Putting the "Switch" in Perspective

           As the world’s main finite energy resources peak, people are beginning to ask what we can use next. A documentary film directed by Harry Lynch called Switch follows Dr. Scott Tinker around the world in a search for the best switch for the United State’s energy future. The film is not released yet and can only be seen through scheduled screenings all over the US. This makes it more difficult to pull direct quotes from the movie, but the overall message was pretty clear. As an added bonus, Scott Tinker came along to answer questions about his film after the screening at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute on October 2, 2012. This was nearly invaluable as it provided insight on his personal beliefs and how he argues his case in Switch.

            Scott Tinker is extremely approachable and very easy to listen to. According to the switch energy project’s website and the film, he is the Associate Dean for Research and a professor in the School of Geosciences at The University of Texas, the Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology, and the State Geologist of Texas (Lynch, 2012). As far as energy films go, this is more than likely the most balanced approach taken up to this point. Whether this film is truly balanced is more difficult to tell as the switch energy project only includes options they see as practical. Tinker and Lynch go around the world to check out the best hydropower, oil, ethanol, natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear energy systems they can find. The language and tone used throughout the film is very calm and soothing. It almost lulls the audience into a false sense of security. Not only does this film examine a great number of conventional and alternative systems, they actually explain the systems so that people who are not energy experts can understand. This film appears objective to the very end largely because of how the information is presented. According to Tinker, all of the information and interviews were gathered before the film was put together so there was no predetermined conclusion. It is a brilliant approach that Tinker says either makes everyone who watches it agree or angers everyone in the room. It cannot be stressed enough how well the film was done. At an unconscious level Tinker wins the audience from the very first few seconds of the film.

            The conclusion of the film is less satisfying, but it is relatively commendable based on the projections the switch energy project has done. Hydraulic fracturing, Renewable energies, and nuclear power are supposedly the path to an energy secure future. In order to defend fracking, Tinker gets experts from his own state and they tell the world that water contamination has and will never be a problem. This may or may not be true, but that is as far as the film got into the matter and was probably one of the least objective parts of the film. The argument for nuclear power was much more objective in appearance thanks to the French fuel rod recycling program. This is surely a process the United States would do well to invest in if it continues to use nuclear power. According to the experts at the French plant in the movie, each person’s energy footprint per year in France is the mass of a 20-cent coin (Lynch, 2012). Renewable energy is not going to be entirely viable for large scale energy production in the near future according to Switch, but it will make up the difference hydraulic fracturing and nuclear cannot. Renewable energy is mainly used to offset the amount of nuclear energy, which according to Tinker will need to increase by a factor of almost three (2.6) (Lynch, 2012). This film is meant to take an extremely practical and serious look at the current options available instead of what people wish was available and it definitely does that and does it well.

While this film appears well thought out, there are still some problems with it. The most obvious problem is that Tinker and his switch energy project replace one finite fossil fuel that they acknowledge is running out and replace it with another—natural gas primarily from fracking. According to the graphs displayed at the end of the film, the United States will be able to meet its own energy needs starting in 2064 using this three energy approach (Lynch, 2012). It is such an intense relief to see all of the United State’s energy problems solved so neatly. Unfortunately, it must not matter to the switch energy project what happens to future generations of children because fossil fuels will eventually run out no matter how long it takes. That means that fracking is only a temporary fix. Tinker’s project assumes that there will not be any major changes to the level of energy use or any other events that would interfere with energy. They do account for an increase in consumption by the switch, but Tinker also told us that we had a few hundred years worth of natural gas. At increased consumption rates and increased exportation for profit this gas will not last. It is just another stall. China and India are expanding their populations and economies too fast for the United States to not feel the effect directly. Another huge issue is the switch energy project’s energy measurement system. At each plant Tinker gives us energy output in the number of people who consume energy. This number is apparently based on the number of people in the world and the amount of energy used total. Not only does this underestimate developed countries’ use and over estimate underdeveloped countries’ use, it also indirectly says that the consumption levels of the developed world are okay. To be fair, Tinker does include individual energy saving approaches including getting more efficient insulation and appliances in the film. This is really important, but without true policy change this three-energy source plan will only last so long. This non-regulative approach that lets everyone continue as they have before is so tempting because it seems so easy. All of the guilt from overconsumption disappears in the blink of an eye and people are told that they do not have to change a thing. It feels so good to get caught off guard by the film and be pleasantly surprised by the conclusion. There is no environmental alarmism that usually permeates ever second of other energy films, and the confidence of the films conviction is completely unwavering. It is impossible to argue with Tinker about this because he has the perfect answers for this type of PR. This strategy is based on practical logic that is extremely hard to argue against. The big three energy options that power the world are petroleum, nuclear, and coal. If you don not want global warming, than you must love nuclear. If you do not like nuclear, than you must love coal (the film concludes that carbon sequestration is not feasible right now) and by extension global warming. If you do not like coal or global warming, your only other option is oil, but oil is running out so you better refer back to nuclear.
    Without policy change and overwhelming individual change all over the world in how people interact with the natural environment this is the only set of options available. This is relatively hard to deny. Unfortunately without a change in mindset, everyone will be in the same energy security situation that they are in right now at some point in the future so once again this is just an excellent stall. It is NOT, I am sad to say, a long-term solution. A few generations down the line, the world will face a similar problem. Maybe nuclear and renewable energy systems will be enough, but at 20 cents a year of waste the world will be conscious free to waste whatever they see fit and there will be no check on the destruction of the environment that supports human society. Congratulations to the switch energy project for finding a way to continue the status quoi of business as usual for a few more years, but this is only a temporary fix and it will come at the continued cost to the environment and by direct relation: human health. The real changes will still need to be made later on and by then if will take even more work to undo the damage that has been done.

           

References

Lynch, H. (2012). Switch. Documentary, Acros Films. Retrieved from http://www.switchenergyproject.com/presskit.php#projectsynopsis