Rhetorically Speaking: The Scary Facts About Geothermal Drilling

Supporters of the general global view that we are the cause of global warming often cite something like this as proof that they are correct: "Nearly every respected scientist agrees that global warming is happening and we caused it." Rhetorically, the rebuttal is a common-sense one: At one point in history, every self-respecting scientist believed the world to be flat, and at another point they all agreed Earth was the center of the Universe. Both of those have come to be proven incorrect. So why are we still believing things before we know most, if not all, of the facts?

Those who propagate a narrow view of the causes of global climate change (a.k.a. humans), fail to recognize that we need to slow our roll with respect to the tools we use to clean our environments. If nothing else, we do need to find ways to clean up our world. Regardless of its ability to slow or stop global climate change (which it won't), we can start cleaning the air we breathe. And that's good. But the reasoning is flawed. Horribly.

Undeniably, the move to "cleaner" fuels is a great thing, but we should hesitate to jump on any bandwagon that hasn't studied the possible side-effects of the great green savior, just as our ancestors failed to consider that they were wrong. One such case in point are "green" light bulbs that contain mercury. There are many more "Green" methods we should be equally concerned about: the new push toward geothermal drilling.

Geothermal drilling, drilling to a particular depth and capitalizing on the heat from the Earth's core. Drilling, obviously, is a great idea in theory. But in practice, as the probable ramifications indicate, it could be the end of us all. As irrational as this dooms-day scenario might seem, consider this one real fact: Drilling weakens the rocks around the site. Stories out of Texas and other parts illustrate this point all too clearly. In 2008, a "stadium-size" sinkhole swallowed a major chunk of prime real estate as a result of oil companies having pumped in saltwater to fill the void left when they pumped the oil field dry. The people at Bluedaze cite numerous other issues with drilling (specifically oil and gas drilling, but the idea is the same). Very recently the New York Times reported that geothermal drilling is not nearly as safe as we think. In fact, they report, it has the potential of being downright dangerous. In 2006, geothermal engineers in Switzerland triggered an earthquake when they started a prospecting drilling. And as Rhett points out, just last month the debate about the dangers of drilling started boiling over in California too.

Now consider that same weakening, the same creation of sink holes and earthquakes, occurring on a global scale. Yes, we see how great geothermal heating has been for places like Iceland, but we have to consider that they are sitting on geysers and don't necessarily have to drill deep into the earth's core like much of the world needs to. Clearly the drilling appears to weaken the surrounding bedrock, the very structure of the planet. The result is disastrous if too many wells are placed in too close a proximity. Feasibly, drilling not only causes sinkholes and earthquakes, but it is feasible that the escaping heat will warm the surrounding areas, significantly weakening the rock to the point of collapse or liquefaction-something similar to the areas of loose ground we see in Yellowstone Park. Imagine this on a global scale. A world collapsing.
The clean energy advocates fail too to recognize a number of other issues, not just the destruction of our planet. In addition to this very real threat of earthquakes and sinkholes, they fail to acknowledge the destruction of wildlife habitat above and below ground. Many of the green advocates also advocate for animal habitats, yet show a very real lack of concern for those same animal habitats when they come up with their windmills and geothermal plants. There is little way of knowing how many endangered mice, worms, insects, mammals, and reptiles may have required that bit of property for their survival.

Of course this can be easily construed as an alarmist view, but so is the thought that global climate changes are the sole or primary fault of mankind's unwillingness to listen to nature. The rhetoric works both ways. If we stand and listen to the facts, we can see that the "green" way is no safer than our current way. Death and destruction are as probable with "their" methods as with the current methods. Their rhetoric is empty and based on fear, not facts and logic. But realize too that both sides--those saying we are killing our planet and are th sole causes and those who paint doom-and-gloom as a result of the horrible things the "green" side is doing to destroy the planet--are failing to listen to facts that show the good and bad of both arguments.

Regardless of the alarmist views on either side, the undeniable fact is that the worst case scenario is that we destroy ourselves with our good intentions trying to find "clean energy." Best case scenario, we stop now and make sure the worst case scenario won't happen. The fact remains that drilling poses a very real threat to humanity. The road to hell is paved with good intentions it's been said. In reality, the only truly harmless clean energy can be harnessed from the sun. If we want a bright new future, we need to look forward to sunnier days, brightened by the knowledge that the sun that helped create life on this planet is also capable of helping us get out of the mess we created.

Ben Castelman, "Texas Sinkhole Puts Spotlight on Oil, Gas Drilling." The Wall Street Journal Online.

James Glanz, "Deep in Bedrock, Clean Energy and Quake Fears." The NY Times Online.

Walter Rhett, "Because of earthquake risks, can we trust engineering for geothermal energy?" Lawrence Journal-World & News Blogs.

"Sinkholes and Gas Drilling Go Hand in Hand." Bluedaze: Drilling Reform for Texas.