Energy Security vs. Environmental Quality

One of the most prominent environmental issues in Chile is, without question, that of energy security. With three-quarters of the energy consumed imported, price volatility and intervention of the energy supply are real concerns faced by past, present and future administrations. The Ministry of Energy predicts that if energy demands increase by 4.6% each year, energy needs will double by 2023 and triple by 2032. Among administrations it is the general understanding that cheap and plentiful energy is key to development and a higher standard of living. However at the same time many Chileans place a high value on environmental quality; according to the World Values Survey of 2006, approximately 67% of Chileans indicated that they preferred “to take care of the environment” over “economic growth and the creation of jobs,” which earned 31% of the vote. Obviously in part for this reason it is expected that energy projects will be delayed due to opposition from environmental organizations and the general public.

And without a doubt Chileans have precious lands that are vulnerable to exploitation and degradation. From dams in Patagonia to the wind farms in Chiloe, solar panels in Antofogasta or a nuclear power plant in the north, (hundreds of) tentative and real projects abound to reduce energy dependence and/or increase energy supply.

Many officials warn of an energy crisis in Chile’s future, rhetoric which becomes especially frantic if hydroelectric power, particularly the HydroAysin projects, are not fully exploited. As the primary source of energy produced in Chile, and emitting relatively little greenhouse gases in comparison with fossil fuels, hydroelectric power is often the preferred energy source of policy makers, regardless of the irreversible environmental degradation it causes.

But despite all the projects to increase the energy supply produced in Chile, especially for Santiago, there exists extreme wastefulness without any significant effort to reduce it. Green building ideas are virtually inexistent. Houses and buildings are not insulated, low-flush toilets do not exist, water-saving shower heads are not used, windows are not sealed, practically the only green building appliances in use are higher efficiency light bulbs. Billions of dollars are invested into generating more energy, dozens of commissions exist to analyze these situations, but hardly any resources are invested into energy efficiency. As the saying goes, “a penny saved is a penny earned.” Similarly, a kwh saved is a kwh gained. Yeah, yeah, yeah- little things do not make much of a difference, it is the big changes that count… but what if Santiago and Chile in general were to put as much effort into ensuring energy efficiency as it is being put into constructing five dams at an estimated price of US $3.2 billion? Could that make a difference?

It is one thing if a country tries to secure safe and sufficient energy at a reasonable price, but to severely degrade the natural environment- PATAGONIA (!!!) included- without first eliminating wastefulness is irresponsible and unforgivable.