Renewable Energy is a Problem Sold as a Solution
Renewable energy proved counter-intuitive against its battle with climate change, as more problems arose for the price of its development.
The most popular alternatives to burning fossil fuel are solar and wind energies, which are way better by a long shot. However, they still have a few environmental impacts that are too risky to ignore. If nothing is done to mitigate those impacts, then we might reach a critical point of no return:
- Coastal cities (like Miami) will be fully submerged in 80 years
- Ice will melt at the poles, elevating sea level
- Farming and earth-grown goods will cease to exist due to flooding
- Longer dry seasons
- Poor children relying on farming-dense areas will face extreme malnutrition.
- Countries will have to adapt to new weather conditions.
The problem with global warming is not in its existence but in the rate at which the earth gets warmer.
Fixate your eyes on the green and red curves in the above graph. If we follow our current Carbon Dioxide emission regime without any action, we’ll end up in the year 2100 with a 4–5°C increase in temperature.
What’s the solution?
The worst thing to do is keep using fossil fuels. The better thing to do is use renewable energy sources like the sun and wind to slow gas emissions. The best thing to do is increase nuclear power utilization.
Nuclear power is the only energy source with 0 emissions, and its benefits outweigh the cons considerably.
All issues emerging from renewable energy are natural. Since solar panels and wind turbines require large amounts of space, they will consequently affect wildlife by having to transfer and kill all the occupying animals (such as tortoises). And that’s just for occupying the space; their functioning also causes wildlife distress.