The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 brought up discussions of the previously rejected Clean Power Plan. The federal plan was suggested last year by President Barack Obama and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to combat climate change with standards for power plants and goals to cut carbon emissions. A week before Justice Scalia passed away, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to put the decision to implement the plan on hold. This satisfied many workers currently in the coal-fired electricity industry for protecting their economy, but experts in environmental science and law disagreed. They were foreseeing the dangerous effects the delay of the act would have on the earth and on the health of the citizens in the long run. Lawyer and former professor in environmental law Sean Donohue was one of many who firmly believed in the Clean Power Plan, as he says "we remain very confident in the legal and factual foundations for EPA's rule". However, now the even number of the justices could possibly leave the decision to the D.C. Circuit which is likely to bring the act to implementation. Clean power, or renewable energy, is being widely noticed by the world as an alternative to nonrenewable energy sources such as fossil fuels and uranium. Renewable energy such as solar, wind or geothermal power does not expend any carbon dioxide that alters the earth's atmosphere, and has an unlimited supply of resources as its name suggests. 

We have been able to develop the technology to utilize renewable energy sources, but are taking too long to implement them although available fossil fuels are limited and also have side effects that are harmful to the environment and human health. The technology of generating electricity from renewable sources has existed for a long time now, but as of the year 2015 renewable energy does not even count for twenty percent of the United States' total energy supply. This will affect the current University of South Carolina students in the future, as our generation will live to see the decrease of fossil fuels and the advancement of energy productivity, and ultimately the complete transition to renewable energy. Some students might end up being responsible for the management of energy, since it affects many different fields such as engineering, business and many more. Even for students that are not majoring in these fields, this issue will become an important topic as the majority of students currently are, and will continue to, rely on electricity as a necessary resource in their daily lives.

It is important for old and new generations to help the smooth transition into renewable energy in order to make the workload for each involved group balanced out. A rushed shift could be chaotic and temporarily cause an energy shortage. Foreign nations such as Iceland, Paraguay, Norway and many others have been successful in supplying the majority of their energy needs with renewable energy. These countries do have a much smaller population than the United States, but considering the number of countries around the world that already rely on renewables, it should be possible to begin renewable energy in cities or states and eventually turn it into a nationwide supplier. As a leading energy consumer, the United States should increase this percentage of renewables and start the transition to complete renewable energy use now.  

Of course, there were valid reasons which lead to the postponement of renewable energy implementation. Many of the reasons are related to economics. Renewable energy power plants such as solar panels, wind mills and turbines are expensive, and people are worried that their energy production will not make up for their cost because power plants rely on natural forces that change at random. Energy and environmental law expert Felix Mormann describes the spillover effect and the concerns that outside investors have on this economic phenomenon. "Spillover effects are among the most common market failures responsible for an undersupply of innovation. When a firm invests in a new technology, it is generally unable to reap all of the resulting benefits for itself, but creates benefits for others, too. Yet the firm bears the entire cost." This causes investors to be wary of the risks, and creates difficulty in raising outside funding. Not only are the investors reluctant to support this industry because of the spillover effect, but also because they receive benefits much later from renewable energy compared to other investments because of the large scale and complex innovative efforts. 

From a consumer's point of view, they would be worried about the cost of electricity they would have to pay without changing their lifestyle. "In the absence of a tax on emissions or a cap-and-trade system, renewable energy technologies appear to deliver the same product --  electricity -- as polluting, fossil fuel technologies, at least in the eyes of most consumers" writes Mormann. Many consumers do understand that renewable energy would lead to a cleaner environment, but they are not willing to pay extra if they receive the same results as the cheaper alternative. This event connects to another situation that consumers despise even if they technically would benefit from power plants. "General attitudes toward renewable energy facilities -- such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass facilities -- may be benign and supportive. Once a location is chosen, however, it is not unusual for new concerns to surface," explains energy experts Roger E. Kasperson and Bonnie J. Ram in their essay on the importance of public acceptance. The term NIMBY syndrome, an acronym for "Not In My Backyard" is a common term in discussions between industries and the public, defined by Kasperson and Ram as "the idea that people ostensibly object to any risk when it is in their backyard and not someone else's". It is undeniable that power plants such as solar panels and wind mills require space, which includes property of the consumers. The general public who will make up the majority of the energy consumers then oppose actual implementation of renewable power plants. Overall, the risk of losing money and accustomed lifestyles concerns consumers and investors more than environmental conservation.

No matter how much our current society opposes the change, renewable energy will become a necessity for humanity. Distribution and recovery will be a problem regarding fossil fuel supply in the near future, as energy experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the U.S Department of Energy M. S. Dresselhaus and I. L. Thomas explains. "Much of the oil in a reservoir is not recovered because of surface tension. After primary recovery and water injection, most of the oil is left in pores as oil drops that are larger than the connecting necks of the porous formation", they say. "More could be recovered by injecting surfactants or pressurized CO2 to reduce surface tension, but these approaches are expensive and technically challenging. Ultimately, the oil reservoir becomes a complicated research problem in the physics of multi-phase flow through porous bodies, solution chemistry, and critical phenomena in multi-component fluids". Other methods for retrieving fuels also prove to be inefficient. Coal mining leaves large amounts of coal to structure the mine itself, and strip mining requires destroying a large portion of an environment. Uranium for nuclear power will only last us for two centuries if we generate energy at our current rate, which is likely to increase. Overall, an alternative for fossil fuels will be unavoidable if humans want to live the same electricity reliant lifestyle. 

Not only are we running out of fossil fuels and uranium, but they are harmful to the earth and humans as well. Burning fossil fuels cause pollution and is a factor in global warming with their carbon emissions. Sequestering carbon dioxide underground or in the deep ocean is an option, but it would be costly to pump the carbon dioxide from various locations. With current research, it is also unclear whether or not the sequestration would be stable for a long time. There could be possible and unclear dangers if the sequestered carbon dioxide was suddenly released. Nuclear power could be hazardous to health and force populations out of their homes, as the meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima did. Former citizens of a contaminated region become unable to return for years after a meltdown. Radiation doses can lead to hair loss, cataracts, blistering, internal bleeding and increase the chances of getting cancer. Exposure to radioactive particles for one family can also cause birth defects in future generations to come. Disposal of nuclear waste has also been debated for a long time, as most everyone refuses to accept the waste in their property. Although not as widely recognized as the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, the United States has also seen meltdowns in its history such as the Three Mile Island Accident in Pennsylvania. 

Some are concerned that renewable energy alone cannot create a steady supply of energy because they are sustained by natural forces. A study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado, Boulder proves otherwise. Co-author Alexander MacDonald, outgoing head of the American Meteorological Society reasoned that "over larger geographic regions, weather tends to average out, so spreading out renewables and channeling electricity accordingly could better smooth over peaks and valleys in electricity output". Thus, with strategic placement of power plants throughout a large area of land, the generators will produce power continuously. Even if power plants in one section cannot produce energy, somewhere else within the entire space would be capable of providing a steady flow of energy supply. 

For the consumers' concerns on the price they pay for energy, the previous study also provides an answer. The NOAA and University of Colorado Boulder research team developed a simulation to figure out electricity prices. In their experiments, the team took into account land-use restrictions, demand growth, projected energy production costs out to 2030, and different scenarios with various price levels and energy shares. They found that wind and solar power could meet demands with prices competitive with the prices of electricity produced with fossil fuels in 2012, which was 9.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. The research results estimated that "wind and sunshine could power most of the United States by 2030 without raising electricity prices", which is significant because the results focus on a shorter time span than many studies which set goals for the year 2050. Cost estimates become increasingly uncertain for longer time spans, so this study was able to display accuracy, and also on how capable we already are of an energy transition without counting on a technological breakthrough. 

As a leading energy consumer, the United States needs a complete transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy in order to truly change the problems we have. The shift also needs to be implemented in a timely fashion in order to reduce the burden of both current and future generations. Environmental activists Derrick Jensen and Stephanie McMillan pointed out that a minor reduction in carbon emissions would easily disappear because total carbon emissions themselves also keep increasing. Only having a minority using renewable energy only makes a minor difference as well. 

There are several possible measures to take in order to make the transition work. As noted in the study by NOAA and the University of Colorado Boulder, strategic geographic planning of power plant distribution will theoretically let energy be generated consistently at an affordable price. "You really want to get an area big enough that, when wind isn't blowing in part of it, it's blowing in another part," MacDonald said. Energy law expert Felix Mormann suggests combatting non-economic barriers to the transition first to make dealing with economic barriers easier. By beginning with feed in tariffs, tender schemes, tax credits and mandatory renewable portfolio standards to "aim at non-economic barriers, which can be overcome through regulatory intervention", "policy support for renewables can focus on the remaining economic barriers and, hence, becomes considerably less costly". "Nonetheless, the necessary funding for renewables innovation and deployment support imposes a heavy burden on the federal budget", Mormann says, but "to bear this burden now, however, is the only way to avoid paying more later". 

The complete shift to renewable energy use is not only a necessity but will come with its added benefits. In contrast to fossil fuels that will always emit carbon, renewable energy does not release any carbon. Thus, the transition would hinder the soaring rate of carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere and is a significant cause of global warming. Increased carbon dioxide also makes oceans more acidic, killing marine life. Abandoning fossil fuels and nuclear power would also reduce the risk to human health. The threat of radiation poisoning looms over nuclear energy production, and retrieval methods for fossil fuels such as fracking has contaminated rivers and cause sicknesses. 

There have already been some cities in the United States that have begun following the steps of renewable energy sustained countries. The eighth largest city in the U.S., San Diego, has pledged to transition into one hundred percent renewable energy use citywide, and also has a specific plan laid out. San Diego became the first of the major municipalities in the country such as New York and San Francisco to make the pledge legally binding. The city's commitment sets an example showing that it is possible to carry out a city scale transition. Laws should require more cities or even states to come up with detailed solutions that they will work to implement, gradually leading to the majority of the country running on renewable energy. 

With the future benefits and current problems we have in mind, we need to step up the pace of our shift to renewable energy. We cannot anticipate a scientific breakthrough, and we also do not need to because there is enough evidence proving that renewable energy is capable enough with modern technology. Starting early will make the change smoother for those involved-which will include the students of the University of South Carolina. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington David Battisti spoke at a geoengineering symposium on technological advances, "Give us 30 or 40 years and we'll be there, but in 30 to 40 years, at the level we're increasing CO2, we're going to need this, whether we're ready or not". The public may not feel the need to hurry since the decreasing supply of fuel and the negative effects on the environment only seems like a slow process. However, they must be a part of the policy making to be the cause of the renewable energy transition, and must be willing to accept new power plants as well as understand their benefits. Founder of the Whole Earth Catalog Stewart Brand comments on the reality of our discrepancy of the sense of time for humans and the earth. "Civilization's shortening attention span is mismatched with the pace of environmental problems." Brand writes, "What with accelerating technology and the short-horizon perspective ...  we have a situation where steady but gradual environmental degradation escapes our notice."
