In the wake of Japan’s Fukushima disaster, several media outlets have speculated that the fears surrounding nuclear power may lead to a boom in the demand for natural gas. Some of these reports minimize the dangers of natural gas and ignore the role that cleantech can play in providing safe, renewable energy resources.

Take a look at this article from Monday’s New York Times, “Natural Gas Now Viewed as Safer Bet.” Total mentions of solar, wind, or biofuel: zero. Instead, there are quotes like this:

“At the end of the day, when you look at the risk-reward equation, natural gas comes out as a winner,” said Lawrence J. Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation. “It’s a technical knockout.”

And weak disclaimers like this:

Natural gas is not without problems. To unlock methane from hard shale rocks in the United States, energy companies use hydraulic fracturing, a method that has been criticized on the grounds of polluting water sources, including rivers and underground aquifers. But energy policy must balance out these hazards with the concerns about nuclear power, as well as the still unresolved problem of what to do with spent nuclear fuel that remains radioactive for hundreds of years.

What about the concerns that hydraulic fracturing can mobilize radioactive material in bedrock? Or the documented cases of methane migration? Or the San Bruno disaster, anyone? Any of these worth mentioning, maybe?

The truth is that the Fukushima disaster may very well increase demand for natural gas, and there are circumstances where natural gas is a safer bet than nuclear. And natural gas is in a better place, infrastructure- and investment-wise, to power the world in comparison to cleantech.

But when journalists provide reductive coverage of the issue, the result isn’t just irresponsible — it could be downright dangerous.

[Image via danielfoster437/Flickr]