A recent study predicted that at least 1 in every six species will face extinction because of climate change within the next 50 years if nothing is done to stop it (Vaughan). Climate change is the change in our climate over long periods of time due to the many physical factors such as sunlight or volcanic emissions. Recently scientists have found that in the past 200 years the CO2 emissions from our burning of fossil fuels has caused the natural climate to increase in temperature from the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the increase of temperature due to the heat being reflected off Earth getting trapped in the atmosphere from greenhouse gasses (Dincer). Scientists have found that the effects of these changes are devastating to the environment and predict that things will only get worse. In order to stop these effects, we will need to change the way we get energy from the polluting fossil fuels to the cleaner or completely clean renewable energies. By implementing renewable resources into our energy system, we can help slow or stop the devastating changes happening all around us.  

Figure 1: Graph showing CO2 levels over 10,000 years with data from ice cores and a climate monitoring system (Swenson)Figure 1: Graph showing CO2 levels over 10,000 years with data from ice cores and a climate monitoring system (Swenson)In order to get a full understanding of why we need to use renewable resources we need to address why climate change is real and what are its effects. First I will address why climate change is real and caused by humans. Throughout Earth’s history climate has changed naturally due to geological processes, solar radiance, and natural biological processes. Scientists have observed this by taking ice core samples and looking at the CO2 levels in them. Throughout time the CO2 has fluctuated between 180 ppm (parts per million) and 300 ppm. In the past 200 years though the CO2 levels have risen substantially at a rate about 100 times faster than the last glacial termination (Gaffney). This sudden rise coincides with the start of the use of fossil fuels during the industrial revolution. The burning of fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases like CO2 which then cause a heating effect. This rise is shown in figure 1. As for other evidence, you can look to nature where the effects of climate change are taking place

Figure 1: Graph showing CO2 levels over 10,000 years with data from ice cores and a climate monitoring system (Swenson)

Figure 1: Graph showing CO2 levels over 10,000 years with data from ice cores and a climate monitoring system (Swenson)

Climate change’s disastrous effect can be seen throughout our environment and these effects are only the beginning. The most visible effect is the melting of the ice sheets and the sea level rise. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been noticeably decreasing over the years. From 2002-2006 the Greenland sheets decreased by 150-250 cubic kilometers and by 152 cubic kilometers in the Antarctic sheets where as in satellite pictures from 1950-1970 there is almost no change in ice sheet retreating (Shaftel). This rate of melting is increasing and will only increase with the increase of fossil fuel use. With the melting of ice sheets comes a myriad of problems. The first is an increase in seawater height. In the past century, the ocean levels have risen 17 cm with most of that occurring in the past decade (Shaftel). With melting of ice sheets and rise of seawater you also see habitat loss. Many Antarctic and Artic animals use the ice for breeding and feeding and without it those animals could face extinction. With rising sea levels, you also see the habitat loss at coastal estuaries where plants that provide shelter and food get suffocated and die (Fujita). Lastly ice sheets reflect 80% of the sunlight that hits it which helps cool the earth but without those sheets the ocean or land is forced to absorb that sunlight which causes the earth to warm up even more (NSIDC). Another effect of climate change is the changes seen in the ocean. In the ocean, there is warming and acidification which have chaotic results on the underwater environment. The ocean is a natural fighter of climate change because it absorbs 30% of earth’s CO2 but the intake is no match for human output so the Earth continues to warm and as it does the ocean will warm, which will inhibit the ocean’s ability to take up CO2, so it will take up less and less as time progresses (Fujita). This means that CO2 will go into the atmosphere and cause even more warming. As for the CO2 that is absorbed into the ocean this causes acidification. On top of environmental issues there are also economic troubles too. As David Saddington said, is his 2014 TED talk, it is no longer enough to talk about the science and environmental issues of climate change because people will just blow it off because they think it doesn’t affect them directly. David went on to say that climate change effects insurance rates due to an increase in extreme weather. He also went on to say the wars in the middle east will get worse too, right now there is a drought in the middle east and Turkey is slowing the flow of water from rivers into counties like Syria and Iraq. This is causing major tension and with more extreme weather we could see more droughts in this area. These effects are just some of the many effects of climate change and not only do these problems affect our environment but also can cause huge impacts in our economy in the future. To avoid these outcomes something major has to be done to lower or stop our output of CO2 emissions. 

The best way of decreasing emissions would be to switch to cleaner renewable energy sources to power our society. The most common renewable energies are solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and tidal. Solar energy, which accounts for 8% (as of 2014) of clean energy, works in one of two ways, it can either capture the sunlight and turn it into Photovoltaic electricity or it can be used to heat up systems of water, or other materials and then that heat can be used as energy to produce electricity (Tarbi). Wind energy, which accounts for 24% (as of 2014) of clean energy, is harnessed through wind turbines which work by using the wind to turn the blades and create electricity. Hydroelectric, which accounts for about 64% (as of 2014) of all clean energy used, uses the flow of water to turn turbines to generate electricity (Tajne). Geothermal uses the heat of the ground to create energy. Tidal uses the power of the rising and lowering tides to turn turbines and generate electricity. These energies as of right now have contributed to about 20% of the total worlds energy and as of the past year many countries are agreeing to increase their investments into clean energy to decrease their CO2 output. With these investments the amount of clean energy usage will certainly rise but there is still some conflict with these decisions.

Some would disagree with the conclusion that clean energy is the answer. There are four major arguments against clean energy. It is expensive, It is unreliable and can’t handle the task, It is also harmful to the environment, and It kills jobs. For the argument of low reliance opposition says that the green energy doesn’t always make enough energy or some areas don’t have the sources for these energy type, but the energy can be rerouted from other places and these energy sources already produce a lot of electricity (Greenpeace). As for the argument of cost they argue that replacing the world’s power is just too big of a project with not enough payback, but we as humans have always been able to do big things and the cost of these energy sources can payback within years some can even do it in months. A big argument is that if the cost doesn’t kill the economy then the job loss will. As of right now most studies show that with the job loss comes more jobs than before. Finally the argument of it being environmentally harmful is small against the argument that fossil fuels are bad for the environment. Some of these commonly used arguments would have had some substance to them if they were made a decade ago, but as time has progressed technology has improved and the ability to deal with it has also improved. 

The most common argument against clean energy is that it can’t possibly replace fossil fuels because its not big enough and reliable enough. This just certainly is not the case, and the reason can be seen throughout Europe where many countries are slowly changing their energy sources to cleaner alternatives. As of right now Denmark is running on 43% clean energy and aims for an amazing 70% by 2020, Germany is at around 30% and aims for 80% by 2050 (UPenn), and surprisingly China is leading the world in clean and is constantly increasing its renewable energy reliance, and in 2016 dropped its coal reliance by almost 4% (Hill). While the world makes great strides the U.S. has fallen behind with its use at about 20%. Some though will say that the U.S. is different and cannot relate to these countries which is just not the case. Many reports have come out saying that the U.S. could achieve 80% reliance by 2050 with the right support (Johnson). This would require millions of wind turbines and hundreds of thousands of other types of energy slowly taking over for coal and the stopping of making new coal plants (Jacobson). The project would be big but humans have made big advances before, and this one is far more necessary than ever before. 

The cost of this project is projected to cost the world somewhere in the range of $100-120 trillion dollars which sounds like a lot if you forget that energy is an investment that pays back what is put into it (Jacobson). The projected payback periods range from up to 5 years for a solar plant to half a year for a wind turbine (Turner). If the payback wasn’t enough the projected costs of the energy would be lower than that of fossil fuels (Jacobson) and since it’s renewable the price won’t fluctuate as much since there is no shortages. On top of everything else governments can stop making tax breaks for oil companies and even tax fossil fuels to make money. These cost seem large but when taken into a bigger picture they are quite reasonable and with advancing technology the costs of these energy sources keep going down in price. Currently some energy sources are already cheaper like wind (Delucchi). With these already decreasing costs just imagine what technology could do within 50 years.

With such aggressive tactics towards fossil fuel companies some argue that renewable energy will destroy economies and increase unemployment, but according to most studies that is just not the case. Many who make this argument point to a study made in Spain that claimed 2.2 jobs are lost for every job gained from clean energies.This study was since proven to have cherry picked its data. Not only that but the study was funded by Exxon Mobil which raises some conflict of interest concerns. After careful examination the claim is clearly faulty. In Navarre, a region of Spain, it was found that an investment in 65% clean energy correlated with a raise in GDP to the third in the nation and a steady drop in unemployment from 12.8% to 5%. The drop came with the installation of clean energy and the training centers for clean energy jobs. In the same study the researcher used data from a recession year for the job loss when the previous 3 years saw amazing growth at around 500% in jobs (Cook). Which means that the decrease is more of a blame on economic troubles than clean energy. The fact is that many studies have been done across the world to see clean energy’s effect on employment and found that most the time employment rose. In one particular study in the U.S. renewables created twice as many jobs than fossil fuels (UCS). So for the case of jobs a project such as the whole world switching to clean energies could in fact create more jobs than there are now and maybe even boost the economy.

Finally the argument of renewables being harmful to the environment is partially true. There are some negative effects of clean energy to the environment but they are very minor and in most cases are avoidable. For wind many argue that birds and bats get killed off but this is simply fixed by avoiding migration areas. Another complaint of wind is that it takes up too much space but what people who use this argument fail to realize is that the land can be used for anything around the wind turbines with no adverse effects. Hydroelectric’s big concern is that it can disrupt river ecosystems (Tajne). Though some technology has been developed to stop this, the technology is not completely successful and this is something we would have to watch. As for solar, large plants can cause some erosion which can been fixed by putting them in places not prone to erosion or by putting things in the ground to prevent it. On top of these problems there is still some CO2 output from these sources though it is quite small. Overall there is some harmful effects to the environment from these energy sources but when this is used in an argument against switching from fossil fuels it makes for a ridiculous argument when you consider the much bigger and more harmful effects that fossil fuels have brought about. With time these problems can be solved and in the end technologies will improve.

As we go towards a greener society we will need to make improvements to our technology and policies. The best way to get clean energy to work is to change our policies. The first policy change we need is the policy which provides major subsidies to fossil fuel companies which from 2002-2008 totaled $78 billion dollars (Pollack). Once we stop subsidizing the fossil fuel companies we can invest that money into green energy. Policies toward green energy needs to also give incentives to those who invest in it in order to give clean energy a good start. A big worry is that the poor can’t afford the initial cost so policies need to be made especially in poverty stricken areas in order to make it affordable to everyone (Haines). On top of policies making clean energy more available and affordable, money also has to be put into science and technology in order to come up with even better and more efficient energy sources. 

Recently there have been many breakthroughs with technology in green energy. Such as photosynthetic technology that is ten times better than plants at photosynthesizing, or solar panels that have broken the theoretical 30% efficiency cap and can reach up to 80% efficiency. There has also been efforts to clean the CO2 out of the environment by turning it to stone or ethanol which have been shown to be more efficient than previously thought (Temple). These advancements are incredible step towards making a better energy system. If there were to be an increase into investment into these technologies who knows what scientists could make. So far scientists have decreased the cost while increasing efficiency in green energy technologies, making for a better future and as we look forward the costs of the entire project of changing to clean energy could in fact decrease and become an better investment. 

In the end though there is conflict in the world over clean energies and how to implement them. Many still believe that this is not a good investment and that fossil fuels are still the best option for our energy needs and that we should wait until the technology is there. The problem with this conclusion is that the technology is there. There is no need to wait in fact waiting could potentially create severe problems. We are at a pivotal point in human history. Fossil fuels are expected to deplete within the century, Climate change is expected to grow to irreversible temperatures within the century, and everyday more and more environmental problems arise due to climate change. The truth is that there is no time to wait. The human race is at a point where a decision right now could determine the worlds struggles for the next century if not longer. Now is the time to start switching. The technology for renewable resources is out there and is constantly getting better. Many countries have started and the rest of us need to follow. By doing this we will reduce our CO2 and stop climate change, and all it takes is the first step to stop disaster.
