The Best Global Warming / Climate Change Energy Solution

Slow Global Warming? Here is Our Best Climate Change Energy Solution

This is Part 3 of a series on climate change / global warming. In case you missed it, here’s Part 2

No one will deny that we need energy. Developed and developing countries alike need energy.

Fossil fuels have provided that energy since the industrial revolution. Fossil fuels have made our lives more comfortable (e.g. air conditioning, cars), and helped to bring people out of poverty (e.g. light at night to study, get an education and then a better job).

But now that we know that fossil fuels are causing pollution and climate change or global warming. It’s time to move on to less-polluting energy solutions which don’t bring about the end of the pleasant planet that we live on.

What are those options? Let’s examine them.

Is Clean Coal a Climate Change Solution?

Coal is one of the worst polluters (the concept of “clean coal” is a myth). Dreadful for air pollution and smog, lousy for the health of miners, responsible for horrible mining practices such as blowing the tops off mountains, coal has had its day. It’s not particularly efficient and it’s bad for our health.

Most countries are moving away from coal. It is idiotic to expect developing countries to rise out of poverty on the back of coal. Developed countries should ensure that the same mistakes are not made in growing economies.

Is Oil a Climate Change Energy Solution?

Oil is well-developed and quite efficient. It’s not only used for energy, but also for making plastic and many other products. Extracting and transporting it is hugely polluting. The very name “oil spills” make it seem like an accident – but there are an awful lot of them. Far more than we know. It is simply impossible for an oil pipeline to be totally “safe”. The raw material transported in pipelines is harmful to humans, animals, birds, fish and wildlife.

Since “easy” sources of oil have dried up, more difficult sources are bring tapped – tar sands oil is highly toxic, and removing it creates a wasteland. Drilling in the Arctic for oil is risky, not just to human life but also because of the difficulty of cleaning up “spills” because the conditions there are so extreme.

The Arctic is a pristine environment that is home to many unique species, and it also very important in controlling our planetary climate.  Rising temperatures have caused increased ice melt which is not only raising sea levels but also emitting stored methane (a very nasty greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere. It’s a vicious cycle that makes global warming even worse.

Yet, experts tell us than in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, we need to stop all new  drilling, and just continue with existing sources until they are exhausted, by which time it is hoped that newer sources will be able to take over. (Of course this is not a popular idea, as it affects the wealth of many).

But it is the only sensible option. Drilling for yet more oil in ever-more-risky ways is not only more dangerous to humans and other life but also to the planet itself. We have alternatives (e.g. renewable energy, bioplastics), let’s make them efficient and start using them!

Is Natural Gas a Climate Change Energy Solution?

Natural gas is often touted as a “bridge” to renewable energy. It’s supposed to take over from oil and last until renewables are more efficient.

It’s low-carbon compared to oil, and we need to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. And it has reduced dependence on foreign oil in countries like the US. That sounds good.

Until you remember that the cheapest way to get natural gas is generally fracking. Fracking creates methane – one of the worst greenhouse gases which causes climate change. Plus it puts our precious drinking water at risk. And I simply don’t believe that that is a risk worth taking. The Earth is increasingly water-stressed. All life on Earth needs fresh water to survive. The risks are just too great.

Is Nuclear Power a Climate Change Energy Solution?

Nuclear power in its various forms has advantages – it’s low carbon which is good for climate change. It’s often called “clean” energy – but that doesn’t take into account the toxic waste that it produces. That waste needs to be stored away – somewhere – but there is no “away” on this planet.

Many people are also understandably concerned about the safety of nuclear reactors. It’s touted as being safe – but we humans can’t even make oil pipelines failsafe – and they’re just empty pipes made of metal or plastic. Nuclear reactors are far more complex.  Nuclear “accidents” have serious consequences.

In addition, in terms of helping to solve climate change, there is another problem with nuclear – it just takes too long. It takes about 10 years to commission a new nuclear plant – and we need alternatives much sooner.

Is Hydro a Climate Change Energy Solution?

Hydro energy is generally classed as renewable energy. However, we still don’t truly know the implications of damming rivers and creating reservoirs. China has invested heavily in hydro and it has seen massive human and environmental issues as a result. Large-scale hydro developments have huge environmental implications.

Is Carbon Sequestration a Climate Change Energy Solution?

Carbon sequestration is a wonderful idea. It’s attractive, because it would mean that technology would solve the problem of climate change, and we wouldn’t need to do anything – just continue our high-consumption lives as normal. “Somehow” the excess carbon would be removed, and so global warming would slow.

Sadly, it’s not likely to happen. Even if it were to be developed, it won’t be in time. We don’t have anything close to the technology to capture the huge amounts of carbon involved, we don’t know where it could be safely stored – and it wouldn’t solve the methane problem. Plus, it would be pretty useless if we continue to burn fossil fuels.

Is Solar Management a Climate Change Energy Solution?

Solar radiation management – allowing less sunlight through the Earth’s atmosphere – would help reduce warming. But how to do it? You’d need to put a lot of “stuff” into the atmosphere. It’s likely that a nuclear war would be sufficient (and that would potentially solve some of the population growth problems too by murdering large numbers of people). But the survivors would have difficulty growing food in a nuclear winter.

Is Renewable Energy a Climate Change Energy Solution?

Wind is renewable technology. It’s not perfect (see Wind Pros and Cons). And of course, the wind doesn’t blow everywhere and it doesn’t blow all the time.

Water / tidal is also renewable. It’s not widespread yet. Water rushing past turbines when the tide comes in and goes out is used to create electricity.

Solar energy is increasingly common, and improvements are being made all the time. For example, printable solar panels could drop the price of solar even further, and make it more accessible for homeowners to gain independence from the grid, or have power where there is currently none.

Of course the problem with all renewable energy technologies is energy storage. The power generated by all of them, needs to be stored.

Industry (including current nuclear reactors) needs a reliable supply of energy on demand. Renewable energy is not yet suitable for powering the grid fully. But with investment in R&D, it can be.

Yet perhaps we’re looking at it the wrong way – energy companies want to maintain the grid, but going forward perhaps we can think of more local energy production and storage. The grid works very well – but perhaps it’s time to change this way of thinking too. (Apart from anything else, being so totally dependent upon the grid leaves us vulnerable to deliberate attacks, solar flares etc. ).

So, What Is The Solution?

The solution is really quite simple. There seems to be such debate – yet there doesn’t need to be.

We have to stop burning fossil fuels.

Yes, that means no more new drilling, anywhere in the world. An end to fracking. Rapidly increase the development, installation and utilization of renewable energy systems. This could be funded in part by the money now supporting fossil fuels (subsidies, tax breaks etc).

The longer we delay taking action, the worse the future outcomes are likely to be.

Cities drowning, water shortages, extinction and more are all possible scenarios as a result of climate change. This is too important for us to keep delaying action, just so that we can stay lazily comfortable.

It’s not the technology that’s the problem. It’s the will and motivation to solve the problem that’s stopping the solution.

Money invested now in climate change prevention will benefit our descendants. Unfortunately, some people don’t seem to think we should burden ourselves out of concern for others.

Other interesting articles in this series:

• Is climate change real – or a hoax?
• Why is climate denial more attractive than belief?
• 100 practical climate change solutions
• What you can do about the everyday climate change denial that we don’t even notice

Please share this post – sharing buttons below and right – thank you!

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below.

Warm regards,

P.S.  Don’t forget to download your free climate change report here!

Related:

• Wind power – it’s not perfect. What are the pros and cons?