Europe and the rest of the world are facing an unprecedented threat – one for which we cannot mobilize our armies against, for which it doesn’t work to close our borders or to vaccinate our population.
This is a threat were we are our own enemies and so is everyone else, including other animals.
And we are all puzzled, not knowing how to deal with it. Or actually we know, we are just not ready to commit to it. Why? Because we don’t trust ourselves, because we don’t trust each other, because we don't want to adapt to a new reality, to make changes on our living patterns, because we are frogs in a boiling pan.
But we know it: climatic changes are occuring due to the action of humankind! Unfortunately we have been convinced of this too late, because several economical and political (are they different?) interests prevented the majority of us from realising this earlier. We have lost 20 years, thanks to hill minded and/or incompetent administrations.
There's something to be done, still! Though, if we want to control GHG emissions we need to act quickly. Some studies indicate that if we want to keep the global warming within an increase of 2°C by 2050, we need to reduce the GHG emissions by 80%. The questions is that GHG is not only CO². Some of the emissions such as those of methane are hard to avoid, not to mention the ones resulting from natural processes. Therefore, if we want to reduce GHG by 80% by 2050, we need to have a (100%) carbon free economy. And if we want it them, we need to act now, to settle targets for 2020, for tomorrow, for today!
Is it possible? Yes, why not!? Are we ready for it? Maybe not. Are we committed? NO.
There are out there different possibilities to cover our energy needs from renewable sources and we need to look seriously into them.
Some of the criticism is that they are expensive. This is mostly true - some of the renewable energies are cost competitive today within certain conditions but most are still too expensive compared to fossil fuels or nuclear energy... Are they? Are we accounting for the real costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy? Or are we again being deceived by economical and political interests?
What do we need to account for to estimate the real cost of fossil fuels? Are we accounting for the environmental hazard? Are we accounting for the security of supply risks? Are we accounting for the military costs of defending or ensuring access to fossil fuels supply? Because most of the costs of fossil fuels are not seen in our gas or electricity bill, are not paid by us in the gas station but rather through our taxes.
Or let’s take for instance nuclear energy. Can anyone put a price tag on a nuclear accident hazard? Can anyone really estimate the cost of disposing of nuclear waste? And what about the safety threat to our populations? If we can’t prevent Somali pirates from taking merchant ships, how can we prevent them or terrorists from capturing a vessel transporting nuclear waste? If they go with navy escort, who is paying for it? If we promote nuclear energy as a solution for the future, are we going to prevent developing countries to access it? Assuming we don’t, how are we going to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, ie, similar situations to the one we’re facing in Iran today?
Of course renewable energies have gaps. Wind is not constant? Right, but we can solve this issue by developing our grids. Solar heating and cooling or solar power do not provide energy for 24 hours? True, but we surely can develop new technology to provide better storage solutions. These energies are, in general, too expensive. Indeed, but let's acelerate the market deployment and the learning curve to reduce them.
So it's time to act! It's time to stop with excuses! It's time to start to break loose from fossil fuels (and nuclear)! It's time to demand from politicians to do the right thing! At least this once...
Etiquetas: climate change, fossil fuels, nuclear, renewable energy
