Editor,
On Wednesday of last week Robert Sanchez of the U.S. Government Accountability Office came in and talked about the potential for the United States to diversify the national energy portfolio and the hazards and obstacles that are in the way.
The gist of what he was telling those of us interested in the topic was that renewable energy isn’t all that likely to be 100 percent of the energy portfolio – as it stands, fossil fuels are the cheapest available energy source and it seems that it won’t change any time soon with the onset of fracking. An article written by Bloomberg shows a different picture, stating that, “The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: It’s a technology, not a fuel. As such, efficiency increases and prices fall as time goes on.”
Though he had a lot to say about fracking he wasn’t entirely convinced that it was bad for the environment, and to that I say this: consider the fact that burning fossil fuels alone is enough of a reason to transition into renewables due to the onset of the arctic regions melting because of our addiction to cheap energy sources. Fracking itself is also physically disruptive to the ground that it occurs on, that is undeniable.
Considering renewables eventually pay for themselves, isn’t now more than ever the best time to start weaning ourselves off a fuel that will potentially kill us all? I know the Government Accountability Office doesn’t handle these decisions directly, but it seems that we could be spreading a message that renewables are a long-term solution to a century long addiction to oil and gas.
Patrick Gallagher
UNM student
