What is "Clean" energy?

Let's face it. With climate change on our hands, the world edges ever closer towards environmental catastrophe. I'm sure you've heard plenty of it- ice caps melting, species dying out, deserts expanding, storms pounding our coastlines, and Miami disappearing beneath the waves. But enough of our impending destruction. I think I've made my point clear. Regardless of your political or environmental stance, you're probably sick of all the gloom and doom stories.

Indeed, humanity possesses both the knowledge and resources to combat climate change, slow it down, and reduce the disaster to something manageable. According to Jeffery Sachs (writer of Commonwealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet) we clearly have the brains and technology.

This said, I'd like to discuss what is meant by "clean" technology. More often than ever, you'll see the eco-friendly label on products. You'll see "green" options everywhere. Shade-grown coffee. Organic dish-soap. Biodegradable egg cartons. Energy-saving light bulbs. I think it's great- and for sure, the success of these products is wonderful, but one must still remember that we live in a consumer-based society. Businesses have and always will be motivated by profit, even if it comes at the expense of others. Now this is not to say that all energy companies are run by evil, selfish, money-hoarding capitalists- but in this day and age, one should always be aware of greenwashing schemes.

This brings us to the question: What's the cleanest source of energy we can afford? Pushing all business-related bias aside, you'd think the answer would be easy. It's not. Like Newton's first law of physics, every action of mankind has an opposite reaction, or in other words, a trade-off.

The drawbacks associated our use of oil and other fossil fuels is pretty clear, so I won't go into that too much.

Nuclear energy, despite being a relatively clean source of fuel, comes with a whole array of negative associations, such as Three-Mile Island, the Chernobyl Incident, and the possibility of all humans turning into flesh-eating zombie-mutants after exposure to radiation.

Hydroelectric energy has always presented environmental problems where building dams are concerned. Not only do dams disrupt the natural flow of rivers by flooding certain areas, but they also jeopardize the existence of certain fish and aquatic creatures by altering their habitat, separating populations, and preventing them from dispersing.

Even some of the most innocent-sounding, "eco-friendly" sources of energy have their trade-offs and drawbacks. According to the American Bird Conservancy, 10,000-40,000 birds die every year in the US from collisions with wind turbines. Although this is a small number compared to the millions that die yearly from window collisions, it's still important to consider when building wind farms along major migratory routes.

Solar energy is an amazing concept- I yearn for the day when every house and car has its own solar panels. Right now, however, it just so happens that our country's largest source of solar power comes from the Mojave Desert, whose fragile ecosystem will most certainly be imperiled by upcoming development for new solar projects. In fact, I was just reading a New York Times article about how solar energy companies in Southern California now face legal challenges based on environmental grounds.

So in any case, my point is this: As awesome as a new source of energy may sound, it's always best to study trade-offs before implementing it. Nuclear's fine, as long as it's well-contained. Wind farms are great, but not next to a bird sanctuary. You get the picture.