Has T. Boone Gone Green?

ChrisSchultz said:

Mark, here is an excerpt from his interview with Fast Company magazine:

 You recently announced plans to build the world's largest wind farm, in the panhandle. Is that about money or the environment?
Money! First thing, it's about money. Of course, I'm also a good environmentalist. I can pass the saliva test. But I'm not going to go do a 4,000-megawatt wind farm for the environment first and money second. I'd rather go give money someplace else. You're talking about $10 billion.

MarkLazen said:

I almost entirely agree with you Chris. Your points are what I was hinting at when I emphasized the tension between the energy security movement and those focused on climate issues. I believe that the climate crisis is a more pressing issue than the economic exposure we face as a result of our dependence on foreign oil. I tend to agree with you and Joe that the GhG benefits of moving some of our transportation to natural gas are insufficient to justify the significant infrastructure investment and, more importantly, the opportunity cost involved. If we can find the resources to do that, can't we find the resources to go beyond that and expedite electrified transportation?

But clearly, T. Boone is all about energy security--he throws the word "clean" into his comments as an afterthought. So when I ask "Has T. Boone Gone Green," I think the answer is no. The only reason I can't dismiss Pickens' natural gas idea entirely is that I don't have a crystal ball to reveal what is truly politically feasible and in what time frame. If a move to natural gas is in fact the only attainable step forward, then I would say something is better than nothing.

But I still think that Pickens' involvement will be a net positive for the environment--though perhaps as a side effect--because it will validate renewables among the most committed scoffers, and will in some cases more closely align the interests of the energy security people with climate activists. That may in turn bear fruit in climate-positive legislation / regulation that would otherwise be condemned to political purgatory.

And is Pickens just in it for the money? I'm inclined to take him at his word when he says he's got all the money he needs, and that this is a matter of patriotism for him, not profit. But of course, if everything goes the way he would like, it certainly won't hurt his bank account. You don't get as rich as he is without having a reflexive talent for making money.

ChrisSchultz said:

There is a huge issue with his strategy that you didn't mention in your post.  Pickens wants to replace our dependence on petroleum based fuels with a dependence on natural gas.  We produce a greater % of natural gas domestically than we do oil, but the benefits of moving to GHV,  reduced GHG emissions  over conventional gasoline (around 20%) and the huge upfront investment required for refueling infrastructure make this an unfeasible proposition.  If we're going to spend billions on refueling stations it might as well be for hydrogen, don't you think? This is swapping a fossil fuel for another fossil fuel - and in my opinion it is a huge gaffe.  Over at Green is Good I posted "T. Boone Pickens Got it half right" and linked to Joseph's Romm's interview on Grist - make sure you check it out. Like a lot of other green bloggers, I think Pickens's investment in clean wind energy is admirable, but I don't want to give him too much credit because as his idea for NGV shows he is really just doing this for the money, solving the climate change crisis is not a priority for him, as his investment in GHV shows us.  Pickens has the right to do things his way, but I don't think we should be praising the man when one half of his strategy would set us back several decades in the race for a sustainable energy independence.