I have read enough about measures undertaken to cope with climate change. Glaciers are melting in Greenland, and retreating at worrying speeds. And humanity still talking about starting to abandon fossil fuels, which is sad and controversial at the same time.
Why is it sad?
It is not going to make any difference at this rate of transferring our industry (which is the main consumer of all energy we get from fossil fuels, not an average person who is called to stop using plastic bags!) to renewable sources of energy. The window of opportunity is shrinking and still, we use oil and gas at increasing volumes, not the opposite! If a country found oil and gas reserves on its territory, it would immediately take action to start using or selling it as soon as possible, leaving behind thoughts about the environment and harsher weather conditions. So, instead of moving towards a carbon-neutral future, we are speeding in the opposite direction. This is sad. But there is more.
Hypocrisy
When a company releases proud announcements about its 100% carbon-free production, it makes me laugh. It is not possible to produce something without using traditional energy sources. Take a company producing smartphones, for instance. To make it to your retailer, the company approaches other ones, as producing everything isn’t the smartest choice for a business. So, they work with other entrepreneurs and factories to assemble your favorite piece of technology. And even if just one of those supplier companies uses fossil fuels to design parts for smart gadgets, that just erases everything said about the green energy commitment of the client company. The company does damage the environment if any part of the product it produces damages it. The company uses fossil fuels, if to deliver its goods to the customer, it has to exploit energy from traditional sources. This means that eventually, you can’t produce something only using the power of the Sun or the wind. To become 100% environmentally friendly and “green” you should either use biodegradable parts or stop producing. So, to be clear if your favorite “eco-friendly” company makes a statement about leaving behind “obsolete and dangerous to environment energy sources” and starts using solar power to light bulbs in their offices, it basically can be translated to this: “We delegated all the dirty work to our partners in Third World countries, the soil and air pollution of which is not of our concern. Here we breathe fresh air and stroll in the morning, use electric cars, do not use plastic bags, and wear natural fabrics.” Distancing from the toxic fumes of factories is a brilliant idea, and preserving nature within the limits of your country is selfish but understandable. However, do not forget that those countries are on the same planet (yet) and the consequences of extreme shifts in weather conditions will touch you, your family, and everything you love.
Why it is controversial?
After all I have said I risk contradicting myself, but I must admit that there is no other way, and humanity is destined to use fossil fuels. Because this is the most efficient source of energy we have at the moment. Renewables are less performant, hard to maintain, and to be honest not environmentally friendly at all. In order to maintain a network of wind turbines, for example, you should manufacture parts that are mainly made of metals, fiberglass and plastic, which is already making you approach large factories to get the job done. Should I say that any factory is not ecologically friendly? Additionally, the blades of the turbines are difficult to recycle, and many countries pursuing “clean energy” are rushing to find a way to reduce the number of landfills full of wind turbine parts. To produce something, we need to use the cheapest and the most efficient supplies we have, and sadly almost all of them are dangerous for the environment, and for us.
It is not only about the production, though. It is about the lifestyle we have. We heavily rely on cars, subways, planes, and ships to travel or ship food, goods, provide services. Name one of these which is eco-friendly. None of them are good for the ecosystem of the planet we are living. What? Electric vehicles? Well, read only about how humans manufacture, store, and recycle batteries, and you will never again advocate for electric cars. The detrimental consequences of lithium mining are so worrying that in my opinion sticking to conventional cars is less risky. Our civilization is designed to be dangerous to nature. Our technology, habits, the way we work, the way we rest, how we eat and sleep – everything is damaging our planet. And just adding price tags to plastic bags or not including plastic cables in smart devices packing is not going to make any difference, because we are going to buy and use them anyway! We are just fooling ourselves thinking that we can change anything. The entirety of human development has to stop to reverse climate change and alleviate the consequences of damage already done. We have to return to the Middle Ages and stop our factories, throw away our technology, forget about electricity, modern medicine, space exploration, the convenience of utilities, and use horses to go somewhere far. That’s it.
Doubt
Yes, I doubt that it is real. All the Climate Change and Global Impact thing looks fake to me. Why? Because countries around the world don’t act like there is an imminent threat to humankind. There is no place to hide or run (yet) and they’re still neglecting the danger for them and their families. Money? Yes, businessmen love making money, and so do all of us. But they are not stupid. In my opinion, they would stop production if there is a real possibility of something horrible to happen to all of us. It might sound childish or foolish, but this is my point: now big companies use the “climate change” tag just to make money. Maybe in 50 years, everything would change, and they would start reducing the number of production sites and start banning personal cars and so on.
Links to read:
ScienceDirect: Adverse environmental impacts of wind farm installations and alternative research pathways to their mitigation
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE: WIND ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Science Daily: Wind Farms Cause More Environmental Impact Than Previously Thought
