Juneau’s topography and climate have blessed us with renewable electric power. But like the rest of the country, and the world, we’re too dependent on fossil fuels for heat and transportation. We can only continue on a business-as-usual path if we dismiss all the science that says we’re heading toward catastrophic climate change. But even if we adopt the “Do a Lot” alternative of the draft Juneau Community Energy Plan (JCEP), there’s an elephant in the room called tourism.
According to the JCEP, Juneau residents burn about 28.5 million gallons of fossil fuels each year. About a third of that is to heat our homes and buildings. Renewable energy technologies are already available to significantly reduce that. The Sweetheart Lake hydro project will allow more buildings to use electric heat systems. And we’ve been moving in the right direction with ground source heat pump systems installed at the airport, Dimond Park Swimming Pool, Auke Bay School and the Mendenhall Valley Public Library.
The transportation fuels will be a bigger challenge. We’ve got ideal conditions for electric car ownership to help us meet the “Do a Lot” goal of local transportation energy to be 80 percent electric requires by 2050. And we need to join cities like Boston, Cleveland and Sacramento to push the auto industry to make the conversion their highest priority.
But eliminating 24 million gallons of fossil fuel from our energy diet won’t solve the obesity problem of the cruise ship industry. And because our local economy is dependent on it, we can’t ignore their contribution to the climate change problem.
From the cursory research I’ve done, fuel consumption for cruise ships navigating the Inside Passage is anywhere from four to 10 times that of Juneau residents. By one engineer’s estimate, some larger ships burn a gallon of fuel for every 50 feet they travel. And those floating cities aren’t about to be powered by wind or any other renewable resource without some miraculous technological discoveries.
Of course, cruise fuel efficiency should consider the thousands of passengers they’re transporting. If they’re filled to capacity, then every traveler is consuming just a gallon every 14 miles. That’s not any worse than a GMC Yukon.
A cruise ship passenger and the owner of a $50,000 full-sized SUV have something else in common. They’re not poor. And so it is with climate change in general. It’s an environmental problem created by affluence that can only be mitigated if the wealthiest people and countries are willing to make the biggest sacrifices.
Let’s face it. A cruise up the Inside Passage is a luxury most people in the world can’t afford. So is a European vacation that involves flying halfway around the world in a jet that’s not all that more fuel efficient than an ocean liner. A trip to see family in Colorado, which I’ve taken three times this year, isn’t much better.
Now I’m not advocating eliminating all unnecessary travel. Nor am I suggesting that the “Do a Lot” alternative of the JCEP is an exercise in hypocrisy. We need to make these changes. And if conservation is among the action items, then we must also discuss, outside the energy plan, other ways we can aid the world’s responsible shift to sustainability.
If we were to become model citizens from an energy use perspective, wouldn’t it be natural to hope others will follow our lead? However, if many did, the loss of cruise ship visitors would be significant. It would have a serious impact on Juneau’s economy. And the ripple effect may be that a smaller percentage of tourists would take flight seeing tours since those are energy intensive experiences.
Isn’t this a future Juneau should be contemplating? The only way not to discuss these possibilities is to fanaticize that tourism has endless economic growth potential unaffected by changes we must make to our fossil fuel consumption. That might be easy for people who believe human caused climate change isn’t real. But for those of us who take it seriously, ignoring this part of the equation is another form of climate change denial.
