24th February saw Obama veto the Keystone XL pipeline, however it seems as though the campaigners are aiming at a bigger issue. With the increasing urgency to fight climate change, it is possible that the campaign became a general protest demanding that all remaining fossil fuel reserves be left in the ground.
There is no shortage of alternative energy resources, so why can't we let go of fossil fuels?
Hydrogen would be the best option. It has a high energy density and could be used in transport, but the technology is expensive and unfinished. Currently, hydrogen requires a lot of energy to be produced and it is difficult to store large quantities. There is the possibility that wind and solar energy could be stored as hydrogen using electrolysis to smooth out the intermittent supply, but it is costly to achieve. Hydrogen power could still be widely used in the near future.
A more controversial energy resource is nuclear power. Unfortunately, whilst very high in energy density, the public tend to oppose the building of nuclear power plants due to the risks of radiation. The tragic events of Chernobyl and Fukushima still cause much concern about the reliability of nuclear power. Radioactive waste is also a large problem as it is a long-term commitment, taking around 10,000 years to lose its radioactivity. This, in some ways, could be argued to be worse than CO2 emissions. Although, the development of technologies such as recycling the waste into glass safe to install in homes may remove the waste concerns.
To help with surges in demand, pump-storage can quickly meet the needs of a peak through the sudden release of water downhill, forced through a turbine. This water can be used repeatedly, getting pumped back up to the top reservoir when there is an excess in supply (e.g. at night).
These options are perhaps the best candidates for replacing fossil fuels. Wind and solar power will remain intermittent supplies, used in remote areas and to top up supply until their energy can be stored efficiently.
For the transition to cleaner energy, coal-fired power plants could be given inexpensive upgrades to improve their efficiency and reduce their emissions. Some could be converted to Combined Heat and Power plants (CHP plants) to take advantage of the heat that is usually lost. This heat could be used for space heating in public facilities or office blocks. CHP plants could then be fuelled using biomass from agricultural and food waste, replacing coal altogether.
Countries heavily reliant on coal are most likely to need help and investment to encourage the transition to renewable energy and increase the proportion of renewables in the energy mix. Research and development of these technologies can be very expensive and countries dependent on coal tend to be poorer than those pushing the changes. To help these countries, governments and organisations could set up a non-profit pool of information on sustainability and renewable energy technology. This could then act as an instruction manual for those countries that are struggling, simultaneously improving employment opportunities in the manufacture, installation and education (and many more) sectors. This way, countries could develop sustainability action plans that are appropriate for their individual needs and aspirations.
It is sometimes believed that sustainable development will undermine economic growth, but this doesn't have to be the case. The economy can become the driving force of sustainable development by moving in to the research and development of these new technologies.
Unfortunately, the fossil fuels industry has a large influence on the global economy and government actions. In many countries, fossil fuels are subsidised significantly more than renewable alternatives, making it cheaper to be dirty.
On a smaller scale, education and the spreading of awareness could reduce the sense of despair and instead motivate people to act! If the public are showing a local level of action and a desire for sustainability, then governments may follow based on a need for popularity amongst their societies. To achieve this, small plans could be reinstated, such as the car-sharing plan, which is making a come-back in cities around the UK. All these plans need is the people to back them and encourage others to do the same. Community projects could drive lifestyle changes; bring-your-own packaging shops, community run allotments, local sourcing of goods and services.
This issue could also be tackled in its early stages, with children. Introducing sustainable thinking to children right from the start could change the way we as a society think about our actions. Sustainability by definition is providing for the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same.
It isn't about telling someone they're doing it wrong, it's about showing them another way.
Written 05.03.15
I wonder how long it will be before humanity starts sealing itself off from the "Natural Planet" both to protect the Planet and also as the Planet can no longer support human life. Is such a human solution possible? We need to start building "earthship" communities asap to start to study this option as I don't see an alternative?
Thank you for offering your point of view!
I find it interesting that you do not believe that we have any other option than to ‘bail out’ of this challenge. There are a number of ways that humans can achieve sustainability. We as a society have become so detached from nature that we have forgotten how vital it is to our survival. An ‘earthship’ would be fantastic if it were a feasable option for our critically interdependent nature.
Personally, I feel that we as a population are more than capable of adopting a sustainable lifestyle. However, motivating people to act is the challenge.
Anna