• 5 minutes Trump will capitulate on the trade war
  • 7 minutes China 2019 - Orwell was 35 years out
  • 12 minutes Glory to Hong Kong
  • 15 minutes ABC of Brexit, economy wise, where to find sites, links to articles ?
  • 43 mins Is Eating Meat Worse Than Burning Oil?
  • 2 hours Diplomatic immunity
  • 40 mins China & Coal: China's 2019 coal imports set to rise more than 10%: analysts
  • 55 mins Canada Election Deadlock?
  • 14 mins Wonders of US Shale: US Shale Benefits: The U.S. leads global petroleum and natural gas production with record growth in 2018
  • 15 hours Devaluing the Yuan
  • 2 days Here's your favourite girl, Tom!
  • 1 day Clampdown on Chinese capital flight is shutting down their commercial construction in US
  • 4 hours Russia Predicts The Death Of U.S. Shale
  • 8 hours Nigeria Demands $62B from Oil Majors
  • 4 hours IMO 2020:
  • 1 day Fareed Zakaria: Canary in the Coal Mine (U.S. Dollar Hegemony)
  • 8 hours The Ultimate Heresy: Technology Can't Fix What's Broken
Alt Text

ISIS Was Built On Oil

The Islamic State has been…

Kurt Cobb

Kurt Cobb

Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has also appeared in The Christian Science…

More Info

Premium Content

For How Long Can Society Bear the Costs of Industry's Toxic Pollution?

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stunned the nuclear industry last week by putting power plant licensing decisions on hold while it reconsiders rules on nuclear waste storage struck down by a federal appeals court in June. At issue is the NRC's 2010 ruling that spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored on a plant site for 60 years after the closing of the plant. The question is whether that ruling will withstand the scrutiny inherent in a full environmental impact statement that the court says is required by law.

The issue is part of the much larger and troubling question about the legacy costs--economic, social and environmental--of toxic industrial pollution that are mounting with each day. We'd like to think that we can simply take our industrial wastes and throw them away somewhere. But increasingly, in what economist Herman Daly calls our "full world," (PDF) there is no "away." Hazardous wastes that we thought we could safely sequester deep in the Earth via injection wells are already coming back to haunt us.

If wells drilled to date for hazardous waste disposal are already poisoning drinking water, what will be the consequences of drilling hundreds of thousands of additional oil and natural gas wells around the world into newly accessible shale deposits--a process that involves injecting millions of gallons of toxic, chemically-laced water into each well to fracture the shale and thereby gain access to the hydrocarbons? The evidence is not reassuring. And, in any case, the well casings, which are meant to protect seepage into groundwater, will in the long run (hundreds of years) simply deteriorate. Those of us alive today will be long gone when our descendents must deal with widespread groundwater pollution that may render many places around the world uninhabitable.

But even if we believe that our modern technical society will survive the effects of climate change and resource depletion, the legacy costs of cleaning up our drinking water, both in terms of energy and money, are likely to outweigh by far the seeming benefits we are currently getting from drilling deep shale layers for oil and natural gas. The legacy costs associated with storing and guarding nuclear waste may continue for thousands and even tens of thousands of years, a period potentially much longer than the entire span from the beginning of agriculture and settled life to today. In that period, many civilizations have come and gone. Do we really expect ours to maintain its stability for tens of thousands of years?

The answer is that we almost never think in these terms. We are now engaged in a dangerous and morally bankrupt can-kicking exercise, hoping to put off the worst effects our waste-handling practices until we are gone and someone else has to deal with the problems we've created. A friend once related that a scientist she knows said that more than climate change, more than population growth, and more than resource depletion, he fears the toxic wastes we've dumped into the environment and those which are still stored at industrial sites including nuclear power plants. He said these wastes have the potential to do more damage to life on earth than all other hazards combined.

While that assessment may or may not be correct, it does offer a perspective that would be useful for us to ponder. What if we survive as a species far into the future, but lack the means--financial, technical, or organizational--to contain those wastes? Given our record to date, that question by itself should caution against an optimistic assessment of whether we can bear the legacy costs of industrial society's toxic pollution.

By. Kurt Cobb

Kurt Cobb is the author of the peak-oil-themed thriller, Prelude, and a columnist for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen. His work has also been featured on Energy Bulletin, The Oil Drum, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, EV World, and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights.




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage



Leave a comment
  • Craig King on August 21 2012 said:
    Gosh, and there was me thinking that all this stuff was found on the Earth so it was all here before we were.
  • Hans Nieder on August 21 2012 said:
    What if any solutions do you offer, Mr Cobb?

    I am uneasy with this current method of disposal...

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play