Non-renewable energy has numerous economic drawbacks that can cause financial catastrophes. One of the most obvious culprits is climate change, which results from the increasing amount of non-renewable energy sources releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Lester Brown, author of Plan B 3.0 explains the consequences of using non-renewable energy: "Katrina was the most financially destructive hurricane ever to make landfall anywhere." Also, "this enormous jump in insurance costs is lowering coastal real estate values and driving people and businesses out of highly exposed states like Florida" (Brown, 2008). Carbon emissions indirectly cause extremely expensive damage. Brown also elucidates how, "since crops in many countries are grown at or near their thermal optimum, even a relatively minor increase during the growing season of 1 or 2 degrees Celsius can shrink the grain harvest in major food-producing regions, such as the North China Plain, the Gangetic Plain of India, and the U.S. Corn Belt" (Brown, 2008). Ironically, the non-renewable resources used in the production of crops, such as energy intensive fertilizers and transportation fuels, actually indirectly decrease the crop yield.
There are also drawbacks that do not relate to climate change. One such case is how drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would cost forty to sixty billion dollars to get a six-month supply of oil. This supply is economically feasible based on the International Department's approximation, where the cost per barrel for companies getting oil is two to four times the present market price over a period of twenty years (Hawken, 1993). Hawken, author of Ecology of Commerce, in reference to Lovins (1991), states, "Leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has an 81 percent chance of finding no economically recoverable oil; a 19 percent chance of finding oil" (1993). In general, drilling for oil is highly expensive, and oil is running out at a quickening pace. The guarantee of finding oil in certain areas is unsure, and oil is consumed extremely quickly, meaning its supply is running out. The efficiency of non-renewable energies is highly questionable. "American farms have doubled their direct and indirect energy efficiency since 1978. They use more efficiently manufactured fertilizer, diesel engines, bigger and multifunction farm machinery, better drying and irrigation processes and controls, and herbicides instead of plowing to control weeds. Yet U.S. farming still uses many - perhaps ten - times as much fossil fueled energy in producing food as it returns in food energy" (Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins, 1999).
Now looking at the positive side, renewable energy has numerous benefits that non-renewable energy cannot even compete with. "The Council on Economic Priorities reported in one study that investment in energy-efficient technologies produces four times as many jobs as building new power plants. Photovoltaic and wind-based energy systems produce two to five times the number of jobs as coal-fired or nuclear power plants." Also, the prices per kilowatt of wind farm energy, which used to be about "five times as expensive as nuclear power plants," are now equivalent to coal and nuclear plants, while also expecting to be cheaper than all other sources except hydropower, in the next twelve years (Hawken, 1993). Renewable energy investment has the ability to create more jobs than non-renewable. Even though Hawken wrote this example in 1993, it still has importance, since it reveals how renewable energy has room for innovation and improvement, so its price can be greatly reduced. Non-renewable prices can only be reduced so much, since they are incredibly expensive and inefficient, as the third paragraph explained. Hawken describes how "firms such as British Petroleum, Shell, and Enron are investing heavily in renewable sources of energy" and in reference to Mansley (1995), "alternative energy industries not only help ‘offset the risks of climate change,' but also offer ‘greater growth prospects than the carbon fuel industry" (Hawken, Lovins and Lovins, 1999). This is another way renewable energy sources can compete with non-renewable ones. A non-renewable resource such as "solar energy does not pollute, does not cause asthma and emphysema in the L.A. basin, does not destroy the forests of Europe or the northeastern United States with acid rain, does not run around and spill into the ocean, does not seep into groundwater, pollute rivers, or create Superfund sites" (Hawken, 1993). Most likely health insurance costs would increase for people with asthma and emphysema, and other costs would need to be increased to protect the health of people from these environmental effects.
The arguments supporting non-renewable energy sources are ones only from special interest groups. Hawken explains, "when Chairman Rawl of Exxon warns us that if we don't open up the last and largest wildlife refuge in the United States to oil drilling and exploration, ‘the entire nation will forfeit...substantial economic benefits,' we are not being schooled in classical economics, nor in neoclassical economics, but in Exxonian economics that are at the service of corporate development" (2008). The arguments in support of non-renewable forms of energy are always ones based on private interests, not the overall economic benefit for everyone.
Renewable sources of energy are economically superior compared to non-renewable ones. Non-renewable resources are so tremendously wasteful financially, but unfortunately are still incessantly used. Renewable forms of energy can easily compete with non-renewable in regards to price, jobs, and net efficiency. If only citizens could realize this when listening and watching the worldwide media.
Natasha Najjar
Sources
Brown, R. Lester. 2008. Plan B 3.0. W.W. Norton and Company. New York and London.
Hawken, P. 1993. The Ecology of Commerce. HarperCollins Publishers Inc. New York, N.Y.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., and Lovins, Hunter. 1999. Natural Capitalism. Hachette Book Group U.S.A. New York, N.Y.
Subscribe to