|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
EnergyThe continuing — and worsening — energy crisis is widely seen as the most serious ecological threat to the Earth. Key issues outlined here include:
There is also a list of useful sites and sources on energy. The scope of the crisisWithin the next 10 years worldwide energy consumption may well increase by 50% or more. The current proportions of renewable (18%), nuclear (4%) and fossil (78%) energy are projected to remain the same. Consequently, the harmful CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions responsible for global warming would grow by half unless major changes in energy practices can be effected. In the United States, polluting energy programs typically receive over 80% of taxpayer funding for energy 'research'. From 1985 to 1992, for example, Political Action Committees (PACs) representing polluting energy industries (nuclear, coal and oil) spent over US$40m in congressional campaign contributions and received over US$200bn in federal subsidies. Global warmingBurning fossil fuels to produce energy releases CO2 (among other greenhouse gasses) into the atmosphere. An average of 16 million tons of CO2 are emitted worldwide into the atmosphere every day as a result of human use. The United States is the world's largest single emitter of CO2, accounting for a quarter of worldwide energy-related carbon emissions. These emissions are now universally accepted as causing global warming. Global warming increases the incidence of infectious diseases, deaths from heat waves, blizzards and species loss. Scientists warn that increases in greenhouse gas emissions could raise the Earth's average temperature by up to 10°F in the course of the 21st century: during the last Ice Age it changed just 9°F. Global warming could cause a sea level rise of up to 3.5 feet over the next hundred years, triggering massive floods worldwide. Indeed, an ENN report in September 2001 on current observations by NASA suggests that the Ozone hole over the Antarctic – already the largest on record – will be larger than ever, greater in area than the Antarctic itself as the annual process of spring sunlight adds to the chemistry of Ozone destruction. Humans would find dealing with global warming difficult enough. For wildlife it would be catastrophic. Already:
There is recent evidence that a vicious cycle is now set up whereby global warming itself is accelerating carbon leakage from peat to the oceans: rising temperatures could leach billions of tonnes of carbon from peatlands worldwide; this may one day degrade to greenhouse gases. The average growing season in Europe and Asia is already 18 days longer than it was just 20 years ago. Not to act to stop global warming has been estimated by the United Nations Environmental Program to reach a cost of US$304bn within 50 years and by one German insurance company to outstrip the entire gross world product by shortly after that. While the world's population doubled between 1950 and 1996, the number of cars (major emitters of the fossil fuel petroleum) increased tenfold. Yet automobile congestion in the US alone accounts for US$100bn in wasted fuel, lost productivity, and health costs. Nevertheless, analysts predict that the number of cars in the world will again double in the next quarter century. Americans use a billion gallons of oil a year, a third of which ends up directly polluting the environment. Raising miles per gallon standards to 40 mpg for cars and light trucks would cut CO2 pollution by 600 million metric tons, save consumers at least US$45 billion each year at the gas pump, and save 3 million barrels of oil per day in the US. In the average American home 23,000 lbs of CO2 are emitted annually. Replacing one incandescent light bulb with an energy-saving compact fluorescent bulb means 1,000lbs less CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere and US$67 is saved on energy costs over the bulb's lifetime. KyotoThe original 'Framework Convention on Climate Change' in 1992 only committed participant nations to 'aim' to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by 2000. But negotiators from those parties met again in December 1997 in Kyoto and drafted a commitment legally binding in international law to reduce emissions. In July 2001 a further meeting in Bonn took steps to salvage what is still seen by many as little more than a small step forward: 178 nations agreed to reduce CO2 emissions. In itself Kyoto won't do much to reduce the rate of climate change; it can only be effective if a number of major issues are still resolved… not least the adherence to the Protocol by the United States. The US – comprising just 4% of the world's population – is directly responsible for 25% of the world's emissions (a figure which has increased by a third in the last 10 years alone). In refusing to look at Kyoto and denying the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Bush willingly acquiesces to the petroleum lobby: the House of Representatives voted in August 2001 for US$33.5bn in tax cuts for the polluters and producers of fossil fuels. 
Environmental impact of energy useFossil fuels (which account for 97% of transportation consumption in the United States, for example) are depleted at a rate 100,000 times faster than they can be formed. The use of coal, petroleum and even hydroelectricity and natural gas have far-reaching adverse effects on the Earth's atmosphere and land. Coal, for example, is mined at immense cost to the natural environment: it damages 1.7 million acres of US land and contributes 95% of acidic mine drainage into US waters; this in turn has disastrous effects on wildlife and vegetation. Over 80 tons of mercury (the most toxic heavy metal in existence) are emitted into the atmosphere each year as a result of electric power generation in the US. Fossil fuels are responsible for major health risks to humans:
Existing methods of energy production (especially power plants) and energy use (especially automobiles) are also the United States' largest source of pollution with polluter-industries there heavily subsidized; grossly insufficient funds are directed to (researching) alternatives. Acid rain and smog significantly threaten the health and quality of life for over a third of those living in the United States. The equivalent of more than four Exxon Valdez-sized accidents is spilled into US waterways every year – more than 46 million gallons of oil. Acid rainAcid rain is caused when sulfur and nitrogen oxides – pollutants released primarily from the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels – chemically react with other substances in the atmosphere to form acidic compounds. When these acids are carried down from the atmosphere in rain, fog or snow, they harm fish, damage forests and contribute to the deterioration of buildings and historic monuments. The pollutants that cause acid deposition have also been known to worsen asthma and other lung ailments and to impair visibility. Asite maintained by Pitsford Hall weather station, Northamptonshire Grammar School in the UKhas an excellent technical explanation of acid rain. Nuclear-free powerThe 438 nuclear reactors in the world today generating power also produce large amounts of radioactive waste. This remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years – long after those originally responsible for them can ever be expected to ensure safe custody, even if they wanted to. Medical experts agree that there is no safe level of human exposure to radiation. What is more, the nuclear industry is in decline as a viable economic prospect worldwide, having failed to prove that it can operate cleanly, cheaply, safely or reliably. The cost of reducing greenhouse emissions by using nuclear power is extremely high. Fewer and fewer reactors are being built as orders have declined significantly, occasioning the massive governmental subsidies the nuclear industry needs just to keep going. The estimated costs of cleaning up the 24,000 contaminated American nuclear facilities range from US$100bn to US$400bn.
REAL (Renewable Efficient Affordable Lasting) energyOn the other hand renewable, clean and safe energy technologies (eg solar and wind power) generally have a light and virtually harmless impact on the environment and deplete few or no resources. Crops and livestock can co-exist well with windfarms and solar installations. Contrary to popular belief, the unit price of the three clean power sources has fallen dramatically over the last two decades according to official figures:
It could be done nowJust by using the 'off-the-shelf' technologies available today, the cost of heating, cooling, and lighting our homes and workplaces could be cut by up to 80% or more. Wind power, for example, is the fastest-growing energy source in the world. Indeed a recent (August 24, 2001) study in the journal Science strongly suggests that wind power is now cheaper than coal in the US. After factoring in health and environmental costs of coal, the true price for coal power can be put at 5.5 to 8.3 cents per kilowatt hour. For wind power to take off, however, the researchers say that lawmakers will need to give the industry the same investment opportunities and tax breaks historically given to fossil fuel industries. After all, the wind in the US state of North Dakota alone could produce a third of America's electricity. The sunlight which the Earth receives in 30 minutes is equivalent to all the power used by humankind in one year. Although an estimated 2 billion people throughout the world are without access to electricity, US residents consume an average of almost nine times as much electricity in their homes than the average for the rest of the world. Indeed, the United States (5% of the world's population) uses 15 times more energy (26% of the whole) overall than does an average developing country, where traditional 'biomass' fuels (such as wood, crop residue, dung) are the primary energy sources. Sources on energyThe Sierra Club's energy campaign pages, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global Warming section of their Global Environment pages and the Public Interest Research Groups' R.E.A.L. (Renewable. Efficient. Affordable. Lasting.) energy campaign. Particularly good on the nuclear threat is the Greenpeace Nuclear Energy – No Solution to Climate Change paper.
|
|
||