The argument is over—or ought to be. The scientific evidence is in. The
burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. Oil, gas and coal are the assassins. To
allow the damage to continue in order to keep the economy running smoothly is
both dangerous and ultimately disastrous. The resistance to what is
increasingly obvious comes with the same tired answers which continue to value
short-term profits over long-term survival.
For those of us, however, who seem perfectly happy to have
the burning of carbon-based resources done away with, there is, a serious question,
which to this point has no answer. What will replace the energy that fossil
fuels now produce? After all, those of us who are opposed to gas, oil and coal
are just as opposed to nuclear energy. Some of my friends, who share my
concerns, tell us that we can simply rely on wind and sun. They point to great
wind farms and acres of solar panels. While we might like to think that these
alternative sources of power are the natural answers, perhaps we had better take
a harder look.
You can run a house or even a collection of houses on wind
and sun, but you can’t run a factory, a blast furnace, a jet plane, a freight
train, a city or any of the other major users of energy. What will replace
carbon? That is the great unanswered question even the most ardent
environmentalists must face. Thankfully most of those concerned about global
warming are well aware of our need to have a continued reliance on carbon-based
fuels. The only real answer is not to discontinue their use, but to curtail it until
they are only producing a tolerable level of atmospheric CO2. Bill McKibben’s
movement suggests that the top acceptable level must be 350ppm.To reach these
levels may only involve a 20% reduction in emissions by carbon-based fuels. But
even that would be a profoundly difficult stretch.
A serious Cap and Trade system won’t get us there, and a
Carbon Tax might come closer. But the only real answer lies in some system no one
has yet discovered. So what is our best hope? Perhaps in some well-funded
Chinese laboratory, a young woman will come up with the answer. Why do I say in
a Chinese lab, not in an American one? Because the Chinese government is
sinking serious money into that kind of a venture even while they put on line another
disastrous coal burning facility every week. But the same dimwitted American politicians
who keep telling us that global warming is not a problem, and even if it is,
human activity has nothing to do with it, call that kind of investment, “big
government”. And we all know what a horror that is.
In the next decade China will pass us as the world’s largest
economy (if it hasn’t already). China’s leaders know that it is also the
world’s greatest atmospheric polluter, but their politicians are committed to
doing something about it. Ours
just keep their heads lodged in the tar sands.
The burning of oil, gas and coal are going to be with us for
the foreseeable future, but the ultimate hope is in the discovery of a doable
alternative energy source. We won’t get there as long as our politicians, who insist
that even cutting the growth of the problem is bad for the almighty economy,
continue to win battle after battle.
Charles Bayer
No comments:
Post a Comment