Action urgently needed to prevent global warming disasters
by Charles Stillman
By 2050, without immediate action to curb carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions, atmospheric concentrations will be twice their pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide contributes more to the greenhouse effect than any other gas produced by human activity. It is called the greenhouse effect because CO2 traps much of the sun’s energy within the earth’s atmosphere.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a well-respected body of scientists studying global warming, reports that the recent rate of increase in CO2 “is unprecedented during at least the past 20,000 years.” What’s more, they claim that the amount of CO2 that is now present in our atmosphere is perhaps greater than at any time in the past 20,000,000 years. The burning of fossil fuels provides 85 percent of the world’s energy needs and is the greatest cause of the increase in CO2 emissions.
As living standards improve and populations increase, carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise. By the end of the century, scientists believe the earth’s atmosphere will contain four times the amount of CO2 than existed prior to 1750 - when human beings began to burn fossil fuels for energy, and global temperatures could rise between three to 10 degrees Fahrenheit.
The consequences of this increase in temperature will be devastating. As the oceans warm and the glaciers and ice caps melt, sea levels will rise and flood coastal areas. Heat waves, droughts, and wildfires will occur more frequently and be more intense. Disease-carrying mosquitoes will expand their range as warmer temperatures allow them to survive in formerly inhospitable regions. Climate change will disrupt ecosystems and those species that are unable to adapt to the changing conditions will die off. Paul R. Epstein, M.D., associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, explains, “[t]he consequences for agricultural pests and crop yields, for the health of livestock and fisheries, and for human illness may be significant: and the costs of epidemics can cascade through economies and ripple through societies.” [source: “Climate, Ecology and Human Health, An Overview” in Consequences- The Nature and Implications of Environmental Change 1997 Vol.3 No. 2]
A study reported in the journal, Science, concludes that, “even if climate sensitivity is at the low end of the accepted range, by the end of this century over three-quarters of the world’s primary power will need to come from sources that do not release CO2 into the atmosphere.”
None of the currently available emission-free, sources of energy possess the ability to produce the amount of energy that will be needed to fulfill the worldwide energy demand. “We need like a Manhattan Project or Apollo program to put a lot more resources into solving the problem. Its going to require a revolution, not an evolution,” says Dr. Arthur Nozik, a senior research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He also warns that, at the current pace, providing emissions-free energy to the entire world by 2050 is not possible. Until a viable alternative to fossil fuels that can fulfill the world’s energy demand is developed, scientists maintain that all available non-polluting modes of power generation must be utilized. As scientists search for a source of energy that can do the job, it is important to reduce consumption of fossil fuels by creating more energy efficient products and use renewable, non-polluting methods of power generation.
Engineers will need to continue to develop energy-efficient products and Americans will need to buy them. The public will need to be educated about these products and the likelihood of return on initial investment, within the first few years of operation, due to the energy savings.
In addition to producing and purchasing more efficient goods, a focus on increasing development of non-polluting energy from renewable, emissions-free fuels and sources is needed.
Hydrogen (H2) has been posited as an alternative CO2 emissions-free source of energy that could ultimately replace fossil fuels. In his new book, The Hype about Hydrogen, Dr. Joseph Romm, founder and executive director of the Center for Energy & Climate Solutions and former acting assistant secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy, argues that climate change is a serious and troubling issue that deserves immediate action. Although the wide scale development of hydrogen power would potentially relieve America’s dependency on foreign oil and provide an emissions-free energy source, the infrastructure required for extensive use of hydrogen is at least 20 to 30 years away. In addition, the benefits of shifting to a hydrogen economy – in the form of limited climate disruption – will not be perceptible until at least 2040. Dr. Romm suggests that relying on hydrogen to be the energy panacea will delay action to use already developed, non-polluting energy sources to their fullest potential.
Currently most hydrogen is created from the reaction of steam with a hydrocarbon (in most cases natural gas) that yields hydrogen and carbon dioxide. So while the hydrogen is emissions-free, producing it (in a cost-effective manner) results in the production of CO2 as well. In fact, more CO2 is produced per unit of heat generated by making H2 from fossil fuel than by burning the fossil fuel directly, according to a study in Science.
Hydrogen also can be generated by water electrolysis – splitting apart water atoms to form hydrogen and oxygen. Currently, this process is extremely costly and inefficient. With technological advances, this source of energy production holds promise for the future.
Nuclear power can be generated by fusion or fission. Fusion reactors are too inefficient for commercial energy generation, demanding considerably more power than they produce. Fission presents problems as well. Citizens are apprehensive about having radioactive waste shipped through and stored near their communities. Terrorism also is a concern. Even if nuclear power posed no health or security risk, scientists believe that there is only enough nuclear fuel to provide the country with six to 30 years of nuclear power.
Carbon sequestration, whereby CO2 could be captured and stored rather than emitted into the air, is an exciting prospect that would allow continued use of fossil fuels to fulfill energy demand. Like many of the other alternatives, it is not cost-effective and storage of CO2 is an issue.
The most promising option for replacing fossil fuels is natural, renewable energy generated from the sun and wind.
Harnessing wind energy with large windmills has become considerably more cost effective in recent years. Today Green Mountain Energy offers residents in Houston, Dallas and other cities the option of pure, renewable wind energy at a cost of four or five cents per kilowatt-hour. New technology could eventually lower the price to two to three cents, about the same as natural gas.
Solar is another promising non-polluting energy source. One kilowatt-hour of electricity generated from a solar cell costs 35 cents today compared to several dollars a few years ago, Commercial solar panels currently convert sunlight into energy with a 10 to 15 percent efficiency. Research is moving toward development of cells that reach 50 to 60 percent efficiency in the near future. The cells are relatively expensive to manufacture, but with more public demand for solar energy, the manufacturing costs will decrease.
The effects of global climate change are already evident in the increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters such as storms, floods and droughts that have resulted in millions of deaths and billions of dollars in property damage. A genuine and concerted effort must be made to utilize non-polluting alternative forms of energy. Such action can help curb CO2 and other pollutant emissions. But to satisfy worldwide energy demand, new technology must be developed that can produce abundant supplies of emissions-free energy.
