Open in App
Melinda Crow

So Now the 'Green' vs 'Black' Energy Brawl Begins in Texas

2021-02-21

Your location in the state, your job, and your political leanings are likely to determine your position

https://img.particlenews.com/image.php?url=01fOse_0YgXTVVm00Photo by ZHANG FENGSHENG on Unsplash

DALLAS, TEXAS- There's still snow on the ground in places and millions are still without drinking water in their homes, but Saturday morning brought both sunshine and arguments. Facebook is busy fact-checking, but they aren't swaying many in this energy-producing state who "know" that one way is better than the other.

First, let's look at the players, starting with the traditionalists

In cities heavily invested in the oil and gas industry: Houston, Dallas, Amarillo, Midland, and Odessa, as well as a few hundred smaller towns scattered across West Texas, the population is far more likely to lean toward blaming 'green' energy.

"The wind turbines froze," is the battle cry of everyone who has a tie to the fossil fuel industry, and in some locations, that's a huge number. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Midland or Odessa who doesn't have some connection to the oil industry. Even those who don't work directly in it, are supported by it, from hotel owners to car dealers, to property managers.

Panhandle cities like Amarillo are more heavily invested in the production of natural gas. While the cattle industry balances the industrial picture throughout the northern-most portion of the state, ranching and wellheads often go hand in hand.

Not surprisingly, some of these areas are also the most politically conservative. Republican State Senator Kel Seliger, whose Twitter header says, "Proven Conservative Results," has his sights already set on the operator of the power grid for much of the state, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).

The Panhandle, along with Fort Worth, also has strong ties to energy produced from coal, primarily through the rail industry that has historically been responsible for hauling coal to the state from Colorado and Wyoming. Even though according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, only a fifth of the electricity produced in the state comes from coal-fired plants, and much of that is produced in the state's own lignite mines, emotional ties still bind many to the past when southbound coal trains provided thousands of railroad jobs.

Meet team green

The opposite side of the argument includes more liberal cities in the state like Austin, San Antonio, and border cities, where dependence on the oil and gas industry is far less obvious. The lower the population a county has, though, the more conservative they tend to be politically, thus the more likely they are to side with team fossil fuel.

Interestingly, the cattle ranchers are a split bunch when it comes to wind turbines. Landowners have always been the benefactors of Texas energy production, whether it comes out of the ground or from the ever-present breeze. Ranchers don't allow those turbines to be erected on their land for free.

Texas has the least amount of public land of any state in the country. According to the Texas Land Conservancy, only 5% of all land in the state is publicly owned by federal, state, and local government entities. What that means is that all those turbines are making money for someone other than the general public.

The arguments

Author's note: I am deliberately switching to the terms renewable and non-renewable energy sources for the remainder of the article, terms I hope both sides can agree upon factually.

The argument for non-renewable energy, which long-predates a single 2021 weather event, has been that renewable energy is not as "green" as it claims and that it is less reliable and more costly. All valid arguments, but all designed to protect a multi-billion dollar industry that produces 41.8% of the entire country's crude oil and 25.5% of its natural gas.

Also, valid points voiced on social media today are the nitty-gritty details of gas-powered plant operations as they are affected by the inclusion of renewable sources on the power grid. One knowledgeable source told of the wear and tear on pipes and generators as well as increased emissions each time these plants re-start. The same source indicates they are forced to shut-down and restart to accommodate the mandated incorporation of renewable sources in non-peak times.

The argument for renewable energy has remained unchanged for decades. It is renewable. Many proponents understand the initial costs to the environment of manufacturing and transporting the structures, but feel it's a worthwhile trade-off to replace at least a portion of the state's dependence on non-renewable sources.

The moderates in the energy fight club agree that the state needs a mixture of all its resources to survive, including solar, gas, coal, and nuclear.

The problem with all of these arguments is that the overriding factor controlling the narrative is always a financial one. If a household income in West Texas relies on the oil and gas industry, it will undoubtedly argue for that as their preferred source of energy. If the food on someone's table is courtesy of a job driving trucks hauling wind turbine blade from East Texas, that truck driver will likely be as pro-wind as any California Prius driver.

All that financial reasoning (and messaging) multiplies as it moves up the food chain. There simply is no right answer. We have what we have. We aren't tearing down the turbines next week because of one weather event. Neither are we digging up the gas pipelines.

The real argument is not really renewable vs non-renewable energy production. It's who made money off of our misery last week.

Expand All
Comments / 0
Add a Comment
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
Local Colorado State newsLocal Colorado State
Most Popular newsMost Popular

Comments / 0