Creating a sustainable future
How can we change from our oil, coal and gas guzzling present into a future powered by sustainable forms of energy?
It's not just a need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that is fueling the development of alternatives to fossil fuels, governments are being spurred into action in the name of energy security as our need for more energy increases every year.
The International Energy Agency predicts that our demands will grow by 50 percent in the next 25 years and that most of that will be supplied by fossil fuels. With China, India and developing countries predicted to account for 70 percent of this increase, how are these demands going to be met?
The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 cited accessible and affordable energy as a means to help eradicate poverty, so could alternative sources fulfil this goal and supply our voracious appetite for energy?
Harnessing the abundant natural energy of the sun, wind and waves is the biggest challenge.
There is enough energy from the sun hitting the Earth's surface each day to cover all our needs for a whole year, while wind produces 25 times the amount of kinetic energy consumed globally each year. Solar panel technology in the form of photovoltaic cells and the means to store that energy are improving, yet their cost remains high compared to other traditional sources of energy.
While the cost of fossil fuels remains cheaper than sustainable sources, it seems managing carbon emissions and even carbon storage will take precedence. Money talks in the energy market. The World Conservation Union reported that global energy subsidies amount to over $240 billion each year, with only four percent of that allocated to renewable sources.
Even with greater political will and cold, hard cash behind them, no form of alternative energy generation is without consequences. Even those touted as being clean and renewable. Hydro-electric projects can mean rivers are dammed and the impact of major projects such as the Three Gorges in China can have their own devastating effects on the environment.
Wind turbines may be seen by many as less damaging, but off-shore wind farms are criticized as being unslightly and have faced local opposition when they've been used. Nevertheless alternative energy advocates Greenpeace believe that wind power is set to be competitive compared to conventional fuels within seven years.
Much is made of bio-fuels as an immediate replacement for oil and gas - many countries including Brazil have been powering their vehicles with a mix of ethanol and petroleum for years.
Its supporters argue that it is not only a renewable energy source, but considerably cleaner than oil, coal and gas. Western governments are putting their weight behind these fuels derived from biomass - the UK is hoping that by 2050 33 percent of its national fuel use will be bio-fuels, and the U.S. government aims for bio-fuels to supply 24 percent of the USA's transport fuel by 2017.
But do they actually cause more problems than they solve? There may be consensus that they are less carbon-emitting than fossil fuels, but if there is a boom for bio-fuels where will they be grown?
The UN reported that by 2022, 98 percent of the Indonesian rainforest will be gone - deforestation accelerated by planting of bio-fuel crops.
George Monbiot, one of the UK's most forthright environmental commentators has gone so far as to say that "bio-fuel is worse for the planet than petroleum."
The burning of forests to create room for bio-fuel crops creates carbon dioxide, as does the harvesting and processing of palm and soy oil. Monbiot and others also highlight the potentially catastrophic effects of putting people and cars in competition for food.
"The stage is set for direct competition for grain between 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world's two billion poorest people," said U.S. economist Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute.
Hydrogen is the other source that could be an alternative to petrol, producing nothing more noxious than water when used to power vehicles. Great strides are being made in making hydrogen and hybrid vehicles affordable, but creating hydrogen on an industrial scale to power more than just cars needs either traditional fossil fuels or vast amounts of water and electricity.
While some are reviewing their energy policies and promoting energy efficiency - the EU recently committed itself to 20 percent of its energy coming from renewable sources by 2020 - there are more pressing matters for over 2 billion people who currently lack access to affordable energy.
So could alternative energy in whichever form provide the best means for cheap, accessible energy for the world's poorest people?
What do you think? Have your say on the issues surrounding alternative energy.
Lack of education is the root cause of all the problems raging worldwide. With AIDS, the problem is a lack of sex education. Another example is pollution where people don't understand the usage of products, their limitations and their effects on the environment.
Every individual must understand their responsibility and must stop anyone who is trying to violate the environmental laws, which if not implemented strictly, will result in a massive destruction of the world climate and could result in major loss of human life all over world.
There is a pressing need to find an energy source which is cheap and easily affordable to countries such as China and India. After spending decades of hard work for a better future, we simply cannot be asked to cut down on energy intensive luxuries such as air travel, cars and ample power supplies to homes to power things like air conditioners or refrigerators - luxuries which the West has enjoyed all through the century. Currently, alternative energy sources are too expensive compared to carbon based fuels.
The South African government in the past ten years issued perfect policies in everything, including those on renewable energies, but very often they lack the tools to implement them or vision to see them through. For example for bio-diesel they adopted the policy of surplus use (maize, soya, sunflower) instead of alternatives that may have better production and less negative effects on the market food prices. The World Bank for years tried to reduce the food surpluses. Now bio-fuel industry has increased food prices for ordinary people.
By stopping South African people to crop alternative plants our government holds back its own policies for the country's development.
Over a half of the world's poorest live within the tropics; solar energy to them is a much available resource. But this can only be achieved if they have the capacity to tap into it which to me, should be an issue addressed by their governments.
One should not ignore the pitfalls of alternative energy sources. To me solar energy is our best bet if we manage to harness it in a cheaper and more efficient way.
I work in the field of renewable energy that is derived from solid waste from landfills. The technology and equipment is available now, is off-the-shelf and although you do have to burn a small amount of fossil fuels, the emissions are low.
What we can do is combine our energy sources. I am convinced that it can be done right now without a need for new technology. Our politicians have to listen to what we have to say on making alternative energy work for us.
There are already numerous "clean" and sustainable technologies available that can produce extremely cheap sustainable energy. There is no longer any acceptable excuse by governments or large corporate international business not to take action. They need to realize that their money and power will not buy them a new planet to live on.
The USA, India and South Africa must quickly reform their energy consumption bills and embrace sustainable bio-fuels.
There is no hard evidence of "global" as opposed to "localized" warming and especially none caused by human intervention. The data supplied to support global warming has been created by models and projections, not realities. In the 1970's the world's leading scientists all told us we were going to freeze in a "nuclear winter" caused by human emissions blocking the sun. When that (computer-modelled) theory was disproved, the scare merchants switched the argument 180 degrees to create 'global warming'.
Students of global warming would do well to remember that the eruption of Mount Pinatubu caused a measurable increase in temperature. The ash circulated the globe a number of times and the pollution produced was more than the entire industrial revolution.
Despite extensive research to find alternative sources of energy the world still depends on fossil fuels. Let us leave the work of finding a suitable renewable source of energy to the scientists while the rest of us should try to conserve the current reserves of fossil fuels.
I agree that in the future India and China would account for most of the increasing demand for these fuels, but a better way of looking at this would be to quote who is using these resources most at the moment? I might say that countries like USA, UK and the developed world is the major contributor to the current crisis.
Indiscriminate use of cars, air travel and waging wars in distant lands and lot of other evils of western lifestyle account for the current situation. If these nations look into cutting down on their consumption it would make the rest of the world feel more confident about energy reserves until such time we find a suitable alternative.
I think the world needs to address other factors contributing to world pollution too. Politicians need to encourage more use of public transport such as electric rail to avoid commuter gridlock, which contributes damaging amounts of pollution each day.
I'm quite sure there are already energy alternatives ready for use. However, oil companies are probably holding them back while they milk the population for as much money as possible before the world runs out of fossil fuels.
Gasoline prices obviously aren't high enough since people still aren't doing the one thing that can immediately reduce their gas bill and that is slow down. The oil crisis of the 1970 led to the US speed limit being reduced to 55 mph, which led to large savings in gas.
On a 50 mile commute the difference between 60mph and 80mph would be only 12.5 minutes. The self-discipline of starting out earlier would easily make up the difference.
We will never be able to fix our "energy problem" as long as making a profit is one of the factors. Renewable, clean energy is required on all corners of the world. If that means Joe Richguy can't push another year of record profits, then so-be-it.
People who are making profits from our current energy sources should not be allowed to take part in the future decision making processes, because they will say anything to keep things the way they are.
read what others thought