'clean' we risk not only endangering the health
and livelihood, of many Americans, but we undermine the development
and deployment of truly clean renewable energy that is financially viable
and technologically sound. The inclusion of nuclear, coal, and
natural gas into a national energy plan will limit the maturation of
wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable sources, which are ultimately
preferable because truly clean energy is the only dependable and environmentally
safe way to fuel future energy needs.

Pursuing a 'clean energy'
standard may garner more political support in Congress these days, but
that should not implore us to settle for less. If this is truly
our generation's 'Sputnik moment' we must take the opportunity
to push for policies and incentives that will promote clean renewable
energy sources. If we do this we will be strengthening our security,
protecting our planet, and revitalizing our economy long into the future.