Colin Doyle

The fight is on between traditional fossil fuel energy sources and alternative sources. Leaving aside the question of whether we should continue using huge amounts of energy to begin with (to which I would answer no), the issue is all about which of the two types of energy is best in the near term and long term.

However, in this debate we are a bit hamstrung linguistically. ‘Clean’ energy technologies such as wind and solar have the easy overarching term “green.” But what is the short name for the fossil fuel energies of coal, oil, and natural gas? Well, if one is called “green energy,” the other ought to be called “black energy.” Color terms are nice and simple, and – after all – oil and coal are black if you look at them or accidentally get them on you. Additionally, the color black has the negative connotations that pro-Earth people want in their debates with energy traditionalists, even more than the color green now has positive connotations. So I think it’s a fitting term, and I propose we use it.

“Black energy” is a common enough word in Australia, but hasn’t really hit the United States yet, and it’s high time it did. How quaint: black versus green. May these one-syllable terms quicken the debate.

See this entry on the 1/18/10 installation of the blog carnival Carnival of the Green: http://www.ecojoes.com/carnival-of-the-green-211/.

Colin Doyle draws on a broad palette of experiences from his three decades, including receiving degrees in anthropology and religion from fine universities and living for a time in seven U.S. states, West and Southern Africa, Europe, and indigenous South America. He now teaches outdoor science in the mountains of Southern California during the school year and leads backpacking trips with teenagers in New Hampshire during the summer. He can be reached at cbdoyl@hotmail.com.

/journal/colin/