Currently there is a lot of skepticism for new energy sources and whether they are economically secure enough to support countries that are also dealing with heavy financial burdens. Despite the industrialization of several developing countries, there still exists billions of people without electricity, thus providing energy that is affordable is of a higher priority than making sure that it is renewable and environmentally friendly. Linking a general consensus between developing and developed countries on how to approach an appropriate solution to the present climate changes has thus proven difficult. Other countries, such as the United States, are being encumbered by deficit and the financial burden of war. The priority of freeing themselves from war and economic recession before spending the necessary money on the appropriate research is obvious. With the current international economic hardships present, governmental bodies are right to question the economic feasibility of researching and integrating renewable energy sources. However, the bleak outlook on the current economic situations seems to have blinded national leaders from the true economic advantages that new energy-efficient technologies have to offer.
Corporations in various countries worldwide have begun to take advantage of the renewable resources available to them to provide clean, affordable energy to its citizens. In Spain, wind can provide "more than half of Spain's electricity" (CNN). It has become apparent that the global community uses more energy than it can sustainably produce, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims there is "adequate scientific and technological" instruments available to governments to "create the incentives for mitigation action" (IPCC-cop, 2). Spain has met increasing energy demands with wind energy. Other companies, like Pro Natura has developed pyrolysis technologies to provide affordable coal to developing countries where coal is still the prominent energy source. This green charcoal (aka biochar) works the same as wood charcoal but is produced at half the cost, burns more cleanly, and releases no harmful emissions when manufactured. The charcoal is formed from farm wastes (corn stalks, cotton stems, etc) and its carbon release may be sequestered underground as a potent fertilizer for new crops (ProNatura). The advancement of such technologies has addressed the issue of affordable energy for developing countries without putting the environment at harm's way. Not only is this energy more affordable, this research and manufacturing is providing higher paying jobs and education that also contributes to the environment's biodiversity. However, the longer it takes to integrate advancements such as these, the worse the repercussions of our current forms of energy consumption will become.
One of the biggest issues with current forms of energy consumption is its release of carbon into the atmosphere which is contributing to the overall effects of global warming. These consequences are slowly dilapidating earth's ecosystems, and if it is allowed to continue the cost of repairing such dilapidation will continue to rise. The IPCC revealed their fourth annual report at the Copenhagen talks in the Winter of 2009, in which they have restated the consequences caused by the absence of mitigation policies; this includes the disappearance of sea ice, increasing tropical cyclone intensity, increases in ocean acidity, about 20 to 30% increase in species that will be at risk of extinction, as well as an increasing risk to human life and infrastructure due to flooding (IPCC -cop15, 1-2). According to a paper released by the University of Wyoming, a "single species recovery programs often costs $50,000 - $500,000" (Why Economics Matter, 6). Taking into consideration the sheer number of species existing today and focusing on 20% of them multiplied by $500,000, the budget for a recovery program of this magnitude can reach upwards into the hundreds of billions of dollars. On top of species protection policies that would have to be implemented, there would be an ongoing cost of repair to the infrastructure damaged by rising sea levels, especially in places, like New Orleans, that are built below sea level. According to the IPCC, "the evidence is now overwhelming that the world would benefit greatly from early action, and that delay would only lead to costs in economic and human terms that would become progressively high " (IPCC-cop, 2). Action and integration must be implemented immediately to avoid heavy economic pressure to repair that which will be broken by the continued use of non-renewable energy.
It is understandable that the general public wavers at ideas that will challenge them to make changes and to abandon the immediate norms, especially now when the economy is not as strong as it was. The truth is that changes are an economic investment, and in order to make these changes, money will have to be spent on the appropriate research. However, by doing so humanity will be spared the increasing expenses of environmental repair, and will have access to energy sources that will not disappear over time.
Max Twogood
References
Spain's Wind Energy Increases, CNN, Al Goodman, December 21, 2009
How the Economics of Renewable Energy has Been Violated, Green Chip Stocks, Jeff Siegel, March 24, 2008
Welcoming Ceremony Speech at COP 15/CMP5, December 7, 2009, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairmen of ICPP
Issues Related to Mitigation in the Long-Term Context, Chapter 3, Annual Report 4, Brian Fisher, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, In Climate Change, 2007
Why Economics Matters for Endangered Species Protection and the ESA, Jason F. Shogren, 12 August 1998
Biochar and the "Terra Pratta" Method, Pro Natura-USA, 2008 < http://www.pronatura.org/index.php?lang=en&page=biochar>
Subscribe to