Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Steve Comeau of South Burlington, who is a database programmer and a member of Local Motion, a Burlington-based group that promotes people-powered transportation.
It is becoming clear that we need to prepare for the inevitable rise in average temperature, rising sea level, and the climate changes that are occurring. The most pressing of those preparations is the need to dramatically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is released into the air by burning carbon-based fuels. Doing so is necessary to prevent ecological disaster on a global scale and the destruction of civilization as we know it. Warming the air a couple of degrees may not seem like much, but it is actually a shift in the earth energy balance that means the atmosphere and oceans will be at a much higher energy state. To drop the rate of CO2 emissions requires that we convert from using carbon-based energy sources to using non-carbon-based energy sources, and that we drastically reduce energy use. Both of these actions face huge technical, economic and political challenges.
There are no “green” energy sources. All energy sources have both good and bad attributes. If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, then the “good” energy sources are the non-carbon-based energy sources. These are hydro, solar, wind and nuclear.
There are no “green” energy sources. All energy sources have both good and bad attributes. If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, then the “good” energy sources are the non-carbon-based energy sources. These are hydro, solar, wind and nuclear. The United States currently uses 97 quadrillion BTUs of primary energy per year and 80 percent of that is from fossil fuels. To replace roughly half of that fossil fuel energy would require something like building 100 nuclear plants, more than doubling hydro and wind energy, and scaling solar up by a factor of 50. This would be a massive deployment of energy infrastructure that would also require utility-scale electricity storage for the grid and much better batteries for electric cars. In the next 20 years there seems to be no possible scenario which can produce that result. It is quite clear that 100 nuclear plants will not be built and billions of solar panels will not be deployed. But, we should continue to develop these energy sources, even if more slowly than is necessary.
Improving energy efficiency allows us to reduce energy use and continue to have the same services that energy provides. Even with a growing population and growing economy, energy efficiency improvements should help keep energy consumption growth flat. But the money saved from improved efficiency goes somewhere, and that somewhere is goods or services that use more energy. Therefore, energy efficiency improvements can help, but can’t really solve the energy problem.
Conservation of energy has had unimpressive results. We make small changes, like shutting off some lights, and think it is a big deal; yet driving your car down the highway uses the energy equivalent of 2000 CFL light bulbs. Energy use is built into the fabric of our lives. People commute long distances, travel to visit friends and family, and vacation around the world. To save large amounts of energy will require that we eliminate or limit these activities and most people do not want to do that. The social consensus is that energy should be cheap, plentiful and always available. We cannot dramatically reduce energy use with traditional conservation; instead what is needed is high-density urbanism and energy rationing, and the latter is not remotely possible in the foreseeable future. High-density urbanism involves living in small spaces and dense neighborhoods, walking to work and to shop, and somewhat accidentally living a low energy lifestyle. There are many people implementing great ideas on reducing energy this way, and it has good potential in the long term.
We can’t reduce energy consumption significantly without a universal effort and social transformation. That is not going to happen any time soon, so we must first reduce carbon emissions by replacing carbon-based fuel. The best option is to use the “No Alternative” energy sources: hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear. Realistically, natural gas must also be used since it is at least lower carbon, low cost, and a sensible choice for heating and transportation. The environmental group-think needs to change and recognize that real energy solutions are needed now, and none of them are perfect. Let’s drop the wishful thinking that some new amazing energy source is just around the corner – it’s not. Let’s stop deluding ourselves into thinking that all we need to do is be “green,” install some solar panels, and a drive a Prius – it’s not enough.
Preventing harmful climate change requires a collaborative effort. Scientists, engineers and construction crews are needed to design and build the “No Alternative” energy infrastructure. Economists and energy experts are needed to devise ways to de-energize our country without devolving into recession or worse. We also need artists and illustrators to paint the picture of energy use and climate change, so that we all can visualize these abstract and complex problems. Finally, we need real leaders willing to have an honest national conversation on climate change and our energy future.
